home
RSS
My Take: Why I’m a Catholic for contraception
February 10th, 2012
02:30 PM ET

My Take: Why I’m a Catholic for contraception

Editor's Note: Karalen L. Morthole is a senior majoring in political science at Catholic University of America.

By Karalen L. Morthole, Special to CNN

I have been a Catholic my whole life. Baptized as a baby and confirmed in the seventh grade, I attended weekly catechism classes and received a Jesuit education. Never once did the opinion of the church on a person's use of contraceptives surface.

In high school, I was prescribed birth control to balance my hormones. I suffered from terrible mood swings that had negative effects on my relationship with my family and got me into trouble with teachers. I also experienced menstrual cramps so painful as to be debilitating; sometimes, they left me unable to move.

My mother, a devout Catholic, had no problem with my taking birth control, because she recognized the dramatic effects this simple medication had on my life. Birth control gave me a new, healthy and balanced way to live. As a 22-year-old woman, I am able to think more rationally because of birth control.

Teachers at the Jesuit high school I attended urged students to protect themselves when they became sexually active, to use condoms to stamp out the risk of contracting a viral sexually transmitted disease that would affect the rest of their lives. Some would criticize my teachers for that, but I thank them. My peers and I were taught by caring and realistic teachers with experience making decisions to promote their own health. Some had seen the horrors of sexually transmitted diseases.

CNN's Belief Blog – all the faith angles to the day's top stories

Birth control, condoms and emergency contraception have all served their purpose in my life, because each work in different preventative ways. Birth control has aided my mental health, giving me a clearer head; condoms have protected me from contracting diseases from sexual partners. Emergency contraceptives were there when I was uncertain about whether I’d become pregnant and needed reassurance. I’m not ready to raise a child on my own.

Even though the official Catholic Church teaches against contraceptives, I do not feel immoral using them. They’ve allowed me to live my life without the fear of unwanted pregnancies or deadly diseases.

My religion has played a large part of my life, laying the groundwork for my personal relationship with God. It has taught me how to respect others, be a human with integrity and help those in need. Catholicism is a beautiful religion that supports family values and tolerance of others and leads us to serve others, a teaching I’ve adapted into my everyday living. The Catholic Church does an exceptional job standing up for those who live in poverty and suffer injustices.

But on contraception, the Catholic bishops have taken a stance that violates the basic rights that affect millions of Catholics across the country and shows a lack of concern for women's health.

It is disheartening that the Catholic bishops were so opposed to the Obama administration's decision to require religious institutions like hospitals and colleges to provide their faculty, staff and students with access to reproductive health care, which includes birth control, emergency contraceptives and condoms. Even after the White House announced a revised policy Friday that exempts religious institutions from having to pay for the contraception coverage, at least one bishop voiced disgust. The U.S. bishops said in a statement Friday that it's "too soon to tell whether and how much improvement (there's been) on core concerns."

The bishops have gone so far as to threaten to cease health care coverage to the faculty and staff at my college if it’s forced to comply with the Affordable Health Care Act.

Even though the church will not support women's health needs and denies them opportunities to care for their physical and mental health, it does apparently condone other uses for condoms. In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI endorsed the use of condoms for male prostitutes, saying condoms “can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility,” and could help “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection.”

In my view, any sexual activity that spreads deadly diseases is sinful because it shows complete disregard for human health and human life. The Catholic Church believes that condoms negatively impact the sexual lives of men and women, preventing reproduction and the creation of life.

I believe that condoms are, in fact, pro-life. They help women and men act responsibly in regards to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Condoms also prevent unintended pregnancies that could result in abortions, another issue that the Catholic Church has strong views about.

As a Catholic, I stand with President Obama's decision to require religious institutions to provide access to contraceptives. I believe that birth control can be used by religious people without having a negative effect on someone’s faith. Catholics value human life. I believe that includes acknowledging the rights of women to take care of our bodies.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Karalen L. Morthole.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (1,826 Responses)
  1. Pat Feeney

    Please share the story why: Catholics choose to not use contraception.

    February 11, 2012 at 5:08 am |
  2. Joey

    The young lady's support and reported use of the morning after pill has likely resulted in her de-factor excommunication. So by definition she is not a Catholic. I'd respectfully request that she stop using the term, as her writing is an insult to members of the church.

    February 11, 2012 at 4:55 am |
    • Joey

      de-facto duh 🙂

      February 11, 2012 at 4:56 am |
    • Lisa

      Joey,
      I agree with you. Also, she says "I have been a Catholic my whole life", like that makes her some expert. She is only 22! I have towels in my linen closet older than that.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:03 am |
    • sigh

      Then look around your congregation. Perhaps at your next mass you should stand up and tell all of those that have ever had sex outside of marriage or have use contraception or ... think that evolution is a valid scientific theory should get up and leave. Anyone who fits that category would not agree with the official teaching of the church. I think you'll find your pews are very empty. But I'd bet you'd be ok with that, because then you could sit there and tell yourself how much better you are than everyone else.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:07 am |
    • Joey

      @Lisa At first this article simply made me angry. But in reading many of the comments, I feel content that there are a good many strong Catholics left out there who see just what is so wrong with what was written. I think I may just stop reading now since I'll have a smile on my face today based on that alone.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:07 am |
    • freethinker

      I agree that she shouldn't call herself Catholic. However, she's well on the way to realizing that being Catholic is not necessarily a virtue - regardless of her (understandable) childhood fondness for it.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:10 am |
    • Joey

      @sigh One's own sins are one's own sins. I have my own, we all do, that is not the point. The Catholic Church has officially declared that anyone who has received an abortion, or who aids the procurement of an abortion, is excommunicated de-facto (by the act itself) - meaning they are no longer considered members of the church. The morning after pill is considered an abortifacient. Put 2 & 2 together. Adding to that, this young lady has publicly opposed church policy through this article, another valid reason to consider excommunication.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:11 am |
    • joewilson

      you are literally too stupid to insult. carry on with your meaningless hocus pocus.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:21 am |
  3. Robert

    it's a shame this writer has deluded herself to the point that she has created a frankenstein catholicism for herself. she has actually entrenched herself squarely against Catholic teaching and volunteered to speak on behalf of those that promote the culture of death. very sad.

