Dale Price posts:
To show you what the administration’s priorities really are, an employer that does not offer health insurance under Obamacare will pay a $2000 annual penalty for each worker.
But the penalty for failing to offer the pill is $100 per day per employee.
So, it’s $36,500 per year if you don’t cover an employee’s IUDs, but only $2000 if you don’t offer her anything *at all.*
Yeah, tell me how it’s all about taking care of the uninsured.
Cardinal Dolan so eloquently stated that the President had given us a year to figure out how to violate our consciences. Well that year is over as of today.
The problem with dystopian future fiction is it is not as fun as when you are living in a dystopian present. The government forcing people to violate their consciences by the use of a hefty fine might have made good reading, but it sucks a an actuality.
“A citizen can hardly distinguish between a tax and a fine, except that the fine is generally much lighter.” G. K. Chesterton.
Well President Obama made this a distinction without a difference where a hefty fine is called a tax as per the Supreme Court.
In Cardinal Dolan’s post today he ended by saying:
Over the course of the coming year, the effort to protect religious liberty and the freedom of conscience will continue. In the end, this is not about bishops, it is not about Catholics, it is not about contraceptives. It is about the ideals our nation was founded upon: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. You can’t do much better than the First Amendment to the Constitution. The founding fathers got it right. The HHS mandate gets it wrong. We are fighting to correct that wrong, in order to make sure that religious freedom continues for the generations to come after us.
39 comments
Yes, because insurance companies will pay for birth control you have no religious freedom because your religious freedoms depend on what other people do with their own bodies.
It’s truly bizarre the lengths you’ll go to to express your displeasure at people have sex you don’t approve of.
Well then, why not just penalize the Catholics and forget all the rest? What’s wrong with that? Squeeze the Vatican for money, and not just apply the funds to birth control pills but actively encourage women to have sex without worry? It’s nice when the Zeitgeist encourages women to live up to the standards of alley cats, or even the dreams of most men.
“She goes on the prowl each night, Like an alley cat…(meow)”
Ave Maria, Gratia Plena
Cardinal Dolan is absolutely right.
What I would like to know is when did pregnancy become a disease? It must be a dastardly one at that for our president to put so much effort into preventative medicine to stop such an affliction!
Ave Maria gratia plena
It’s days like this I realize I’m stuck being a Protestant. There is a major, major difference between preventing new life and uprooting it once it begins. I do believe a woman has a right to her own body– and that includes avoiding getting pregnant in the first place. IF you’re going to cat around, at least get yourself fixed, so to speak.
It’s NOT a good attitude I admit but it’s realistic enough. Personally I also wonder if there’s a LOT of men who need to go to the vet.
Panda Rosa,
With the greatest respect, may I ask if you have read Humanae Vitae or any of John Paul II’s theology of the body?
You are absolutely correct when you say “There is a major, major difference between preventing new life and uprooting it once it begins.” One is murder and the other is not.
But there is a logic and reason to banning birth prevention. JP2 lays it out very well.
I agree that there is way too much sexual sin in the world, be it fornication, adultery, pornography, etc. But I don’t think that the answer is to remove some of the undesired effects, but to avoid the cause by grace and will.
Panda Rosa is correct, at least, in seeing the incompatibility between Catholic moral teaching and, “If you can’t be good, be careful.”
@Tom K
… and if you can’t be careful, name it after me!
Okay, old joke I heard in college, from a guy I used to date.
Panda Rosa: I support CS’s suggestion. There is a huge and deep theological and philosophical body of thought and understanding in the documents he recommends. Unfortunately the general discussion of the issue, as done in the media and among average minds like mine, does not even get close to it. If you want to understand why the Catholic Church teaches what it does, have a good, deep look at those documents (and any others related to it). You will be pleasantly surprised by what they say.
In particular, the negative consequences predicted by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae are all coming true, so that this document is being considered more and more as “prophetic”. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, HV is not a “prohibition document”, but a warm and life affirming statement about what is good and positive for us humans.
>but actively encourage women to have sex without worry?
So when women have sex they should worry?
Why do you people fear and loath sex so much that you think it needs to be purified by your god?
And here I was told we Catholics were supposed to have 10-20 kids, but according to Salvage its with out without having sex…
BTW “It’s truly bizarre the lengths you’ll go to to express your displeasure at people have sex you don’t approve of.”
What, by not wanting to pay for it?
