And There You Have It. We All Are Paying For The "morning After&#3

[rhetoricfemme]

It'd be nice if instead of spending all that money on contraception they could put some more effort into activities and incentives to not be having random sexual encounters. I really don't have an answer for this situation other than to pray for military and pray that these drastic forms of contraception aren't allowed.

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='04 February 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1265335413' post='2051391']
As soon as they allow men and women in the army to have sex without consequence, there will be disorder in the ranks.
[/quote]
They don't have to allow anything. If they don't already have religious or moral convictions to stay pure, then it's no surprise for a highly stressed out military man or woman to either be having relations with a significant other, or finding a friend with benefits, or a one night stand. Put a bunch of military folks fresh-out-of-basic-training into a general area and sex will happen, and it will happen often. It's nothing new, it's been going on for as long as there have been both men and women in the military. And if there weren't women in the military the guys would be going somewhere else to find a partner. Of the people who do this, most of them are extremely lonely and want that warm body, and a handful of them just think they're tough stuff who can have whatever they want.

I doubt there will be disorder in the ranks. This makes it sound like the whole military is going to fall down because of the ill-advised actions of some. As a military wife, I've met some guys who for their social activities and attitudes are nothing more than pigs, who don't even make an effort around a co-worker's wife to hold back a comment or two about a waitress or what they did last night. And I'm not defending those actions when I say this, but even those guys know what their jobs are. They're not in the military because it gets them casual sex, they realize how serious their jobs are, and for the greater majority of them, they're not going to let their partying get in the way of that. As for the ones who do let their partying and promiscuity get in the way, eventually it may just catch up with them and they'll either be disciplined or discharged, and are no longer a liability.

Having said all that, not everyone in the military has sex, sex, sex! on the brain. And having written the above, I feel like clarifying that I'm not condoning anyone's promiscuity, and obviously not the morning after pill or whatnot. It's just a fact of life, and the only way I can see me making a difference is by understanding that it happens, not condemning the person but not promoting their actions, prayer, and declining requests from dorm-bound friends asking if they can bring a date back to our spare bedroom.

And it's not just the Army, we've got five branches of Armed Forces.

Edited February 5, 2010 by rhetoricfemme

[tinytherese]

Odd, the money used in our taxes could be used to actually help these mothers instead of helping them to murder their children, or even to fund authentic abstinence education which isn't all, "If you have sex than you'll die" like the stereotypes claim.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='StMichael' date='04 February 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1265328289' post='2051348']
(I love this, "emergency" oh its a an emergency that you are pregnant, gotta get that out of you right away...)
[url="http://bit.ly/bGIzHz"]http://bit.ly/bGIzHz[/url]

Pentagon to Offer Emergency Contraception to Military Bases Worldwide
AP

For the first time ever, the Pentagon is requiring military bases worldwide to offer the so-called morning-after pill.

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon for the first time is requiring military bases worldwide to offer emergency contraception or the so-called morning-after pill.

Defense Department spokeswoman Cynthia Smith says the decision follows a recommendation by an independent panel of doctors and pharmacists in November. It said emergency contraception should be added to the military's list of medications that must be stocked at each military facility.

Smith said she did not have additional details about when the implementation would begin.
[/quote]
[font="Arial"]

[size="2"]It makes sense to them. After all, the rape rate in the State military is two times higher than it is in "civilian" life. But then, the Pentagram says that 80% of rapes are never even reported. And why should they bother reporting being raped? Only 8% of military rape investigations result in prosecutions, versus 40% in civilian life.
[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]
[font="Arial"]One 1995 DOD report in particular says that [i]30 percent[/i] of female veterans reported rape or attempted rape during active duty. And those are just the ones that admitted it. [/font]

Excelsior! [/size][/font]

~Sternhauser

Edited February 5, 2010 by Sternhauser

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='05 February 2010 - 06:46 AM' timestamp='1265366761' post='2051550']
Also a big thanks to the Catholics that knew better, drank the koolaid and voted for him anyway. Way to go, champs.
[/quote]


You're trying to tell us that McCain would've opposed this when he voted to fund health clinics on Indian Reservations, which included abortions and contraception?