    February 11, 2012 at 4:54 am |
    • Nick

      agreed

      February 11, 2012 at 4:55 am |
    • joewilson

      shame she didn't go all the way and call catholicism out for what it truly is.
      a bunch of perverted old men deluding younger generations into their smoke and mirrors money machine.

      i really love talking to men like you in real life. nothing amuses me more than to watch empty headed lemmings tell me about their fairy tale book. i have yet to actually talk to one of you guys that actually has more than a 10th grade knowledge.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:25 am |
  4. McGee

    Just making an observation–most of these responses have been posted by men–especially the more vehement ones. As absurd as it sounds, there are many women who are prescribed "the Pill" for other than contraception–should they have to suffer severe cramping,anemia, and hormonal imbalance because noone should take the pill? Who pays for this? Are they SOL? Just curious, but do church organizations pay for policieswith Viagra coverage?

    February 11, 2012 at 4:53 am |
    • Joey

      Using particular drugs to treat medical conditions (even if they have the side-effect of contraception or induced sterility) has never been a moral conflict - provided that a real and substantial condition exists and is not used as a simple 'work-around' for the truly desired benefit of contraception. That is a private matter between an individual and their spiritual advisor.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:59 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @Joey,

      Which is exactly why wanting to not pay for a valid medical treatment is ridiculous.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:08 am |
  5. FedUp

    @ sigh

    "There sure are some very smug, judgemental Catholics in here. Who died and made you all god? Seems like a lot of people want to peti the Vatican to get this girl excommunicated after reading a few paragraphs that she *[writes]*. There sure are a lot of stones being thrown in here by some obvious self-righteous hypocrites."

    We aren't smug, we aren't judgmental, we are simply upset that someone is claiming to be a good Catholic when she isn't Catholic. She has a right to her beliefs, but she need not profess them to be Catholic when they aren't.

    February 11, 2012 at 4:53 am |
    • McGee

      You may sincerely believe you are not being smug–so be it. Any objective reader will find you judgemental. Does the Church allow the laity decide who is really Catholic, and who is not?

      February 11, 2012 at 5:01 am |
    • sigh

      @Fed-up, if you want to limit who is Catholic to those who follow exactly what the RCC teaches, you'll find yourself in a very lonely club. You sit in judgement of others. Way to throw the first stone.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:04 am |
    • FedUp

      I am not judging her for her beliefs. And you know what, I would rather sit with a few who coincide with the teachings of the Church than sit with fakes.

      @ McGee, just so you know I am a 22 year old Catholic woman (I saw that you wrote that most of the comments like mine were from men) and I absolutely know first hand the pain that comes with being a woman, but as a Catholic I choose not to use BC to help, I either suffer through or try and fall asleep when the pain begins because no amount of Vicodin would help the pain (I've tried). But also, if a person is out rightly making public a stance that is completely against Church teachings, and is committing what we believe to be a mortal sin, it would be my duty to not want her to 1) Commit another mortal sin on top of it by receiving the Holy Eucharist and 2) I would not want God disrespected by someone in mortal sin receiving the Holy Eucharist.

      She is the one that made her opinions public, opinions that go against the Church she claims to be a member of. I am not judging her opinion, she is allowed to have it, but what I have a problem with is that she is not truthfully portraying the Church. Which is, as sigh has made clear, a real problem among the "catholic" flock.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:23 am |
    • Floretta

      @FedUp – bucking for sainthood are you? Put up with the pain? Lady, you ain't seen nuthin. Been there, done that. Had 2 kids with no meds so I can tell you firsthand MY dysmenorrhea had me dry heaving into the toilet and evacuating my bowels, then passed out on the bathroom floor. In contrast chlldbirth was no problema. The contractions came and went, a few toe curlers but I went through more pain in 6 continuous, consecutive hours of many a period than 18 and 13 hours of labor with my kids' births. You bet your great Aunt Fanny I used bc pills – they were, no disrespect intended, a God-send after ten freakin' years of misery. I am long past that now but would recommend bc to my daughter in a heart beat if she had the same issuesl

      February 11, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • FedUp

      @ floretta

      I'm not at all bucking for sainthood, although I sure will try my hardest to get there even though I will absolutely fail along the way. Not sure if you actually even read my comment because as I said, I am 22, started my period at 11 and ever since then I have indeed, dry heaved, vomited, passed out from the pain that comes with it almost every month. So I indeed know what you have described yourself going through. And it was your choice to use BC to avoid those problems, it was my choice not to. My point was not to say I am better for having chosen not to use the pill I am just saying that it isn't the only option.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  6. think again

    I forgot and if you think science and religion are not compatible I recommend "How the catholic Church built western civilization" by Thomas Woods.

    February 11, 2012 at 4:47 am |
    • freethinker

      Perhaps the Catholic Church helped to build Western Civilization. Of course, it also held it back for centuries too. Regardless, we've used science to vastly increase our repository of objective truth. Catholicism or any religion for that matter, must adapt to this truth lest it become laden with a growing proportion of demonstrable falsehoods.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:16 am |
    • *facepalm*

      If you want easy evidence to see why the RCC and science don't line up, just check out the RCC's teaching on evolution.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:18 am |
    • FedUp

      @ *facepalm*

      You are wrong sir/ma'am, I'm not sure which, If you pick up a lovely Catechism of the Catholic Church and turn to #337 you will find "...Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as a succession of six days..." Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II have all have noted that there is no opposition to between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of empirical science. And as a person who loves science, especially the beginning of life on earth, it only makes me believe more so that there is a God, too many specific things had to happen in order for us to even be having this conversation. This science may have a different affect on you, but that's what it has on me.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:38 am |
    • FedUp

