My Take: Contraception denigrates me as a woman
February 16th, 2012
12:13 PM ET

My Take: Contraception denigrates me as a woman

Editor’s Note: Valerie Pokorny is actively involved in marriage preparation programs, natural family planning instruction and chastity education in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, Texas.

By Valerie Pokorny, Special to CNN

(CNN) – In the face of the Health and Human Services mandate to provide contraception coverage, I stand with my fellow Catholics hoping our religious freedom will be respected.

But more importantly, I stand as a woman hoping who I am will be respected.

Four times a year, I walk into a room of Catholic moms and their middle school or high school daughters to help them see why being a woman matters, as part of the Archdiocese of San Antonio’s Mother-Daughter Programs on the Gift of Femininity.

Read the full story here from CNN's In America Blog.
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Content Partner • Opinion

soundoff (435 Responses)
  1. William Demuth

    I would like to denigrate her as a woman!

    February 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • sam

      Too late; already happened.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • KeithTexas

      There is not really a penalty for not following the Pope's rules, it is God's law that matters. Having the size family you can afford and when you are ready for it couldn't be a sin. As a Catholic family we used birth control to accomplish those things.

      March 14, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
  2. LinCA

    Oh, the stupidity.

    She says (in the full article), "The Obama administration’s primary talking point on this issue is that “Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health.”
    I agree. 100 percent.
    So, she claims to agree with the stated goal, yet she advocates the exact opposite.

    We can see where the disconnect is when she says, "But from there, the defense sounds like slick advertising for the contraceptive industry: To be a healthy woman, you need contraception. All the successful women use it. You can’t live without it."
    She clearly failed to understand what the what the issue is about. The policy is clearly to provide every woman access to birth control, if she determines she want it. It is clearly about giving every woman control over her own health. The policy is in no way aimed at forcing any woman to use contraception.

    Her position takes away control from women. Her position makes, or keeps, women in a subservient position. Her position is archaic.

    Ignorance and stupidity like this should be met with utmost ridicule. Morons like her are doing more harm than good.

    February 16, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • sam

      She approached the issue with a set bias and created her own logic fail.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • jimtanker

      They obviously suffer from oppression syndrome. These religious nuts don’t think that they are doing a good job in their religion unless they are being repressed for something I guess. In doing so they want to make sure that everyone is oppressed, not just themselves.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • fred

      You removed God so that no eternal consequense would inhibit the endless choices you could make with your body.
      You removed the time tested moral standards of a Divine God and replaced them with free $ex aids.
      You removed God and given a green light to children $ex slaves of the corporate powers.
      You've come a long way taking free women and putting them into bondage.
      You are not in control of your body you gave control to the man.

      February 16, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • fred

      Get out in the streets and see how the young and innocent are hooked the same way they lure the young into drugs. They tell you it is safe, feels good and everyone does it.
      The results of kicking God in the teeth are obvious and always result in the collapse of a society.

      February 16, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • LinCA


      You said, "You removed God so that no eternal consequense would inhibit the endless choices you could make with your body."
      There was nothing to remove. Your god is a figment of your imagination.

      You said, "You removed the time tested moral standards of a Divine God and replaced them with free $ex aids."
      Just because the christians took the morals of the time, doesn't make them theirs. There are no "tested moral standards of a divine god".

      You said, "You removed God and given a green light to children $ex slaves of the corporate powers.
      You've come a long way taking free women and putting them into bondage.
      You are not in control of your body you gave control to the man.
      Bullshit. Abiding by moronic religious rules is giving control to the man.

      You said, "Get out in the streets and see how the young and innocent are hooked the same way they lure the young into drugs. They tell you it is safe, feels good and everyone does it."
      What the fuck does that have to do with the discussion about contraception?

      You said, "The results of kicking God in the teeth are obvious and always result in the collapse of a society."
      Bullshit. Just because you think there is a correlation between what you think is a collapse of society and people growing up and shedding insane beliefs, doesn't mean that there is actually a collapse of society, nor that there is a causal relation between the two.

      The good news, of course, is that more and more people are shedding the childish beliefs.

      February 16, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • fred

      “There was nothing to remove. Your god is a figment of your imagination.”
      =>Whether or not God is real does not change the fact we removed a long standing tradition of purity (whether we acted on it or not) and virginity being a virtue.