@Salvage, turn on any episode of Maury Povich to see what happens when women, not to mention men, treat sex like dogs sniffing each other’s rears. A woman should worry about sex, if by “worry” I may say, take it seriously, plan not to get pregnant, don’t do it to get back at someone, don’t act like it’s no big deal only to have emotions blow up in your face. In some ways it’s like owning a gun, you don’t just wave it around in the street and expect no one to notice.
But I guess I’m just a hopeless prude, and in this day and age that’s unforgivable.
Ave Maria, gratia plena
Dean,
Excellent points.
The issue is not whether or not contraception is legal. Like adultery and drunkenness, it is immoral but not illegal.
The issue is not the wide availability of contraception. Anyone can go and get free condoms easily.
The issue is not that government uses tax money to provide contraception. Tax money is compelled by me and I have redress by voting out people who do so.
The present issue is that when I engage in private commerce for health insurance, I am forced to pay for contraceptives and abortafacients. This a complete over reach by the state.
I am convinced that this is simply a trial balloon. The next step is to force all insurance companies to cover all abortions. If we lose here, the precedent is set and it will make the next battle that much harder.
>And here I was told we Catholics were supposed to have 10-20 kids, but according to Salvage its with out without having sex…
Um, no, I don’t think I said that, what I said is:
Why do you people fear and loath sex so much that you think it needs to be purified by your god?
I guess I need to break it down further?
Okay, so you don’t like it when people have sex UNLESS before they do they have a marriage ceremony that you approve of.
Why?
>What, by not wanting to pay for it?
Are you an insurance company? No? Then you’re not really paying for it are you? And the insurance companies not paying for the sex but rather the contraception which really to their bottom line is not a significant amount. In fact it’s cheaper than paying for the health care of children.
It’s interesting how quickly it pivots from being about “religious freedom” to money however.
But if we were to take your “logic” to other areas of health insurance like say cancer treatment or diabetes you could be upset that you’re paying for other people’s bad choices.
Tell me, is having sex for reasons other than procreation better or worse than smoking or stuffing your face with junk food?
Ave Maria, gratia plena
@Salvage, turn on any episode of Maury Povich to see what happens when women, not to mention men, treat sex like dogs sniffing each other’s rears.
…
Wow.
You think Maury Povich is somehow a reflection of real life? A TV show? Really? You don’t think they dredge the worst sort of people? They don’t script and edits? I know plenty of people who have casual sex and no, they’re not freak shows screaming at each other before a howling studio audience.
What about people in the real world who treat sex like a pleasurable activity without the sideshow? You don’t think they exist? What about the fact that just as theism can be mentally and thus physically healthy so can sex?
>A woman should worry about sex, if by “worry” I may say, take it seriously,
Why does sex have to be serious? It can be of course and it can be a fun way to end an evening with someone you’re probably never going to see again? What’s bad about that?
>plan not to get pregnant,
Well yeah, having a child is about the most serious thing most people will do in their lives but having sex doesn’t have to be for procreation at all times does it? Or is that wrong to have sex without wanting it to lead to a baby? If so again, why?
> don’t do it to get back at someone,
Ah yes, well that is good advice but if that’s why someone is having sex how does it affect anyone other than themselves? Why should you have an opinion on it?
>don’t act like it’s no big deal only to have emotions blow up in your face.
Again, a sensible policy, there is nothing more awful than the next day realizing that only one participant was thinking one night stand. I have been on both sides of that equation but that’s life! Sometimes it just doesn’t flow your way. But again, so what? What if both people agree that it was just a onetime deal? Are they bad? I know of at least one happily married couple that hooked up one night, and the next morning were all “Hey, this is never going to happen again, you’re just not my type!” and then it did again and again, then they were all “let’s shack up but it’s going to end probably after a month” and then they got married. Not sure if they set a deadline on that or not.
The point is that you can’t really set rules and policies to human emotions and sex, it’s a bit like the “Three Body Problem” with gravity only with two bodies and a whole lot more complex calculations.
>In some ways it’s like owning a gun, you don’t just wave it around in the street and expect no one to notice.
No, it’s not. Someone waving a gun on a street would cause justifiable alarm to anyone who sees it, that can lead to innocent people being physically hurt, two people having casually having consensual sex doesn’t affect anyone else.
>But I guess I’m just a hopeless prude, and in this day and age that’s unforgivable.