      So you can now stop using that as one of your reasons for attacking Catholics as idiots, which you have used many times.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:44 am |
    • *facepalm*

      You either don't understand the church's teachings, or you don't understand evolution. If you think evolution is a valid theory, they we aren't all derived from two individual people. That's not how evolution works. But that's what the RCC teaches. Here, let me point out for you what your own church actually teaches: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

      February 11, 2012 at 5:47 am |
    • freethinker

      @FedUp

      While we haven't figured out conclusively how life got started on Earth, once it did, mutation and natural selection could take it anywhere. Try it again and you wouldn't get human beings. But it's entirely reasonable that after a few billion years you'd get some other sentient being capable of using technology to communicate over vast distances like we're doing right now.... And marveling at how special *they* are. 😉

      February 11, 2012 at 5:52 am |
    • FedUp

      facepalm

      The only evolution the Church has a problem with is atheistic evolution...which is what that webpage you directed me to says...which is what my Catechism of the Catholic Church also told me. And as for the coming from just two people, the wonderful world of science has actually done some investigating on this, guess what, I have a link for you too: http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/specials-1/science-technology/ngc-scientific-adam-and-eve/

      @ freethinker

      Okay, you have your opinion on the matter, like I said, from that science you came up with a different stance, and maybe there are other life forms out there, but there is no proof of it, just as there is no proof there isn't a God or there is. But I choose to believe there is and that these "random" occurrences were actually guided along by someone who actually wanted me to be here, and had a purpose for me rather than a meaningless life that once I die everything was for nothing. You don't have to believe that though.

      February 11, 2012 at 6:04 am |
  7. Michael White

    Here's the real issue: bc pills and 'morning after' pills work by preventing the implanting of a fertilized egg (aka a HUMAN BEING) into the lining of the uterus. So, if you don't mind killing people before they're born, go ahead and use them. If you think that the merging of an egg and a sperm does not result in the beginning life of HUMAN BEING, then when does this occur? After 3 weeks, 3 months, 8month and 29 days? See my point? Eiher life begins at conception or is does not. How can later, arbitrary dates (after conception) dictate when life begins?

    February 11, 2012 at 4:23 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      I concur. I have never had an OB/GYN point out on a sonogram the point at which the soul became fully grown. In creation A man provides sperm, the woman an egg, and God provides a soul. When contraception is used the act becomes Godless because His part is left out.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:29 am |
    • nolimits3333

      50% of American women will have an unwanted pregnancy in their lifetime. The Republicans want the government to force these women to bring their pregnancy to term. Unwanted children are MUCH more likely to be abused. Therefore, Republicans are pro child abuse. And don't tell me an embryo is a human being. If it was, the thousands of frozen embryos in fertility labs in this country would have the right to own guns.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:30 am |
    • *facepalm*

      Yes, a fertilized egg can be considered living. So can a single bacteria. The difference is some inner details. That you can't see the difference between a cell and an organism that, say, has a nervous system, means that the blinders are on a little too tight. The RCC's position deals more with the soul than the definition of living. But, of course, it can't prove that such a thing exists.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:30 am |
    • Saith

      Actually, that's called a Zygote. Otherwise known as a mass of cells. It hasn't even begun to approach being a "human being" until it's implanted and has been replicating for weeks. Up until about 4 or 5 weeks there's nothing more than dividing cells present.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:31 am |
    • sigh

      "I have never had an OB/GYN point out on a sonogram the point at which the soul became fully grown."

      That's because no one has ever shown one shred of evidence for the existence of a soul. It's a completely man-made concept, but the religious among us would like to impose their make-belief into our lives.

      There sure are some very smug, judgemental Catholics in here. Who died and made you all god? Seems like a lot of people want to peti the Vatican to get this girl excommunicated after reading a few paragraphs that she rights. There sure are a lot of stones being thrown in here by some obvious self-righteous hypocrites.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:38 am |
    • Thomas

      I do not agree with people who insist life begins at the moment of conception. Just as I do not agree God damns anyone to hell who has not been baptized. This would mean any infant who dies before being baptized; has been sent to hell for eternity. Give me a break! Pope Benedict XVI also said condoms spread AIDs. The RC church was rolled over the coals for this outrageous statement worldwide, but the church refused to retract the Popes obviously misinformed opinion. If it's true about his 2010 opinion, then it appears he finally got educated about the truth. Freedom of religion does not give ANYONE the right to impose their beliefs/religious rules on anyone else! Whine all you want, but respect others opinions and rights. Remember, it is not for //you// to judge anyone.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:42 am |
    • Nick

      Saith- shut up about zygotes already... Sigh- why wouldnt Catholics stand up for themselves here when Catholic "beliefs" are being touted all over CNN which are against the Church. So you don't want them to say anything in response defending their faith?

      February 11, 2012 at 4:47 am |
    • Lisa

      40 years ago, they performed abortions at 8 and even 9 months of pregnancy because it was believed the unborn baby could not live outside the womb. Then about 20 years ago, they stopped the late term abortions because they realized that a baby could be born at say 32 weeks, and survive. Now, there are cases of babies born at 22 weeks and living. There is no magic number of the "group of cells" turn into a human. They are a human at the moment of conception. Every human being on earth started out that way, and to say the "group of cells" is not a human being is ignorant of the fact. If it isn't a human being, what it is it?

      February 11, 2012 at 4:51 am |
    • Thomas

      Secondly! The author does not mention the morning after pill. And so many are ignorant about how birth control pills work! If you read an unbiased, scientific explanation of how bc pills work, you will find the primary function is to prevent ovulation in the 1st place! Another effect is to make if difficult for semen to penetrate the egg. While another effect is to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, it seems to me in most cases that if the pills are correctly taken that the egg is never released in the 1st place. Of course, some people fail to correctly take the pills, which explain why in very few cases the pills fail to prevent pregnancy. The ignorance (in the name of God) of some posters is shameful.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:53 am |
    • sigh

      "Sigh- why wouldnt Catholics stand up for themselves here when Catholic "beliefs" are being touted all over CNN which are against the Church. So you don't want them to say anything in response defending their faith?"