      “Just because the christians took the morals of the time, doesn't make them theirs. There are no "tested moral standards of a divine god".”
      =>We basically still follow the standards set long ago and it looks like you just want to say man evolved into the current moral standards. Well, you remove the first command to love the Lord your God and what remains is man with his morals that change with the winds of culture. The Greeks loved their pederasty and there are those (N-AMBLA) for example that practice this and believe it is very moral.

      February 17, 2012 at 12:02 am |
    • fred

      LinCA cont.
      “Bullsh-it. Abiding by moronic religious rules is giving control to the man.”
      =>I agree that many religions do this because they fail to follow what God commanded. There is a difference between a person that follows Christ out of love and devotion compared with one that follows rules. Take note that God gives free will and freedom of choice. Thou shalt not kill does not restrict freedom rather it opens a window to appreciate and value another life. It is about giving not rules. A believer gives himself to Christ and gradually over time becomes more Christ like due to focus and prayer on the things of God. That is freedom not bond-age.

      February 17, 2012 at 12:13 am |
    • fred

      LinCA cont. (sorry, could not get some of your words by the filter)
      “You said, "Get out in the streets and see how the young and innocent are hooked the same way they lure the young into drugs. They tell you it is safe, feels good and everyone does it."
      What the fu-ck does that have to do with the discussion about contraception?”
      =>the agenda promoted for the past 20 years has been “safe $ex”. This is not true and never has been safe outside of marriage. Winking at everything that goes against virtue and passing out birth control pills like candy makes a statement to children. I know that you and I disagree on this but the impact of Bill Clinton upon our children by redefining what $ex is brought about a major shift at the junior high level. That is candy to children with the intent to lure them into a lose morality.

      “Bullsh-it. Just because you think there is a correlation between what you think is a collapse of society and people growing up and shedding insane beliefs, doesn't mean that there is actually a collapse of society, nor that there is a causal relation between the two.”
      =>given there is no standard bearer in your world view are you saying our children (those under 21) are as virtuous as the children of 60 years ago?
      “The good news, of course, is that more and more people are shedding the childish beliefs”
      =>I agree but, only time will tell what a godless world view has in store

      February 17, 2012 at 12:16 am |
    • lili

      LinCA, Fred is so biased it's ridiculous. He obviously believes his spiritual beliefs apply to everyone, with or without their acceptance of those personal beliefs. People like him don't allow for freedom of religion. He writes as if he is the only voice of God in a sin filled world. I respect his right to his beliefs, but I want the same respect for my beliefs, which is what this country was founded upon: religious freedom. Fred, I don't accept your dogma. Try to imagine it. God, whatever your conception of God is, gave us choice. Stop with the preaching to people who don't agree with you.

      February 23, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • LinCA


      Yeah, fred and I go back a ways. We spar on occasion, without changing each other's minds.

      February 24, 2012 at 12:47 am |
  3. JAG0419

    First of all, Valerie, nobody is forcing anybody to use birth control.
    Secondly, as a woman, although I take great pride in them, I am more than my reproductive parts. I think, I feel and I have goals and aspirations. I feel I can better serve the world without the burden of multiple pregnancies. Although that is an individual woman's choice.
    Thirdly, and I was raised Catholic, why are you folks so hung up on female saxuality? I'm all for abstinence among our young. But God and/or nature nature designed the female body to be a temple of pleasure should she choose it to be. You act like women don't want sax unless it comes with a lifetime of breastfeeding and russian roulette with her cycles.
    TheCatholic church has woman issues. It's so sad. And it wraps them up in a weird sentiment for Mary's virginity. Get over it.

    February 16, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
  4. Flinders the Butler

    And BTW, her "value" is not dependant on her having kids. OMG. Does she live in the Dark Ages ?

    February 16, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
  5. Flinders the Butler

    The artificial, dishonest, dichotomy between contraception in general, and "natural family planning" is ridicualous. The intent is the same. In RC Moral Theology, INTENT is the crux of a moral act. They INTEND to do everything possible, (except one thing), to prevent a pregnancy. It's a dishonest semantic dodge game. They have a very stupid god. They think she doesn't know what they're up to.

    Tea and crrrrrumpets at 4PM in the drawing rrrrroom.

    February 16, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
  6. Doc Vestibule

    A good Catholic woman would not be commenting on such things.
    Ephesians 5:22 teaches us wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
    Don't forget that it is your duty as a woman to remain silent and do as he commands.
    As I Timothy 2:11-14 reminds us, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
    Those women who still choose to argue in spite of the Lord's commands will find that God will treat them like he did the daughters of Zion in Isaiah 3:18 and take away all their jewelery,fine clothes, makeup, and mirrors. He'll make them bald and rotten smelling before killing all of the men they care about.

