Just a quick, snowy-Friday wrap-up of recent happenings.

Lefty blogger Spazeboy has responded to my guest post on same-sex “marriage” which he invited me to write. An editor at a national publication had this reaction to the exchange: “You pre-empted their rebuttal, but they didn’t notice or care.” Precisely.

Our liberal correspondent Simon, in a previous thread, states his belief that “All that you do is preach to the choir.” He should be happy to know, then, that in addition to guest-posting on Spazeboy I also took a side in the Both Sides: Underage Abortion feature appearing in today’s Hartford Courant.

On the Plan B front, the Stamford Advocate is apparently the only daily to cover yesterday’s news:

The General Assembly’s Human Services Committee yesterday passed legislation requiring hospitals, including Catholic ones, to offer emergency contraception to rape victims…

“The bill still has a long way to go, and I’d caution anybody on either side of rejoicing or getting too upset,” state Rep. Lile Gibbons, R-Greenwich, a ranking Republican on the Human Services Committee, said after the vote. “I honestly don’t know what’s going to happen to it.”

Reaction in the blogosphere has, of course, been more lively. Of all the comments I’ve seen, this is the one that left the biggest impression:

There are plenty of ways to resolve this situation without insulting my religion. Catholic Democrats must stand up to this obvious Catholic-bashing bill. Look at the hateful comments in this forum by those (I think) who are on my side of the aisle.

Remember when the same wackos tried to make Priests divulge what they heard in confession? Democrats in the Senate (Gaffey, Fonfara, Looney, Hartley, Crisco and Daily) fought against, and defeated, that effort.

Where are they now? We need them. We cannot have these anti-religious zealots represent our party.

38 Responses to “Spazeboy, Parental Notification and Plan B”

  1. on 16 Mar 2007 at 10:27 amchele


    What “national publication” are you referencing in your first paragraph?

    Is the Courant less worthy of your vitriol today because they not only gave you press but a photo too?

    This is interesting: “…the same wackos tried to make Priests divulge what they heard in confession? ”

    Is someone trying to make priests provide medical care which they are not licensed to perform?

  2. on 16 Mar 2007 at 12:04 pmSteve

    Peter – Regarding that pic – you don’t get offended at hair jokes, do ya?

    Chele – I did have a glass of wine this afternoon… Perhaps that’s why I don’t know what your point is.

  3. on 16 Mar 2007 at 4:09 pmSteve

    By the way Peter, you made a great case for parental notification, especially for such a short piece. Keep up the great work!

  4. on 16 Mar 2007 at 4:59 pmPeter

    Thanks, Steve. Regarding Chele’s second question, above–our opponents don’t get what we are and aren’t saying about bias at the Courant. I’ll try to address the media bias topic in more detail next week.

  5. on 16 Mar 2007 at 5:20 pmTrueBlueCT

    Hey, if being against the Dobsons, Donohue, Falwells, Robertsons and Bakers of this world somehow makes me an “anti-religious zealot”, then so be it.

    Frankly, religion doesn’t concern me that much. Basicaly I’m all for it, and accept it as basically a good thing, as long as there is religious freedom and tolerance for everyone.

    Where people like me do start pushing back is when the honest-to-goodness zealots, — meaning you fundies, — start to tell me how to live my life. If I side strongly with the majority in favor of sex education in our public schools, or in favor of a woman’s right to choose, (despite my distaste for abortions), it is only because you all are trying to enforce your minority opinions on the rest of us.

    Plus, I believe many of you are abusing religion for latent political purposes. Yeah, I’m talking about the Ralph Reeds of America. What I’d hope is that you’d advocate for your positions civilly, without bringing the church into the political realm. What you are doing is so damnably divisive, and bad for America.

    I know that you all think you are on the side of the light. I also realize you are so “caused out”, that you will never see my side. Fine. So be it. In the meantime I’m having fun laughing at you, and particularly at the harm you are doing to the Republican Party in New England.

    Honestly, when you back up a neanderthalic bishop, like Henry Mansell, who despite living in the 21st century, can somehow convince himself it’s a good thing not to help a raped woman avert an unwelcome pregnancy following a violent physical assault, … well, it just goes to show how out of touch and radically extreme the Christian Right has become. Who on earth believes their loved ones, if raped and impregnated, should have no choice but to have the rapist’s baby?

    Please, I beg you. Keep on keeping on. Because as long as you guys keep shouting and shrieking, the Repubs will continue their losing streak. Satellite church politicking just doesn’t go over well in New England.