      Some 90+% of Catholics believe in the use of contraception. Those speaking up for their faith here are the vast minority of Catholics.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:01 am |
    • joewilson

      you call a zygote a human being? absurd.

      it's literally just a clump of dividing cells containing human DNA.

      rip that thing out of a woman and it's useless.

      honestly a year old tumor is more functional than some zygote.

      so i suppose if i just collected human embryos and preserved them in a little jar. would all you crazies think i'm carrying entombed people around in my jar?

      what if i went in and tinkered with the chromosomes and made it an XO instead of an XY? still a human? it lost the Y chromosome from the father. you say it still is a human? ok what if i took out chromosome 21? or i gave it an extra chromosome 21? still a human? i'm sure you crazies will say it isn't. and yet we have people walking around that have that. i could take all the meaningful material out of a human zygote and still let it keep dividing. still a human? i can keep going with the chromosome deletions, but eventually you're just going to reach an absurd point where you're telling me that a sperm cell is a human.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:43 am |
  8. Lisa

    She is not a Catholic. I am not sure what she is, but a Roman Catholic does not take the morning after pill just in case they are pregnant and want to be sure to kill the baby. That is abortion. She has a right to her own beliefs, and should probably seek a church that allows what she is talking about. But she is not a Catholic.

    February 11, 2012 at 4:11 am |
    • freethinker

      It seems reasonable to me that Catholics don't get to pick and choose which tenets to follow and which to ignore. To me, the appropriate response is to jettison that faith.

      In fact, people who are brought up in Christian households should realize that it's OK to not be a Christian at all. You can good and moral person without the hocus-pocus. Ironically, the Jesus said "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Mankind knows a *lot* more about objective truth now than 2000 years ago. Acknowledge that and you will be free.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:32 am |
    • Saith

      Until the zygote has implanted, there is no life present. Many women have miscarriages without any notion they were pregnant because the zygote fails to implant. The morning after pill is different from the abortion pill. The abortion pill breaks down the cells around where the embryo has implanted and causes a miscarriage. The morning after pill causes a mucus membrane to build that prevents the zygote from being able to stick to the uterine lining. These are two very different things.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:35 am |
    • Joey

      Right you are Lisa. She is clueless about the teachings of the church, and the profound beauty of a life lived with acceptance and reliance upon God's will. She hasn't thought much of the societal and moral ills that her behavior and acceptance (and now public scandal) has made worse. Thankfully the church has.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:42 am |
    • Thomas

      Give me a break Lisa(and others!), the author does not even mention the morning after pill. And who are you to judge anyone anyway? What religion do you belong to that grants you the right to cast the first stone?! Seems to me some people should move to one of the Arab countries where people are forced to do what God or Allah (or whatever name you want to call Him) has decreed... or be stoned to death. IMHO, you and others of your ilk don't deserve the freedom of speech and opinion, if you cannot respect that of someone else. All this hatred in the name of God. Be ashamed of yourselves.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:03 am |
    • Floretta

      The morning-after pill will prevent or delay the release of an egg from the ovary if given prior to ovulation, or it will help prevent the egg from traveling down the fallopian tubes and implanting in the uterus if you have already ovulated. That is, no egg, no pregnancy. Also, the morning after pill is not an abortion, if you are already pregnant it will do nothing but flood your body with extra hormones.

      February 11, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Confused she is the catholic spokes person.

      Lisa- A roman catholic can take the morning after pill. I did. I was lied to by my health care provider and told it "prevented" pregnancy. There is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of drug companies trying to hide the truth. I know it was wrong. I have since confessed and repented. The point is we all make mistakes and sin. I didn't know at the time because I was lied too. This author has been lied to as well. The Catholics who are commented here are not saying she is "not catholic" to be judgmental but it is to protect her and educate her and wake her up to the lies. I am glad someone took the time to explain the truth to me. Maybe she will repent.

      February 28, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
  9. Alfuso

    Phillip – not everyone is a catholic. In fact, not everyone is even – gasp! – Christian.

    I am not Christian. Do not have to be. Do not want to be.

    February 11, 2012 at 4:08 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      Prior to this pivotal moment in my life I had no idea.lol.

      But really, I have no problem with anyone seeking the truth for themselves, because I feel that the Catholic Church has the best shot of winning converts when their whole story is told. However, the author, Karalen, is proclaiming to be a Catholic, yet espousing a number of beliefs that are simply not allowed. It's like claiming to be atheist and then writing about how you believe in a panthoen of Gods or claiming to be Muslim and then denouncing Mecca and Medina.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:18 am |
    • *facepalm*

      "I feel that the Catholic Church has the best shot of winning converts when their whole story is told."

      Is that why nearly one third of Americans raised Catholic no longer consider themselves to be so? The reality is actually quite the opposite – despite being indoctrinated from youth, once people realize what the actual position of the RCC is, they tend to leave in droves.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:27 am |
    • FedUp

      @facepalm

      These people leave because our society is one of wanting to take the easy way out and live a life free of real responsibility and consequence. These people crumble to secular pressures and are honestly too weak to live a truly moral life.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:29 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      @ facepalm
      Yes you are correct when you say that is why nearly one third of Americans raised Catholic no longer consider themselves to be so. The whole story was never told to them. Just like this author stated in the first paragraph, that despite her vast exposure to Catholic education programs she NEVER was taught about contraception. Ghandi once said that the teachings of Catholicism are beautiful, but he unfortunately conceded that it was a shame that he never met a Catholic that lived by those teachings. I was a Catholic myself from birth and I NEVER learned why they teach what they do about contraception until age 21 when I investigated it independently. I never knew that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church at the Council of Hippo in 394 AD. I never knew that there was an unbroken line of popes from the time of Christ until now. I never knew that Jesus Himself founded the Catholic Church and prayed for everyone to be members of it. It is the best kept secret in the world despite being there in broad daylight for everyone to discover with only the mildest effort needed for research. If that 1/3 that left knew these things, they would not have left.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:38 am |
    • sigh

      "These people leave because our society is one of wanting to take the easy way out and live a life free of real responsibility and consequence. These people crumble to secular pressures and are honestly too weak to live a truly moral life."