    "Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:19

    February 16, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • sam

      That's right, she's supposed to be letting the men hash this out while she makes sandwiches.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • Karen

      Have you read the rest of that, husbands lay down your life for your wife as Christ did for his bride, the Church. You can't have one without the other. It is a dying unto oneself and living for other...both husband and wife...this is what we are called to.

      February 19, 2012 at 12:20 am |
    • lili

      So, Doc, do you also subscribe to the passages that say a man should be killed if he works on the Sabbath? Or that a woman who sews a shirt from two different threads should be burned? Or that a man who plants two different crops side by side should be put to death? Or that slavery is okay? Come on. Get out of the Dark Ages. Do you even suspect how repugnant a man like you is to people like me who don't believe a woman should be subservient to men...thank God I'm not a :good Catholic woman, living at the beck and call of her husband. Men like you seem so inferior – that you need to keep women down. I think it's so hypocritical to take the parts of the bible you like and try to incorporate them into your and everyone else's lives, You can't just pick and choose. Does the modern Catholic religion still hold with that crap about women? If so, no wonder it is suffering from lack of membership in the United States.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
  7. David Johnson

    Contraceptives and Abortion are an important part of the family planning toolbox.

    If contraceptives are illegal, more abortions will be needed.
    Contraceptives are the first line of defense against abortion.

    If abortion is illegal, poor women will seek back alley remedies and risk sepsis. Rich women will have a long weekend in a hospital, in an abortion friendly country.

    Families need a way to control the number of children they will have. Abstinence and the Rhythm Method are not effective. If you are going to be abstinent, why be married?

    Contraceptives allow couples to accurately plan their families.

    We, as a society, must take away as many of the reasons women seek abortions as possible.
    We need to make adoption easier and make it financially possible for a woman to keep and care for her baby.

    Obama has a program to do this. More needs to be done, but with the Republicans controlling the House, funds won't be forthcoming. But, there may be money appropriated, to force women to carry a child conceived by ra_pe or incest to term. If the product of incest is born with webbed feet...well, it is all part of god's great plan. Like babies born without brains...

    Most of all, we need to make birth control available free of charge, to all women. The health care bill passed in 2010 (Obamacare) does this. We need to educate the women on these birth control methods. Remember, the best way to prevent an abortion, is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    Psalm 127:3 – Children are a gift of the LORD

    Hmm... Well, the bible says it, so me and Santorum believe it. Children are god's gift!

    Notice how god doesn't check to see if a woman is capable of raising a child, before he gives a baby to them?

    Women in p_oor countries bear children, only to have them die, because Mom has no food.

    Women addicted to drugs are given babies, when they are totally incapable of taking care of themselves, much less a child.

    Girls who are babies themselves, are blessed with a baby they don't want. Why are babies given to women who don't want them?

    If god would be more careful with giving out gifts/babies, abortion wouldn't be needed.

    The Christian god is said to be all knowing (Omniscient). If this is true, then god would know the gift (a child), that He is giving, will suffer and die. Why would god place a child into circu_mstances where it could not survive?

    And remember, there are a lot of women, who god refuses His gift. They would be overjoyed with god's gift. No abortions in their homes!

    God works in mysterious ways. It's almost as if He doesn't exist... I guess He is just really, really hidden.

    We should start real $ex education in school. Not abstinence only. Real education about the use of birth control. The Religious Right wants only abstinence taught. But then again, the Religious Right wants the kids to learn about talking snakes and zombie Messiahs. *sigh*

    We will never totally eradicate abortions. Only a god could do that, and he either does not care, or does not exist.

    Don't let the Religious Right dictate to our nation what is right or wrong. Vote for the Dems in 2012.


    February 16, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • momoya

      Fantastic work David Johnson! (Also in the other thread about hell!!!) I wish more posts looked like yours!

      February 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Ed

      @David Johnson,
      "Abstinence and the Rhythm Method are not effective"

      While the rhythm method is not effective abstinence is the only thing that is 100% effect against pregnancy with one exception, which Atheist say didn't happen. Adstinence is also the most effect against STDS.