No, you can be as prudish as you like with your own sex life, that’s totally your business, I’ve grown into one myself, the novelty of casual sex is long gone and of course I’m older and far less hip so it could also be a dash of sour grapes.
So nothing to forgive there, what I can’t understand is why you care what other people do in their sex lives. How does it affect you in the slightest?
Ave Maria, gratia plena.
Panda Rosa,
Our brother salvage misses the point. Care about the happiness of others comes before self interest.
I like your analogy with the gun inasmuch as it makes it clear that sex is not something on par with normal public activity. Sex is intimate. Sex is sacred. Sex is holy.
I did not say, “…and Salvage says Catholics are supposed to have infinity minus 1 kids.” I have been told by other “experts” on my faith (in other words, people who know nothing about catholicism) words to this effect. You are on the other extreme.
In the way back, people pretty much said, “We’re married” and that was good enough. Marriage is a good way to have the couple swear before God and man that they are devoting their lives to each other, for their mutual benefit and the rearing of children.
I am told (yes, I know its a weak statement of facts) that there are old ballads about the couple professing undying love and her thinking they are married. Then he up and leaves or one of his other wives shows up. Then its he said/she said.
>Sex is intimate. Sex is sacred. Sex is holy.
That is your opinion, if you think that’s what your sex is fine, why does your opinion affect other people’s sex lives?
If they think sex is public, sex is base and that nothing is holy because there are no such things as gods does that mean they get to tell you how to run your sex life?
>Our brother salvage misses the point. Care about the happiness of others comes before self interest.
Sure and that has what to do with consentual adults having sex for reasons other than procreation?
Once again you fail to connect why your beliefs should impact other people who believe differently.
You’re just like the Muslims who shriek when someone draws a picture of their god because they’re not obeying a law they don’t recognize.
Do you think that no one should be allowed to draw Muhammad because it offends some Muslims?
>I did not say, “…and Salvage says Catholics are supposed to have infinity minus 1 kids.” I have been told by other “experts” on my faith (in other words, people who know nothing about catholicism) words to this effect.
Once again you fail to understand what I wrote. I’m sure you have been told that and that has to do what with my point which was:
Why do you people fear and loath sex so much that you think it needs to be purified by your god?
Nothing about having kids
>You are on the other extreme.
Huh? Extreme what? Extreme asking you a question that you refuse to answer because you think it’s about other stuff? Fine, I’ll make it easier:
What is your problem with other people having sex?
>In the way back, people pretty much said, “We’re married” and that was good enough.
Sure?
>Marriage is a good way to have the couple swear before God and man that they are devoting their lives to each other, for their mutual benefit and the rearing of children.
Sure. And that has what to do with people who don’t believe in your god, believe in a god you don’t recognize? People who don’t want children?
Are you saying that all couples must swear before your god and be together forever and have children otherwise they’re bad or somehow less than people who do?
> Then he up and leaves or one of his other wives shows up. Then its he said/she said.
Okay, not sure of your point here, bigamy is illegal in most civilized places and if she and she can produce marriage certificates and witness than it’s not anyone said, it’s a proven crime.
Again, all of this, what does it have to do with people who are not you having sex and an insurance company who is not you paying for their contraception as part of their pay or hopefully soon legal rights?
I’ll ask again, people who smoke, who eat junk food should they likewise be cut off from insurance because you shouldn’t subsidies their bad choices? Taking cancer treatment and diabetes maintenance out of insurance would certainly save more money than contraception.
Of course no one suggest this, it’s only sex that seem to get you guys so worked up.
Why? What is it about a penis entering a vagina that is so awful you need your church to approve and somehow make it right?
Salvage, the dredges of society reveal what we would like, of sex without worry, without consequence. All we have to do is turn off that nasty little thing called “love”. Prudes are the ultimate evildoers because we don’t wholeheartedly embrace that concept.
BTW, I fear I am far older than you.
@DeanSteinlage, CatholicSkywalker: We swim against the tide of the Zeitgeist, which decrees not just Do Not Harm, but that Sex Alone Is Holy, Love Just fucks Everything Up.
Apparently we’d be better off acting not as swans or wolfs, but as carefree and happy as bonobos.
If I sound sarcastic, I wish I were.
Panda Rosa,
Do not forget that our brother salvage is not honest, so engaging with him is still at this time pointless. Notice how he does not understand how being offended has nothing to do with the present issue.