      Or maybe they are just tired of smug, self-righteous people such as yourself. You assume they take the easy way out. As an ex-catholic who knows many other ex-Catholics, I can assure you this is most definitely NOT the case.

      Get over yourself.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:44 am |
    • *facepalm*

      " The whole story was never told to them."

      I'm guessing you completely missed my point. It is when the whole story is told to them, that they find the whole thing ridiculous and leave. Perhaps they find out that the Eucharist is not supposed to be symbolic, and they find such magic to be childish. Perhaps they see the irresponsible position of promoting unbounded population growth and can't support it. Perhaps they see what the council of Hippo left out, and bolt. Perhaps they look at your "unbroken line" of popes while researching the history of the church and also see the schisms, infighting, and immorality that has been rife throughout the church since nearly its beginning.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:48 am |
    • FedUp

      @ sigh

      I don't think that everyone who leaves is taking the easy way out, but when they leave because they want to be able to do what they want when they want then yes, wanting to not have to be burdened with responsibilities and consequences is taking the easy way out.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:49 am |
    • joewilson

      @fedup

      it's cute to watch people like you live in your delusional little bubble.

      you go around giving your money away.
      helping out the poor.
      telling them fairy tales about how things will get better if they stay humble and obedient.
      claiming your share of the paradise beyond.
      feeling like you actually matter to the world.
      claiming you harbor a force of good within your body.
      thinking you can change the world with your wishes.
      thinking all the little goofy rules you live by make you a good person.
      thinking that some magical sky man is your friend.
      reciting phrases out of your magic book.
      talking to your magical sky man in your head.

      it's quaint. and to be honest i don't want you to change. you see, this delusion you buy into makes it all the easier for the rest of us to control lowers like yourself. you live in fear, and take your lot in life, thinking you'll get something better for it later. the only problem is that we sometimes have to interact with people like you. and that's fine. i can deal with your delusion... as long as you never wake up from the mists of your dream and realize what a waste your life has been.

      you've been a pawn. but you don't know it.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:55 am |
    • freethinker

      @joewilson

      The world *would* be a better place if more people followed *some* of the items that you listed. Religion *can* be a positive force, despite its supernatural baggage.

      February 11, 2012 at 6:03 am |
    • FedUp

      @ joewilson

      And you are better than me by calling me delusional and being condescending? Oh the hypocrisy! I absolutely do not live in fear, you may think I do, but I'm quite a happy person, granted I do have the fears of every other person (will I get a job when I graduate? Fear of cancer....) but I definitely don't have any fears when it comes to my personal beliefs. And I would much rather spend my time giving to the poor and helping my fellow man and reciting lines from my "magic book" and have it all be for naught after I die (because I will have done a lot of good) than not do these things and end up in Hell for eternity. Which I am sure you do not believe in Hell. But to me, I would not at all be wasting my time here on earth if either ends up to be the truth when I die.

      February 11, 2012 at 6:15 am |
    • joewilson

      @fedup

      ah, but i did not claim a moral high ground. please, do not attempt to rationalize. the mentally subservient are not to attempt rationalization.

      yes. yes. you aspire to the same things that all your people do. but for me, i do not aspire to such things. i have no need to worry about anything, because unlike you, we in high society see everything for what it is. there is no sentimental value. there is no greater good. there is no such thing as "importance", because nothing is important.
      you are fed the propaganda written in your magic book, and are told of things such as morals. there are no morals. only rules that we impose upon the lower society so you do not cross us. we feed you fear so you may serve us, and not ask for more than what you only require to exist. you are told to serve the poor and placate them so they do not rise up against us. you do not question that which is beyond the scope of your magic book, because that invites you to see where we have placed you in society. you are a servant. but the beautiful thing is we have trained you to deny it, so you can continue to serve. we tell you there is no sky man, but you have so thoroughly bought the propaganda that you will throw your life away for an idea. we give you a sense of purpose, so you do not complain about your current lot in life.
      continue to live that way. we would not have it otherwise.

      meanwhile, i will continue to live in my world of luxury, secular pleasures, and lust.
      we have taught you to scorn that. and i demand that you do so. i wouldn't want you to have your fair share of existence.

      carry on citizen. do not stray. serve your god.

      February 11, 2012 at 7:34 am |
  10. FedUp

    This girl is not Catholic. If you are picking and choosing what to believe then you are Protestant. Sorry, but those are the facts.

    Also...

    What she wrote:
    "Even though the official Catholic Church teaches against contraceptives, I do not feel immoral using them. They’ve allowed me to live my life without the fear of unwanted pregnancies or deadly diseases."
    What she is really saying:
    "I don't like what the Church believes, it's hard and it imposes on my 'I want to do whatever I want without risk of responsibility or consequences' life."

    Therefore, instead of expecting the Church to change its stance and getting upset when it doesn't, don't practice that particular faith. No one is forcing you. And please, do not call yourself Catholic.

    February 11, 2012 at 4:07 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      I agree. Why make the claim of being Catholic and then talk about how you live your life in complete opposition to Catholic Teachings.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:25 am |
  11. cnnner

    Ms. Morthole,
    Having been a Catholic for whole life doesn't necessarily mean your knowledge about what the church teaches is correct. Nor does having a devout Catholic mother. Unfortunately, here, you're trying to represent other Catholics by speaking of the very subject you don't seem to understand what a Catholic is supposed to do - You're suppose to either not eat the fruit at all or eat the whole fruit with the seeds rather than eating the meat of the fruit and spitting out the seeds.