      February 16, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • lili

      Right on, David Johnson! I suggest that people who believe babies are a gift go visit ghettos and the poor clinics that serve them. Or check out the women who keep having babies solely to stay on welfare. Really? This is God's gift? And the Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood, which teaches and provides birth control to these poor women? Have you religious fanatics seen how many unwanted children are in CPS and foster homes, tossed about? If you don't believe in prevention, they how about you help pay for all of these gifts of God, since you want them to be born so badly? Haven't you heard of overpopulation and diminishing resources? You think a lot of couples want more children in these hard times? I just don't understand the Republicans. You want all women to have babies even if they are unwanted – and you try to say any other version of birth control but your "natural" way is evil? What's wrong with you?

      February 23, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
  8. Women of substance

    Valerie-Kudos on a very well written article!
    You said
    "My fertility is not a disease. It does not need to be repressed, manipulated, or rejected. It ought to be accepted and respected accordingly, by individuals and by society as a whole. And if that means exercising a bit of self control now and then, well, that’s a hell of a lot more dignified than saying, “Eh, we got this pill that makes self control unnecessary. I want pleasure now. Let’s get it on!”

    Right on!!!!

    February 16, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • momoya

      So married people shouldn't have inter course unless they want a child?

      February 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • J.W

      Well that is her opinion, but I know the pill is used for other things besides birth control. I am not sure what they are because I'm a dude, but I know it is true.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • William Demuth

      I'll bet your man is doing Mormons when you're "unavailable"!

      February 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So anyone who doesn't want to have 5 kids in as many years is just wrong? Please, get your head out of you azz.

      February 16, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
  9. Linge

    What's denigrating is seeing a beautiful young woman like my mother worn into the ground by bearing 13 children in 16 years. Ask her what she thinks about natural family planning!

    February 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • What IF

      Hear, hear!

      My grandmother had 14 children... and died at age 47 from heart failure, leaving 6 still at home, the youngest, a 5 year-old.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Please to finaly hear sense.

      Bith control, and even Abortion is FAR less irresponsible than breeding like roaches.

      The cult needs babies.

      Sick degenerates?

      February 16, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
  10. Joe T.

    I wonder if this lady knows that if the Catholics had never gotten out of power that she would be seen and not heard right now.

    Obama isn't saying you have to use contraceptives to be healthy or succesful but let's be honest, in the majority of cases, how often would you deem someone who has 8 kids as a successful person? Successful maybe at breeding and overpopulating.

    February 16, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
  11. Doc Vestibule

    If we are expected to accept the miracle of immaculate conception, then Catholics must concede that abstinence is NOT effective.

    February 16, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Plus if you can have conception without sin, you can have abortion without sin.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I hereby decree that from this day forward, miscarriage shall be referred to as "immaculate abortion".

      February 16, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • William Demuth

      I thought I had heard all the puns, but this one is new


      February 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Ed

      Fine I accept abstinence is not 100% effective but its more effective then any other form of birth control you can find. its is alos more effective against STDS

      February 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • maggie

      And what planet pray tell does Ed come from? ARE YOU KIDDING?

      February 16, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • Ed

      @maggie, Earth but since you think my information is incorrect how many women do you know who have never had se-x with anyone and have an STD or have gotten pregnanted(no fair countning artificial ins-emination).

      February 16, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I don't know any women who have "gotten pregnanted" at all. Suggest you get a grip on a dictionary, dude.

      February 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • Ed

      sorry for the grammatic error Tom Tom, The point is still valid a woman the does not ahve se-x with anyone is unlikely to get an STD or get pregnant. Granted artificial insemenation gets around the se-x thing but I have never heard of an accidental case of artificial insemenation. Similarly while some one could some STDS through other sources most are transmitted via some se-xual act. Therefore abstaining from se-x would also prevent most STDS

      February 17, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
  12. Rich

    I don't know. A non-fertile woman is just a turn-off. They don't give off the right pheromones, you know? This NFP thing sounds promising.

    February 16, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • William Demuth

      For reals?

      So you believe you can select the fertile from the infertile at will?

      You will believe whatever she wants you to believe.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Ugh

      You think that examining cervical muc'us is a turn-on?!!

      February 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Rich

      No seriously, William. Women have this milky sweet breath when they're ready. Women on artificial hormones just don't seem to get that.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Rich

      Ugh: That's not the cowboy's job.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Its called oestrus, and it has been debated for years.

      A famous test showed dancers earned tips in relation to fertility, but I have always had my doubts.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Ugh


      Guess what? It's not a turn-on for the heifer either.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
  13. Peter F

    I don't understand the point of this article...