Also, I know that sometimes we feel like we are standing on the shore against the tide. Pope Benedict once wrote that the modern Christian sometimes feels like the clown who comes into the town to tell the people that the circus is on fire. But because he is in full makeup, the more emphatically he makes his point, the less seriously they take him.
That’s okay. Christ told us that if the world hated Him it would hate us as well.
We are not called to be swans or wolves. We are called to be saints. How can we ask people to live lives of holiness if we do not do it ourselves? I know that I would never have found the Lord had I not met a truly holy priest, Fr. Larry Richards.
God is with us. Our brother salvage holds the religious belief that religion is going away. It is not. Christ said, “my words will not pass away.” Matt 24:35.
God will always triumph in the end. The only question we have is whose side are we on?
In this case of forced conscience violation, am I on the side of Caesar or the side of the Savior?
What is your problem with other people having sex?
I am mostly apathetic on the matter.
@ CatholicSkywalker: I mentioned swans and wolves basically because they are monogamous. Unlike the careless bonobos, the wild swan, when it loses its mate, flies alone.
Some days it seems you and I are the only ones speaking for God.
I love Father Larry’s book ‘Be a Man.’ Panda Rosa, we are sons and daughters of the King! Although I totally get being exhausted by swimming agains the tide.
Panda Rosa,
I’m sorry for misunderstanding the analogy. Mea Culpa
>Salvage, the dredges of society reveal what we would like, of sex without worry, without consequence.
No, they reveal what maybe they’re like but the fact if the matter is right now, at this very second there are people having sex without worry or consequence and have been doing so for as long as there has been sex.
And if there is no worry or consequence, again what is the problem?
>All we have to do is turn off that nasty little thing called “love”.
No, you can have sex without love and love without sex.
>Prudes are the ultimate evildoers because we don’t wholeheartedly embrace that concept.
No, prudes are only bad when they try and force other people to behave like them. Again what you do is your business, why do you think your opinions should be made to “correct” other people’s behavior?
And once again my questions go unanswered, what is wrong with casual sex? What harm does it do to people who are not involved?
Ave Maria, gratia plena
Let us continue to pray for our brother salvage
(this is probably my final comment, as (as usual) this post is getting too long. again)
I’m not even going to mention children here, that’s a whole other post.
Sex is simple. Sex is easy. Sex lets you enjoy all the sensations.
Love insist on dragging in all those wearisome things like trust, patience, being willing to give up your immediate desires. Love means you’re suddenly facing, and accepting, all sorts of inconvenience because you want to help your beloved. Love has you tramp to the Qwikee-mart in the middle of the rain for your beloved, whether for the rocky-road ice-cream she craves or the asthma medicine to save his life. Love insists on staying around during the troubles. In other words, it isn’t worth a (fecal matter).
Sex doesn’t need that, sex makes you feel good. Sex is sparks and laughs, keeping a lion on a leash. Sex doesn’t need a lot of work, sex is shits and giggles…. and then you find your beloved has been seeing another hottie on the side. Or two. Or three. Sex is suppose to be enough, more than enough, worth derailing your life for, look at the Duke of Windsor, or at Tiger Woods.
No consequence… yes, as long as you keep those messy emotions at bay. I’ve heard of “friends-with-benefits” relationships, no strings attached, what do you do when one person violates that, grows more attached than they have a right to be? How do you keep silly things like trust or devotion at bay?
Love without sex is considered a waste of time, according to the Zeitgeist. Sex is indeed pleasurable, like eating is pleasurable. Yet we’ve see what happens when the pleasures of eating override everything else about it. Obesity, anorexia, the proliferation of fast foods, just to name a few. I fear we are ebbing into something similar regarding our sexual urges.
Love without sex becomes something to laugh at, virginity unnatural. Unconditional love is something only given by mothers to children, everywhere else it’s a joke.
Sex says you can eat your cake and have it, love knows that sometimes you pay for the cake and never get it.
Is a prude ever allowed to say no? Don’t the police flag down traffic if it’s reckless? Is there ever a time when some behaviors, even if “they don’t hurt anybody” can be considered just plain wrong? No, I’m not going to provide examples, I think you can connect the dots yourself.