    February 11, 2012 at 3:59 am |
    • *facepalm*

      You should tell that to all of the catholic high school and grade schools out there that teach safe sex. Sometimes, practicality and safety needs to trump dogma.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:16 am |
    • phillip mcginn

      ms morthole you rock girl.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:19 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      @ facepalm

      The Church teaches abstinence until marriage which is infinitely more effective than contraception. The Church teaching does not compromise health and safety.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:21 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @Phillip,

      And here in the real world, is completely unrealistic and bad policy. The church, life every other christian organization out there, picks and chooses bible verses. Wear any polyester blends lately? News flash – women no longer get married when they're 13. Teachings relevant 2000 years ago aren't necessarily so today. But coming from an institution that doesn't support evolution and has a streak of being anti-science, this isn't surprising.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:51 am |
    • Joey

      Very nicely put. I'd add that this article is a public act of scandal, and that the author is now partly responsible for the sins committed by everyone who has read it and taken it to heart. Nothing less than a public retraction would be required. Personally the local bishop should consider excommunication (as may have already happened de-factor through her stated use of the morning-after pill).

      February 11, 2012 at 4:53 am |
  12. Tr1Xen

    She's one hot Catholic. 😉

    February 11, 2012 at 3:28 am |
    • joewilson

      shame she still buys into the delusion.

      stupid women never really appealed to me.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:56 am |
  13. The Flamingo Kid

    Who wants to hear about some woman's birth control anyway?? This is nasty.

    February 11, 2012 at 3:20 am |
  14. Steve

    Its not an issue at the local church level.

    February 11, 2012 at 3:20 am |
  15. Phillip Campbell

    While attempting to establish her credentials as a Catholic in the first paragraph she openly admits her ignorance of the Church's reason for teaching that artificial contraception is a sin when whe says that it never surfaced in all her years of schooling, yet without knowing hte reason for the prohibition on contraception she is willing to denounce it. What ever happened to liberals being open minded? There are historical, biblical, practical, and health reasons for being against the use of artificial contraception. As for women's health, here is a list of side effects that the pill can cause: blood clots, strokes, gall bladder disease, liver tumors, nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, bloating, swelling of the fingers and ankles, a spotty darkening of the skin, headaches, nervousness, depression, dizziness, loss of scalp hair, rash and infections.
    For more reasons visit:
    http://www.phillipcampbell.net/contraception.html

    February 11, 2012 at 2:25 am |
    • sam

      Holy shit, you have your own site dedicated to this? Jesus on a pogo stick.

      February 11, 2012 at 3:14 am |
    • Jay

      I seriously cannot believe we are debating the morality of contraception in 2012. This is totally ridiculous and unbelievable. The vast majority of the American public use it and support it. Could we please debate something more useful and pressing like the enormous debt this country has and the coming insolvency of social security and medicare? Ugh, this is total madness!

      February 11, 2012 at 3:26 am |
    • *facepalm*

      "The vast majority of the American public use it and support it."

      So do the vast majority of Catholics. We're just talking about the uber-right laity and a good chunk of the leadership. I'm not aware of any Catholic high school that doesn't teach safe sex.

      February 11, 2012 at 3:42 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      seriously cannot believe we are debating the morality of contraception in 2012. This is totally ridiculous and unbelievable.
      @jay
      Total madness is ignoring that the vast majority of the American public use contraception and deny the right to life to the next generation of problem solvers who could help us to pay off the enormous debt this country has and the coming insolvency of social security and medicare. If there were two people paying in to medicare and social security for every one person on medicare and social security, the program would not be insolvent. However, the Baby Boomers had less kids than their parents which resulted in a small number of people supporting a larger number of people. Contraception was a huge cause of this enormous debt filled mess because it made the number of payers smaller than the number of recipients.

      February 11, 2012 at 3:45 am |
    • Alfuso

      So can pregnancy.

      February 11, 2012 at 3:48 am |
    • Sandy

      All drugs have side effects, even aspirin. To list the pill's side effects as if they somehow invalidate the benefits of the drug for both contraception and women's health (regulating cycles, etc.) is absurd. It is also intellectually dishonest to ignore the real dangers to women's health from pregnancy. The Bishops' reasoning has been suspect on this point for many years and has failed to convince most Catholic women, who do in fact use birth control. The oddest thing of all is the painfully convoluted argument allowing Natural Family Planning while forbidding contraceptive pills. It makes no sense at all, except for one thing: when the Bishops see that the birth rate among Catholic women is the same as for non-Catholics, they can tell themselves all those women are using Natural Family Planning.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:00 am |
    • Andrew

      Possible side effects of aspirin include "Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); black or bloody stools; confusion; diarrhea; dizziness; drowsiness; hearing loss; ringing in the ears; severe or persistent stomach pain; unusual bruising; vomiting."

      You'll find possible bad side effects for virtually ANYTHING on the market. Saying "it's possible side effects" does not indicate a drug is dangerous for your health, it means it could potentially be dangerous for a select number of people who have severe reactions to it.

      ... Which, in the case of birth control, tends to be fairly rare.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:03 am |
    • Andrew

      Dammit Sandy, you were three minutes faster with my point 😛

      February 11, 2012 at 4:04 am |
    • MsMello

      What are the side affects of condoms? If it is an issue of protecting health surely they should be allowed?

      February 11, 2012 at 4:06 am |
    • *facepalm*

      "Total madness is ignoring that the vast majority of the American public use contraception and deny the right to life to the next generation of problem solvers who could help us to pay off the enormous debt this country has and the coming insolvency of social security and medicare."

      I was completely unaware that the pill caused both the housing bubble and irresponsible spending by Congress. Who knew?

      Guess what, the earth has a finite set of resources. You're proposing and unsustainable pyramid scheme that could last for a few more generations, but is completely unsustainable. What could possibly be more irresponsible?