    February 16, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  14. Ed

    I thinks its interesting that when the Bishops said Obama was wrong some many of you said 'Think about how the women feel' in effect. No this women tells us how she feels and you tell her she's stupid and brain washed. You may disagree with her opinon that is your right. It doesn't make her opinon wrong. The Atheist keeping asking belivers to respect their opinons have a perfect example of Ateist not respecting the opinon of a beleiver.

    February 16, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      I think you miss the point, this womAN certainly does not represent womEN and certainly isn't even remotely an accurate representation of women who are Catholic.

      February 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • Ed

      So you're an expert on all women or at least all Catholic women? I think you missed my point. I not saying all women agree with this woman. I not saying they should. I just saying this is the point of vies of a woman who becasue she is a woman probaably has some idea how women feel. She probably is not alone. When discussing the subjuect and its effect on women this woman's opinon is just as valuable as any others, o more but no less. I alos putting out that people said the church is wrong because of the effect on womone this woman thinks they are right. Granted it is her point of view other may agree or not. But to call her stupid or brain washed is unfair. It also requires for a women to be respected by those that call her stupid or brain washed the accept the point of view that person says is correct. Sounds like brain washing to me.

      February 16, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • momoya

      What's really eating you, Ed? This woman shared her opinion, and now we are sharing ours.

      The stupidness of her position is obvious; contraceptives being offered to women doesn't affect her choices; however, if she were to get what she wants, the women who want contraceptives would not be able to–because of her objections.

      In essence, she's saying that it's not good enough for her to have the option to follow her conscience as she will. It's elitist.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • tim-tam

      Both believers and non believers are guilty of lack of respect of the others. Evangelism in itself shows a lack of it.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Facepalm, perhaps she represents a Catholic woman that chooses to live her life in accordance with her faith and natural law. What's wrong with that?

      February 16, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Ed

      what eating me momoya is that instead ot stating your opinon that she is wrong and why you think she is wrong you call here stupid or brain washed. Thats not a conversation is an attack. Also it says that you will only accept her as smart an open minded if she ageress with you. This in and of its self is a form of brain washing perhaps you've heard of peer pressure. You insist whe conform to your opinon or she's stupid. Now that's elitist. read the article again. She makes some fair points. You position is not stupid she simply disagrees with you.

      @Tim-tam I agree but so far on this post it the Atheist being dispectful. I not evangelising just point out the inconsistent atti-tude to so me respect while I don't show it to you.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • Guest

      SPA Knight: natural law? Do elaborate please.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • momoya


      Ah, I see your problem. You assume too much. No, people don't have to agree with me to be smart or relevant; they just have to use logic. This woman thinks that her opinions about her religion and her body are so smart that the government should take choice away from people who think differently. She's not stupid because she disagrees with me; she's stupid because she doesn't make sense.

      She could have her rights and freedoms and opinions while providing other women the choice to exercise their rights and freedoms, but she doesn't want that; she wants her opinions and beliefs to mandate what other women can choose. That's stupid because it's stupid; it's not stupid because she disagrees with me. Got it now?

      February 16, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Ed

      I get it you say it is right, it is right the church says it is right you disagree so its not. Any one that disagrees with you is not using logic and therefore stupid got it.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Momoya, you call her an elitist because her life is directed by her moral conviction? Who's really the elitist?

      February 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Contraception is unatural.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Ed

      How many times do you need to be corrected? She's stupid because she doesn't use logic, not because of her opinion. I respect people who use logic whether or not they agree with me. Nobody wants to force her to take anything; yet that's not enough for her–she wants to force her views on others

      @ SPA K

      No, she's elitist because she thinks her convictions trump other people's convictions.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Momoya, I don't recall reading that in the article. Perhaps you are reading too much into it and are assigning your personal prejudice towards a woman who knows why she chooses to live her life in accordnace with her convictions. She has not told you to live your life like hers.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Ed

      @momoya I didn't see anything in the article sugesting she was telling anyone else how to act or what to beleive she merely sated her position. You on the other hand have siad she is wrong among other things. Prehaps you are the elitist here

      February 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • momoya

      @SPA Knight & Ed

      Well, I can certainly see how you two would miss it, based on your replies so far. It's in the first sentence. She's "stand[ing] with [her] fellow Catholics hoping [their] religious freedom will be respected." You guys are up on the current news with the whole contraception, thing, right? She doesn't need to "stand up" for the catholics since nobody is forcing her to use contraception. That's the point.