Casual sex isn’t so much “evil” as it is depressing, in the long run it cheapens what’s meant to be the most intimate connection between lovers. It’s like using the American flag as a tablecloth, driving a Rolls-Royce in a demo-derby. It’s like spending three hours preparing a wonderful meal with all fresh ingredients, and then your beloved dumps into a bowl, douses it with ketchup and stuffs it down in five minutes, all while watching the playoffs. And if that bothers you, then it’s better to give up the idea of a beloved, rather than demand respect or even attention. It’s being content with being a point in the game, a notch on the bedpost, that in the long haul you can only rely on yourself. It’s not that hard to find someone to do the rumpy-pumpy with for a few hours, much more difficult to find someone to sleep with, literally lie at rest with, during the night, someone you can nudge over burglars, clutch during nightmares.
Yes, I’m including homosexuals in this, whatever the rightness or wrongness of their physical actions, they are as human as heteros, no less capable of devotion and stupidity.
The bonobo ape enjoys the eden of pure, simple sex, anywhere, anytime, anyone. The trumpeter swam takes a mate, and if she is shot, he flies on forever alone.
I don’t know if that answers anything, but it’s been on my mind.
Not even going to mention children when talking about sex? Isn’t that the whole problem?
Rose but you seem to think that you know all the consequences for sex for OTHER PEOPLE and simply put, you do not.
> even if “they don’t hurt anybody” can be considered just plain wrong?
No, it cannot. Maybe for themselves but that’s not your concern much less business.
You don’t seem to understand the concept of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means you people can do as they please provided they don’t bother anyone while doing it.
If you don’t like casual sex, then great! Don’t have casual sex, there are a lot of reasons not too and that’s fine.
But what I can’t understand is what makes you think you have any say in what other people do. And things like
>Casual sex isn’t so much “evil” as it is depressing, in the long run it cheapens what’s meant to be the most intimate connection between lovers.
maybe to the people involved but how could it cheapen anything in your life?
It’s like gay marriage, it doesn’t change anything save for the people involved yet you insist that you should have a say in it.
>The bonobo ape enjoys the eden of pure, simple sex, anywhere, anytime, anyone. The trumpeter swam takes a mate, and if she is shot, he flies on forever alone.
So what? What have animals have to do with what humans do?
Ah, if only we could live according to God’s plan.
The wages of sin is death. Our Lady at Fatima told the children that the most souls go to hell for sins of the flesh. But our society does not accept that–it wants its pleasures and lusts and tries to avoid the price. But that is not possible. There are STDs, AIDS, abortion–not to mention broken hearts, broken marriages, and broken families. There is no such thing as illicit sex without consequeences.
As to the Cardinal–well I guss he can discuss all this over dinner with the POTUS as they share a glass of wine.
Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Ubiquitous,
I think you make an excellent point. Sex without openness to love is like sex without openness to life. I find our brother salvage’s reductionism quite odd. Or at least I would if he were honest and rational.
But I think that to say that one of the elements of a thing is essential is not to say that it is sufficient.
That sex is for procreation is not to say that it is only for procreation
That sex is for love is not to say that it is only for love
That sex is for pleasure is not to say that it is only for pleasure.
I am not sure why anyone would want to reduce a thing to its smallest nature rather than have its fullness.
But even all of this takes us away from the main point: President Obama is acting in a way that takes away our rights. This must be opposed through prayer, rational debate, and at the ballot box.
Ave Maria gratia plena
Ave Maria gratia plena
Ave Maria gratia plena
Ave Maria gratia plena
Ave Maria gratia plena
Ave Maria gratia plena
Ave Maria gratia plena
>Ah, if only we could live according to God’s plan.
Which god’s plan? Yours? Why is that the right one and not the others? Why didn’t your god communicate this plan so everyone would understand it? Even Christians who believe the same sort of things can’t agree upon it so how do you know you understand it/
>The wages of sin is death.
So if people have sex in a way that you don’t approve of your god kills them?
>Our Lady at Fatima told the children that the most souls go to hell for sins of the flesh.
Why didn’t your “Lady at Fatima” tell the world at the UN or go on Larry King? Telling children seems a pretty stupid way to tell the world important things. Do you think it’s possible that the kids made up the whole thing? Children do lie sometimes.
>But our society does not accept that–it wants its pleasures and lusts and tries to avoid the price.
See this is also confusing, your god fills us up with hormones that create a physical and psychological impetus for sex but then gets angry when we act on them. If your god hates sex so much why not make us like the other animals that only have sex to procreate and no urge to do so at any other time? We would certainly be more productive in other areas. Heck we’d have the cure to cancer by now.