BTW, not every one sees this pill as an abortion. For the most part it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb and being such, Jews, Muslims and others don't consider this to be an abortion, nor do
they see it as immoral.

We of course disagree, but this isn't a Catholic nation.

Jim

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1265392722' post='2051613']
You're trying to tell us that McCain would've opposed this when he voted to fund health clinics on Indian Reservations, which included abortions and contraception?

BTW, not every one sees this pill as an abortion. For the most part it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb and being such, Jews, Muslims and others don't consider this to be an abortion, nor do
they see it as immoral.

We of course disagree, but this isn't a Catholic nation.

Jim
[/quote]

A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg, whether implanted or not. That is a human being with a soul.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1265392722' post='2051613']
BTW, not every one sees this pill as an abortion. For the most part it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb and being such, Jews, Muslims and others don't consider this to be an abortion, nor do
they see it as immoral.
[/quote]

"Prevents implantation" is a nebulous term which may simply mean "prevents successful implantation". In this case the blastocyst may attach and continue to undergo cell division, but be unable to form a placental interface and thus runs out of nutrients and energy. In my opinion this is for all intents and purposes an abortion. I think it is dishonest for people to pretend like we know that the blastocyst bounces off the endometrium like a ping pong ball. An abortion of a 64cell blastocyst would likely barely elicit noticeable bleeding from the endometrium. This doesn't mean that the blastocyst didn't attach and begin to implant before dying.

[StMichael]

While this is true, that does not mean that me, Catholic tax payer, should be sharing in the sin of the abortion.

Our military has not been in it to win since WW2. We have serious issues with it and co-mingling woman, men and gays bring social issues into the mix that should never exist.

The solution isn't band aiding the result, but changing the cause.

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='05 February 2010 - 12:07 PM' timestamp='1265389649' post='2051589']
[font="Arial"]

[size="2"]It makes sense to them. After all, the rape rate in the State military is two times higher than it is in "civilian" life. But then, the Pentagram says that 80% of rapes are never even reported. And why should they bother reporting being raped? Only 8% of military rape investigations result in prosecutions, versus 40% in civilian life.
[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]
[font="Arial"]One 1995 DOD report in particular says that [i]30 percent[/i] of female veterans reported rape or attempted rape during active duty. And those are just the ones that admitted it. [/font]

Excelsior! [/size][/font]

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

[StMichael]

Truer words never spoken.

This rationalization of what is or not a human life is a lost argument.

Lets try this for rationalization, how many here would be breathing God's air without having been a fertilized egg? Show of hands? Exactly, NONE.

So denying this first stage as life is simply away to sell killing to yourself.

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='05 February 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1265392875' post='2051617']
A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg, whether implanted or not. That is a human being with a soul.
[/quote]

[Holly3278]

How very sad! Why is it that this world sees children as nothing but a burden??

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1265392722' post='2051613']
You're trying to tell us that McCain would've opposed this when he voted to fund health clinics on Indian Reservations, which included abortions and contraception?

BTW, not every one sees this pill as an abortion. For the most part it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb and being such, Jews, Muslims and others don't consider this to be an abortion, nor do
they see it as immoral.

We of course disagree, but this isn't a Catholic nation.

Jim
[/quote]


This is not about religion and whether or not this is a Catholic country, this is about objective right and wrong. Just because not everyone sees something a certain way does not make it right. And it's a pretty well known fact that it IS an abortificant.

My point is, Catholics are the most powerful voting block in the U.S. In modern elections, they always elect the winning president. It would be amazing if they actually voted according to their convictions instead of sweeping their nagging consciences under the rug in an effort to be relativist and "fair" (and while I am extremely unhappy with both of the two primary political parties in the U.S., the "other candidate isn't great either" is a really poor excuse to vote for an even worse candidate. I'm increasingly beginning to think that both parties really have the same interests in mind at the highest levels but right now I stop short of being a conspiracy theorist. But either way, I used to vote for pro-choice candidates and use a lot of the rationales as far as "what is best for 'society'" but in the end there are some things you cannot compromise on some issues when choosing a lesser of two evils. The worst for society is one that becomes morally bankrupt.)