      February 11, 2012 at 4:20 am |
    • Jay

      Phillip Campbell,
      Your rebuttal is totally laughable and without reason. See facepalm's respnse. Oh, and the pill could have prevented the birth of a serial murderer too. I suppose you support that too? Geez....

      February 11, 2012 at 4:38 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      @jay
      @facepalm

      The SS and Medicaire finances in light of contraception is basic math. If a abby boom occurs and results in 1 million people being born and that one million people generate 500,000 children, each child must financially support 2 adults. IF the trend continues 1 more generation, each grandchild must support 2 parents and 4 grandparents. It is very basic math. And as far as overpopulation goes, it is the junk science scare of the last centruy just as global warming is of hte present century. The next unexpected Black Plague or Super virus or series of natural disasters will easily allow nature to govern the population to sustainable levels without contraception.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:45 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      @MSMello
      You are correct in identifyinig that condoms are the likely the least evil form of artifiical contraception in the eyes of the Church. However, Onan in Genesis Ch 38 was struck dead by God for using the withdrawal method of contraception. When God creates a new person, a man contributes sperm, the woman an egg, and God provides a soul. When a couple contracept during the event, both the man and woman participate, but God is left out. This supposed act of love is now a Godless act. It is not very self giving to try and come together as man and woman yet put a latex barrier between each other. As for the use of condoms outside of marriage, it provides a false sense of security that is likely to increase the frequency of intercourse, and increase the number of partners. It creates a behavior pattern that increases the chances of exposure to the disease.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:51 am |
    • *facepalm*

      "The SS and Medicaire finances in light of contraception is basic math. If a abby boom occurs and results in 1 million people being born and that one million people generate 500,000 children, each child must financially support 2 adults. IF the trend continues 1 more generation, each grandchild must support 2 parents and 4 grandparents. It is very basic math. And as far as overpopulation goes, it is the junk science scare of the last centruy just as global warming is of hte present century. The next unexpected Black Plague or Super virus or series of natural disasters will easily allow nature to govern the population to sustainable levels without contraception."

      This is hard to even know where to begin. So, we should breed so we can collect on SS? Wow. It's hard to see a more selfish position than that. How very moral of you. WWJD? Probably not advocate bringing life into the world for the purpose of supporting you in your later years. That position is, frankly, disgusting.

      So, you admit that uninhibited population growth is unsustainable, so you're planning for an epidemic. I just ... wow. Here's an event that could bring the population back to sustainable levels: famine. Which is what you get with unsustainable population growth. It's highly immoral. But you'd have to let go of your ancient texts to be able to recognize the obvious immorality of that.

      And GW is not junk science. Well, it isn't to people that actually understand science.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:57 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      @ Sandy
      @Andrew
      That's interesting, I work with a Sandy and Andrew. But to your point, yes most of the times it is more practical to use a drug with potential side effects than it is to continue dealing with the problem being treated. However, the primary purpose for these drugs is to prevent the naturally healthy condition of fertility. Secondly, the symptoms of which the author complains are treatable through other means and are not as bad as some of the potentially fatal side effects of the pill. Dr. Kim Hardy OB/GYN explains that in medical school they were in his opinion wrongfully taught that if a woman is too frequent, too infrequent, too light, too heavy etc... put her on the pill. Instead of addressing the real problem and helping these women get cured, they just treat the symptom because like a drug dealer who gives out the first high for free, they know that the money is in the comeback.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:59 am |
    • Thomas

      Phillip Campbell, "deny the right to life to the next generation of problem solvers who could help us to pay off the enormous debt this country has and the coming insolvency of social security and medicare."
      Wow! You should move to one of those African countries with all those starving, AIDs infected babies and mothers and preach. Ooops, I guess the dire financial situation of those governments is keeping you from making the move; I don't expect you'd get many offerings in your church. Judge not lest ye be judged! Maybe you should just move to Saudi Arabia where religious leaders flog or even kill those who disobey their religious rules/laws?! Sounds like they'd welcome someone like you who can't respect the opinions or rights of another.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:13 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      @facepalm
      I would first like to say thank you for the throughtful and detailed discussion. – No breeding to collect SS is not the point. The point is the population decline, which I am attributing to contraception, is a large part of the lack of funding for SS. I do not intend to EVER collect on SS because the program is such a shambles. WWJD? Obviously Jesus did not personally father children for the sake of SS or any other reason. However, you wanted to know why we weren't talking about big issues like SS & medicaire and I made the claim that contraception has directly impacted those programs.
      My claim regarding population growth is that there is always some population mitigation factor lurking just around the corner that will not allow global overpopulation to reach famine levels. I don't think it can happen. As far as Global Warming, didn't climate gate expose that many scientists were throwing out valid data that did not substantiate their claim, and only keeping data that did show a global warming trend. That is junk science. Just stop and think about the claim that carbon dioxide is bad and is a dangerous greenhouse gas. Both of us know enough science to understand that plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and people breathe oxygen. 75% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and only 16% is Oxygen and 3% Carbon Dioxide. I fail to see the danger.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:19 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @Phillip,

      Why don't you go to some starving African country and tell them that overpopulation doesn't cause famine. You know, the same countries that the RCC goes to and doesn't hand out contraception. Tell them just to wait for an epidemic. Again .. just ... wow.

      And no, GW is not just science. There's a lot wrong with your post.:

      As far as Global Warming, didn't climate gate expose that many scientists were throwing out valid data that did not substantiate their claim, and only keeping data that did show a global warming trend.
      -No, not many scientist, and you WAY over represent both the scope and scale of the scandal. Stop listening to Fox News. Pick up an actual science journal. Or at least start with something really basic, like Scientific American.