      February 16, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Ed

      @momoya I don't see how that comments suggests that you have to agree with her. It just says she agrees with her church. Read the whole article she explains herself well and makes some good points.

      Also read the current news again. Obama is trying to force Catholic run insti-tution to proved birth control. This insti-tutions are funded by the church. Therefore Obama is indirectly trying to force the church to pay for birth control.

      February 16, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • sam

      Ed, why are you insisting on being a childish, close minded asshole? Because you can?

      February 16, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • Ed

      @sam I fail to see how I'm being closed minded or childish. You should ask yourself that question given your post

      February 16, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • sam

      Nope...Ed, I checked again and you're basically just acting like a fucking bitch.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  15. JohnQuest

    I don't understand the writers objection? No one is making women buy or used contraceptives, it's an option that Many women including Catholics may choose.

    Why does she (and the RCC) have a problem with it?

    February 16, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "Why does she (and the RCC) have a problem with it?"

      A desire for power and control? A need to feel better than others? An inferiority complex?

      Probably all of the above.

      February 16, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Not sure about her, but the reason the RCC has a problem with it is because they believe that God creates children. And if you are taking birth control, you are actively hindering God's plan to bring children into your life.

      What surprises me is that they put so much faith into God for everything in their lives, but believe a pill will stop Him from His will. Is birth control like kryptonite to God? I'm confused...

      February 16, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • momoya

      God, he's all powerful except for when he's up against a little pink pill.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • J.W

      I agree with you Damian. If God wants the baby to be born, he will make the condom break, or the pill not work.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • William Demuth


      So I guess he isn't omnipotent after all.

      I guess the pills are some magic force field that thwarts the masters plan?

      Can't God use his transtubitation ray and convert the pills in the the coagulated flesh of a dead Palestinian?

      February 16, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      Yup. I also have an issue with it, because a lack of birth control has caused -huge- problems in many third world countries.

      The other thing that the RCC doesn't address is, what about a couple who doesn't want children? Is it better to force people who don't want children to have to have them simply because they decide to be intimate? Should they practice abstinence if they don't want children? My last question then begs the question, is the sole purpose of se.x to reproduce?

      February 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • J.W

      This is my least favorite denomination. I would rather be Muslim or Hindu.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • *facepalm*


      I'd have to check the catechism to verify, but I believe that the RCC teaches that the entire point of marriage is to procreate. Basically, the message is – if you don't want kids, don't get married.

      February 16, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      Reason 3,972 why I'm not Catholic.

      Not that I expect you to necessarily know offhand, but I still must ask. What about a person who is sterile for whatever medical reason? Should they not get married because they cannot have children? Or are they expected to get married and start adopting (from a RCC adoption center no less) a clan of children the likes of which would make Brad and Angelina blush?

      February 16, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • J.W

      Wow I have a lot of reasons too Damian. I will have to see if I can think of more than that.

      February 16, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Ed

      while have children is an important part of marriage. It is not the sole reason for it anf this is not taught by the church.

      February 16, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "What about a person who is sterile for whatever medical reason?"

      That is explicitly called out in the catechism – that you should still have a happy conjugal life. So, I guess if you don't want to have kids, you should just pray to be sterile 'cause then you're off the hook.

      February 16, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      Are you Catholic? I'm honestly asking because I'm interested if you are, to get information from the horse's mouth, so to speak.


      Well the only way to prove whether you're sterile or not (except by going to the doctor), is to have trouble conceiving. This all makes my head spin.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Ed

      Yes Dk I'm Catholic I own a copy of the catechism while I have not read it cover to cover and don't have the ability to recall exact quotes at will. I have never been told by any one with in the church that the only reason for mariage is procreation. I also do not not of any such statement in the catechism.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      While admittedly going a bit overboard in saying that having kids is the sole purpose for marriage in the RCC view, it is necessary. From catholic.com

      marital love must be exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and open to life. The absence of any of these qualities constitutes an abuse of human sexuality.

      February 16, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • Ed

      @face as I said children are an important part of marriage just not the only reason

      February 16, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Ed, that was an answer to @DK's question: "The other thing that the RCC doesn't address is, what about a couple who doesn't want children?"