And what price? Having kids is the price for sex? So your god invented the orgasm but only wants us to have one if it leads to a baby?
>But that is not possible. There are STDs, AIDS, abortion–not to mention broken hearts, broken marriages, and broken families.
I think it is possible to have sex without any of that, I’m pretty sure I alone have done it on more than one occasion as so has well millions if not billions.
So are you saying that everytime people have sex that you don’t approve of bad things happen? If people have sex and are married are they imune to STDs, AIDS, never have abortions, broken hearts, marriages and families?
Did you god make the STDs to stop people from having sex? Is that why AIDS came along? In the 70s people were having too much sex so your god killed them?
>There is no such thing as illicit sex without consequeences.
I’m pretty sure there is, if not I and lots of people I know are very lucky.
You seem to think about this stuff a lot so maybe you can explain why your god seems to hate people having sex without its representatives performing a ritual before? What does a marriage ceremony do that prevents all the bad things you seem to think happen every time people have unmarried sex.
>Sex without openness to love is like sex without openness to life.
So, the only time people should have sex is if they are going to have a baby? Why? What is wrong with sex for sex’s sake?
Once again you have very strong opinions but are unable to articulate your reasons for them. That’s just fanaticism, you know that right?
> I find our brother salvage’s reductionism quite odd.
Breaking things down to their basic components is actually a great way to understand something, you find that “odd”?
Maybe you don’t understand, it’s like how does a car work? Well you can’t tell just by looking at it, you need to get under the hood and break it down to the basic components. You don’t seem interested in doing that, you would just look at the car and think “My god makes it move!” and be satisfied. I guess I can see the appeal in that, makes life simple so you don’t have to think much but it makes your opinions rather worthless, it shows you’re uninterested in learning anything.
That’s sad.
>I am not sure why anyone would want to reduce a thing to its smallest nature rather than have its fullness.
I’m not sure why, once again, you think your opinion on a personal value would apply to people who are not you. If you want to have sex for only babies that’s fine, why do you think you should have a say in why other people have sex?
Is it because it makes your god angry and it will kill people for it? That you’re trying to save them from your god? I understand that motivated Christians in stuff like the Inquisitions.
> President Obama is acting in a way that takes away our rights.
Yeah, you keep saying that but you can’t actually point out where that is happening.
Once again how does an insurance company paying for contraception for people who obviously don’t believe as you do affect your rights in anyway? The fact that you can’t answer that simple question makes it pretty clear that this is a lie.
You just don’t like Obama and it bugs you that so many Catholics voted for him and will vote for him so you think lies like this might change some minds.
I guess it’s okay to lie about your religious freedoms if the results are someone you don’t like losing an election? Would Jesus agree with that?
>This must be opposed through prayer,
How does that work? You pray to your god that the Mormon, (whom your god is going to throw into Hell for being part of a false religion right?) wins and your god what? Mind controls people into voting for him? Makes Obama’s screw up and Fox News gets a video of him reading the Koran while burning an American flag?
>rational debate,
Oh, you’re going to have problems here, when someone makes a point you can’t answer, praying at them isn’t much of a rebuttal. Or when you pray like that are you asking Mary to answer my points? Well I don’t think your demigod is listening there, she never does. Maybe because she’s not a real god she doesn’t have those powers?
>and at the ballot box.
Where you’ll vote for the person whose religion is a complete fabrication and perversion of your own. I can’t help but think that you would be hollering about that if Romney ran as a Democrat. He could have, politically he was about as right wing as Clinton.
And you do know he was pro-choice before he started running for the GOP right? And what did Romney care say about contraception again?
It’s cute the way your guys forget stuff like that when it becomes politically inconvenient.
Ave Maria, gratia plena
Ave Maria, gratia plena
Let us continue to pray for our brother salvage’s happiness, which will only happen when he embraces honesty and reason through the grace of God
There is a major, major difference between preventing new life and uprooting it once it begins. I do believe a woman has a right to her own body– and that includes avoiding getting pregnant in the first place.
That is all true, but the question with preventing is not one of rights, but of means. I have the right to earn my daily bread, but not all means of earning it are legit (e.g, selling illegal drugs).
Nothing immoral about abstaining. But there is something immoral about cheapening the sexual act by artificially thwarting its natural purpose. It is no different from athletes illegally doping or using banned equipment to cheat. It cheapens the … ahem … accomplishment of the act.