People say you can't legislate or vote "morality" and that is B.S. EVERYONE votes according to their moral beliefs, whether it's the atheist, the relativist, or the evangelical. The difference is, Catholics are the ones that don't want to put up any fight whatsoever despite the fact that the pope and church at large has pretty much said that some issues aren't negotiable.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Ash Wednesday

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='05 February 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1265392875' post='2051617']
A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg, whether implanted or not. That is a human being with a soul.
[/quote]


The Church doesn't teach when a soul enters, but only that human life begins at conception.

Most of the time, conception happens in the fallopian tube. When the fertilized egg implants
into the womb, with in six days, it can twin. So now you have two zygotes. If the first egg
was the person with the soul, where did the second one come from?

The Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at conception, and must be protected regardless of when
ensoulment takes place.

This is what we believe, but its not what many members of other main stream religions believe.
Jews and Muslims believe that a fetus is not a person until ensoulment takes place, and this they
believe happens until viability, or after 20 weeks.

So how does a secular government legislate while not forcing a particular religious belief onto them?


Jim

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1265398061' post='2051660']
The Church doesn't teach when a soul enters, but only that human life begins at conception.
[/quote]

[u]The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u]

[b]365[/b] The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

[b]366[/b] The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

[Ash Wednesday]

Jim, matters of abortion go beyond being just a theological issue, though. Application of natural law also comes into play and there are certain universal human rights that should be adhered to regardless of what form of government it is.


Ugh, guys, I thought last year was the election year. Peace out.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Ash Wednesday

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='05 February 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1265386887' post='2051570']
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4
[/quote]

Our abortionists make a stink load, and some of them are rather dishonest.

See, our country is divided into regions which are governed by "District Health Boards" or DHBs. The DHBs oversee the funding they get from the govt. and decide what programmes are needed. For example in my home region, there's a higher incidence of TB so the DHB puts a bit more funding into TB programmes then other DHBs.

Then there's the Ministry of Health, which oversees the DHBs and set rules and guidelines and dibbies out the funding.

Here's where the abortionists get cheeky and "double dip".

Firstly, most of our abortionists are hired by the DHBs so they already get a high end salary. A woman has to see two "certifying consultants" to get signed off for an abortion. Seeing a woman earns a CC about 120$ for five minutes to tick some box. Then the second CC who sees the woman will also do the abortion. The abortionist then earns another thousand for that abortion.

They get their salary, right? Well, for those women they see, and the abortion they preform, they end up getting the extra amoung ontop of their salary. Then, here comes the double dipping, they also put in for money from the MoH.

So, they get a salary for being an abortionist, which then they get extra money for seeing the woman and then doing the aboriton. Then, they get the same amount again from the MoH!

Its a lot of money for the doctors, the nurses, not so much as we're all under a collective agreement and regardless of what you do for a DHB you get the same amount of cash.

It does amuse me somewhat, when you hear the pro-aborts going on about how abortion isn't a lucrative business and those "heroes" are "in it for the women".

Question: how many abortionists do you see driving a POS car?

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='05 February 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1265399007' post='2051668']
[u]The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u]

[b]365[/b] The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

[b]366[/b] The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.
[/quote]

Sorry, but that doesn't state when the soul enters the human body.

God creates the soul, not the parents, and God does so, at His will, whenever that may happen.

As I pointed out, we know that after conception, twining may occur. So, did God create two souls in one zygote or, did God create the souls after they became individual embryos?

No one knows and there are plenty who don't believe it is a person requiring protection, especially in the case of rape or medical necessity.

That's not what we as Catholics believe, and we have to understand that we have a secular government, which represents all the people, not just Catholics.

Jim

Edited February 5, 2010 by JimR-OCDS