      February 16, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • Ed

      @face the RCC accepts that some people don't want to have kids they just don't approve of artifical birth control. using kind proves you're not "open to life" but not having them does not make it a failed marriage . They accept careful family planning is a good thing but only through natural means. I agree its not the most reasonable policy, but then your actions and decisions are you own, part of the job of the church is to be a moral compass. Point the right way so to speak

      February 16, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Ed, no it doesn't. Check your catechism. A marriage must be open to life. This is one of the primary reasons why the RCC rejects gay marriage.

      February 16, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • Ed

      @face, read some of the writings of John Paul II he refered to moral family planning but limits it to natrual birth control. Like that mentioned in the article.

      February 16, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Ed, you're not seeing the distinction between regulating when a pregnancy occurs and not ever wanting to get pregnant – the latter is what the original question referred to and is also denounced by the teaching of the RCC.

      February 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      With all due respect to the Catholic church (and I mean that sincerely), wouldn't sound family planning include waiting until the couple is emotionally, mentally, and financially ready for a child? It seems odd to me that the RCC would want people to use methods that are proven NOT to be as effective and bring children into this world, that they are not ready for. I hesitate to say, it seems like the church is more concerned with children being born than that child's welfare once they are born.

      February 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • Ed

      I see the your point but if you are using the natural methods and it works so you never have kids you have not directly violated doctrine, just skirted it a little. If you use artificial methods you violate doctrine.

      February 16, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • Ed

      @DK It goes back to doctrine married couple have to be open to life. They can use natural methods because they don't block to imporve chances they should wait till they can handle children but if one comes early they need to deal. The church will help and does care about the welfare but thinks its wrong to avoid beyond natural methods.

      Although I have heard John Paul II stated the birth control in marriage may be acceptable. I have been told the Archbishop of Baltimore wrote a policy and John Paul II signed that stated something like. 'If a couple has discussed birth control wiith their doctor, their priest and each other and prayed to God for guidance and determines to use birth control they can rest as-sured they are making a moral decision." Thats a paraphrase and I have not seen the docu-ment so I can not attest to its accuracy. But if it exist it would allow birth control in marriage under the right circu-mstances.

      February 16, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Jesus was frequently concerned with the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law.

      So if one was using natural methods, but had the intent to prevent pregnancy, are they not in violation of the spirit of the doctrine? In other words, if the spirit of the doctrine is people should have children and not prevent it, and a person uses no artificial means, but does things that greatly decrease the likelihood of procreation, wouldn't they be violating the spirit of the doctrine?

      February 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • Ed

      yes its a legalistic argument not a spiritual one. But it is the official RCC doctrine for now. To be honest I don't entirely agree with this one. I would rather a couple use control and avoid the pregnancy the have an abortion or a child they can not care for. But then I'm a moderate conservative not strick and often lean towards logic in these things not necessarily the best moral apporach.

      February 16, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Ed

      didn't say I was a good Catholic

      February 16, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • Ed

      lesser of 2 evils and all that stuff

      February 16, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Fair enough. I can completely understand that, and I agree that birth control is better than abortion.

      February 16, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      " you have not directly violated doctrine, just skirted it a little"

      REally?!? The Catholic god is cool with loopholes? If you're violating the intent, your violating the rule. The RCC is all about intent. If you don't intend to be open to life that your marriage would not be in line with the RCC, regardless of the method used.

      Just goes to show that you can use even the catechism, let alone the bible, to try and justify any position.

      February 17, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • Ed

      as I said face its a legalistic argument it does violate the intent but fits in the letter of the rule. Your right intent is more important, but not have children you can't or won't care for properly is also important. I am not telling any one else how to think. You asked a question on the rule I answered the question as accuratly as I am able. Perhaps you can discuss with a priest that can explain it to me. I find that in this non perfect world I have to do the best I can and sometimes that means doing the lesser of to bads.

      I do believe birth control artificial or natural is better than abortion. So if a person wants to have se-x but does not want kids for what ever their reason they should consider using birth control. With that said we are al responsible for our decision and will answer to God. So when I make decision for me and advise people in my life it is appropriate for me to advise, Like my child. I start with to most moral idea. But I understand that may not work so I suggest looking at all choices using all known facts and information. Then make your decision. But you have to accept the consequences of those decision. In the end we all answer to God not the church I trust him to judge my life fairly and hope I can do well enough for him.