      Just stop and think about the claim that carbon dioxide is bad and is a dangerous greenhouse gas. Both of us know enough science to understand that plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and people breathe oxygen. 75% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and only 16% is Oxygen and 3% Carbon Dioxide. I fail to see the danger.
      -You fail to understand the science. The relative amount of carbon dioxide in the air is meaningless unless you understand it's ability to trap heat. That's like saying that only some small percentage of a drink contains poison, so there's no danger. It's over simplistic and short-sighted. And yes, plants convert CO2 to O2. And the ocean is a huge CO2 sink. However, if we produce more CO2 than can be absorbed by plants or the ocean, then CO2 increases.

      February 11, 2012 at 5:33 am |
    • Floretta

      "a huge cause of this enormous debt filled mess"? Really? You missed the fact that we had a SURPLUS under Clinton. Then came Bush43 and not one but two off-the-books wars, the biggest tax giveaway to the rich in our history AND an also unpaid goodie gift for Big Pharma in the form of Medicare Part D – but it was all those American women using birth control that sank us, eh? LOL – what a maroon... The problem is because the previous generation DIDN'T use birth control, resulting the the massive Baby Boom. Who could (or would want to) match that? Are you nuts?

      February 11, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  16. Ian

    She explains why she is for contraception alright, but never really gets into the Catholic part of the whole debate. There is nothing here but mere likes and dislikes (none of which have much to do with Catholicism). I really do not understand why her Catholicism is even mentioned other than the fact that this issue is amongsts religious folk. She doesn't seem too concerned with the corporate/political side of her faith, because she makes it sound as though it were something you do with your private time, not something to be practiced in the "real" world where "grown up", "post-enlightened", "21st century"" people, politics and corporations are so vigorously vying for our future.

    February 11, 2012 at 12:44 am |
    • Phillip Campbell

      I agree. The Catholic Church has a set of teachings that must be adhered to in order to be classified as a practicing Catholic. People who accept Christ, but do so in a way that protests against the teachings of the Catholic Church are coalled Protestants. Why should the author try to drag the Church down into her lifestyle insteadof adapt to the convictions of the Church. She boasts of fonrication in the article too. I wonder what her so-called "devout" mother thinks of that? The Church disapproves of that just as much as they do contraception.

      February 11, 2012 at 2:35 am |
    • sam

      Philip forgot to add a link to his crap site for you.

      February 11, 2012 at 3:15 am |
  17. AGuest9

    The priests and politicians need to stay out of women's va.ginas.

    February 11, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • AGuest9

      Seriously, CNN? When did va.gina become a dirty word??? What's next, medulla oblongata and coccyx?

      February 11, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • sam

      Don't worry; vaginas are not really their thing. They gravitate to other parts.

      February 11, 2012 at 1:25 am |
  18. ABOLISH RELIGION

    Jonathan is a tooltroll

    February 10, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
  19. Atheist #1

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUmxzJI86VQ&w=640&h=360]

    February 10, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
    • Ronnie Harper

      This is awesome, thanks for the link.

      February 11, 2012 at 3:51 am |
  20. Reality

    One does not need Planned Parenthood to teach our kids about s-ex. Simply read and have your kids read the following:

    WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!! ---–>

    The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill ( 8.7% failure rate, one million unplanned pregnancies) and male con-doms (17.4% failure rate, another one million unplanned pregnancies ) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Se-xually active teens, young adults and adults must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute.

    Added information before making your next move:

    from the CDC-2006

    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

    And from:

    Consumer Reports, January, 2012

    "Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-

    Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (i.e. the Bill Clinton Syndrome)

    Obviously, Planned Parenthood, parents and the educational system has failed on many fronts.

    (note: some words hyphenated because of an obvious word filter)

    February 10, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If you have to post the same sh!t multiple times, then obviously YOU have failed to articulate any sort of message that resonates with anyone.

      Knock it off.

      February 10, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • Ronnie Harper

      Derp! What's it like out there in Stupidville?

      February 11, 2012 at 3:53 am |
    • Saith

      The pill has a failure rate of 0.3% per year. When your very first "fact" is wrong, your other "facts" are utterly invalidated.

      February 11, 2012 at 4:44 am |
    • Reality

      Reiteration has and always will be an important learning tool.

      "Facts on Contraceptive Use

      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
      January 2008

      "WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

      • 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]

      • 43 million women (and men) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are se-xually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a con-traceptive method.[2]

      • The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use cont-raceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]

      WHO USES CON-TRACEPTIVES?

      • Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had int-ercourse have used at least one con-traceptive method.[2](and men?)

      • Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men)

      • 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had inte-rcourse; or are not se-xually active.[2]

      • Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using con-traceptives.[2] (and men?)

      • Among the 42 million fertile, s-exually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing con-traception.[2] (and men?)

      WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN (men?) USE?

      • 64% of reproductive-age women who practice con-traception use reversible methods, such as oral con-traceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]

      FIRST-YEAR CON-TRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES

      Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)

      Method……………..Typical

      Pill (combined)……… 8.7
      Tubal sterilization ……0.7
      Male condom ……….17.4
      Vasectomy…………… 0.2

      Periodic abstinence.. 25.3 (RCC approved)
      Calendar 9.0 (RCC approved)
      Ovulation Method 3.0 (RCC approved)
      Sympto-thermal 2.0 (RCC approved)
      Post-ovulation 1.0 (RCC approved)

      No method 85.0" (RCC approved and important to women and men wanting to get pregnant)

      (Abstinence) 0 (RCC approved)

      (Masturbation) 0

      More facts about contraceptives from

      guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

      "CON-TRACEPTIVE METHOD CHOICE

      Cont-raceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002

      Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users
      Pill.............. 11,661.................. 30.6
      Male condom 6,841.................. 18.0 "

      i.e.
      The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).

      i.e. 0.087 (failure rate)
      x 62 million (# child bearing women)
      x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
      x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =

      1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies
      during the first year of pill use.

      For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level)

      1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.

      The Gut-tmacher Inst-itute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
      (35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).

      o Conclusion: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use other methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

      February 11, 2012 at 9:15 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.