      February 17, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      Ed, facepalm et al,
      In order to understand this better, we need to really look at marriage. When a couple are in love and decide to get married, they are making a commitment to each other. In marriage, the woman gives herself completely to her husband and her husband gives himself completely to her. This is done feely and completely with no strings attached. This union is then expressed physically with the intimate act of lovemaking and the result could be a new life during times of fertility. That new life, a baby, is viewed as a good consequence of marriage and not a curse. If a woman decides to use birth control and/or a man decides to use a condom, then they are no longer giving themselves freely and completely. God could have designed the love making act to be less enjoyable but he made it to be a gift to the marital union so it would bring about life as he commanded when he said go forth and be fruitful and multiply. When a man witholds his seed and a woman witholds her fertility through artificial means, then their act of love is with strings attached and less than the ideal as intended by God. God created men and women to be complementary but that requires commitment, cooperation, dignity and respect.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • Ed

      @SPA I completely agree in an ideal world, however the question Face asked me is how does the church deal with people who want to be married but for what ever there reason they don't want children. While I agree children are a blessing some people don't want them. They may have good reasons for this (monetary, health). I don't think any one or any organization has the right to tell some one the have to have kids. I also don't think people that don't want kids should not me allowed to marry and be intimate with each other. I alos think it is far better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy then the other options after one occurs. So I find my self having to accept birth control that prevents pregnancy as it is the lesser of the possible wrongs.

      February 17, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • SPA Knight

      You really should look into NFP more closely before accepting contraception which has physical implications for women. In terms of your comments about marriage without being open to children, that sounds like wanting to have have all the benefits without any sacrifice. If a couple are unable to have children because of physical/emotional limitations, then that's a different situation. Why would anyone who is able to have children not want them?

      February 17, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Ed

      @SPA for the record I have a child and am more then willing to accept the responsibility of another. My wife and I have not had the chance since she miscarried. But one reason some one may not want a child is lack of money kids are great but expensive. Some people just don't make good parents. It is not my right to tell another how to feel about having children

      February 17, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • lili

      This is for SPA Knight who says contraception is unnatural. So is getting dental care, taking any other pharmaceuticals, or any other thing that interferes with nature taking its course. But these things were created to help people and extend their lives. Contraception prevents women who don't wish to have children from having them. i think that's a natural choice for a woman who doesn't want children...to take contraceptives. Just because a religion doesn't agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be provided for those women. And once again, I have to inform all of you who criticize the Obama administration – his administration has allotted many more millions of dollars to Catholic works and charities than any other administration. If you Catholics don't like President Obama protecting women's right to contraception, then don't be accepting the funds he's laid out for you.

      February 24, 2012 at 12:17 am |
  16. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    February 16, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • momoya

      Prayer only changes your own brainwaves. Just like meditation.

      February 16, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Then pray you don't get pregnant!

      Phillipino. You are SOOO indoctrinated I bet you are from an island?

      February 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Peter F


      Forgive me for probably taking this out of context. But saying "prayer changes things" does not seem like a statement steeped in dogma. Would you call me indoctrinated for saying "eating changes things" or "war changes things" or "weather changes things"?

      February 16, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • J.W

      He no dissing Philipinos they are cool.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Peter F

      You don't recognize the troll do you?

      This broad is a zombie poster, uses lots of names and post sillyness OVER and OVER.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • just sayin

      william demouth
      we are all from islands

      February 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • SuZieCoyote

      You again. You are an idiot, with no education, no knowledge and a head full of primitive tribal beliefs. Go away, troll.

      February 16, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
  17. momoya

    Before I read this article I would have never thought it would be a good thing to force some women to use contraceptives. Maybe this piece should be a litmus test; anybody who thinks it makes sense shouldn't have children.

    This article is mind-numbingly stupid. I mean stupid. Seriously. Stupid.

    You don't want it, don't get it–but don't say that offering MORE choice to females is "degrading."

    Stupid. Stupid. I think I'm physically ill.

    February 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • sam

      Yeah, this author gets the 'confusing dumbass of the week' award.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
  18. Guest

    "My fertility is not a disease. It does not need to be repressed, manipulated, or rejected. It ought to be accepted and respected accordingly, by individuals and by society as a whole." Even if they do not need to do so, some women may want to control their fertility in a reliable way, rejecting NFP as too unreliable. How does it denigrate women to make such a choice?

    February 16, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
  19. William Demuth

    Holy Moly are you an indoctrinated space cadet!

    Perhaps it’s your membership in the cult that denigrates you!

    Please crawl out of the 14th century before you attempt to speak for my sisters or mother!

    Frankly you are an embarasement

    February 16, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
  20. *facepalm*

    Think contraception dengrates you? Good for you. Don't take it.

    February 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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.