  6. on 16 Mar 2007 at 8:48 pmBryce

    I have a what if question for us all to debate over. What if this horrid plan B bill passes and CATHOLIC hospitals are forced to give abortions. What would happen if the hospitals just shut down and closed their doors? Where would the rape victims go?
    TrueBlueCT if my daughter was ever raped, and impregnated she would have the rapists baby and either give it up for adoption, or raise it. Her “choice” would be for the greater glory of the true victim, the baby, and not herself.
    Please don’t jump down my throat, I think that rapists, pedophiles, sexual offenders should all be put in a boat never to been seen again.
    I don’t know how we can live in a world where people like these roam free, to find their next victim, to kill the innocence of the raped. To make women (and men) fear to walk alone, to just make this place we call home evil, just pure evil. It’s beyond me.
    But we also live in a state where you can go to jail for manslaughter if you beat a pregnant woman and kill her baby, but you can walk into a hospital and kill the baby yourself. Coming soon to a Catholic hopital near you, if Satan has his way.

  7. on 16 Mar 2007 at 10:37 pmJudy Aron

    TrueBlueCT – I am not a “Fundie” but I do have the sensibilities and tact that you obviously lack..

    You say:
    “If I side strongly with the majority in favor of sex education in our public schools, or in favor of a woman’s right to choose, (despite my distaste for abortions), it is only because you all are trying to enforce your minority opinions on the rest of us.”

    Yeah as if YOU aren’t trying to cram your version of how the world should be down everyone else’s throat.

    You are a hypocrite of the most dangerous kind. You sir are also what makes the Left so magnificently obnoxious and absolutely wrong and disrespectful. Unfortunately while you may laugh at others who do not share your world view I can only pity you. I cannot understand why you would bother to visit this blog except to ridicule those who do not share your point of view. How rude and sophomoric. You obviously like to talk about advocating a position in a civil way and yet you continue to taunt and namecall. Give it a rest already. Instead of hanging around here and spouting your hypocritical nonsense why don’t you do something useful like work in a soup kitchen or shovel your neighbors walk? You mock the people who are on the “side of light” only because you are on the side of “nothingness”.

    I may not share all the views of the FIC but I would not dare to belittle them or their beliefs. Is this part of the tolerance and diversity you Leftists keep preaching? Is this what you teach your own children? And you have the audacity to talk about being divisive? Shame on you.

  8. on 17 Mar 2007 at 8:20 amBryce

    Well said Judy.

  9. on 17 Mar 2007 at 10:12 ammatt

    Judy, the only point on which I differ radically from you is that I don’t think information is dangerous. People should be free to know anything and everything, regardless of whether we think it’s a good thing or not. Contraceptives, homosexuality, abortion, different religious beliefs, everything.

    Yes, many of us think those who just want to put the genie back in the bottle and pretend none of those things exist are foolish or ignorant. Just know that no one wants to force you to be or partake in any of those things — only that our ability to know of, discuss, or live lifestyles different than the one you’ve chosen should never be inhibited by law.

  10. on 17 Mar 2007 at 11:05 amTrueBlueCT


    If Brian Brown was in earnest, and not a demagogue of the most dangerous kind, I wouldn’t bother showing up here. But Brian isn’t operating in the service of God, he’s abusing religion for a latent political agenda.

    Fundamentalism is scary, whether it’s the Taliban or the rabid Christian Right. So I believe I’m doing my duty as an American to both monitor and marginalize such an extremist group such as the FIC.

    P.S. Yes, I’m having fun doing it.

    P.P.S. I’ll try my best to be more civil in the future. It’s just that I had an ex-girlfriend who was a survivor, and the anti-woman ideology coming from Plan B’s opponents gets under my skin.

  11. on 17 Mar 2007 at 1:06 pmJudy Aron

    trueBlueCT – Yup – the Taliban is scary – just as scary as Communists and Socialists who ban religious freedom all together .

    ok – I can accept civil discourse when it is civil… name calling and mocking has no business in discussion of these topics even if they are passionate issues.

    Your duty as an American is to engage in debate – it serves no purpose to be hateful and obnoxious. So let’s engage in proper debate.

    You don’t agree with Brian and he clearly does not agree with you. Fine.. but the issue as to whether Catholic hospitals should be able to offer certain care over other protocol is what we ought to be intelligently discussing.. not who is a wacko, wingnut or other epithet.

    Do you know of one instance at all where a Catholic hospital’s care resulted in a woman having an unwanted pregnancy due to rape? I don’t.

    Do you know of one instance at all where a Catholic hospital did not give proper emergency care? I don’t.

    So the only issue that I see here is the state forcing an institution – and a private one at that – to give care in a manner that the private institution disagrees with. That’s state control – Fascism – is that what you are advocating TrueBlueCT?

  12. on 17 Mar 2007 at 2:23 pmTrueBlueCT



    1) I’d love to see a poll of Catholics. “If a woman is raped, and goes to the St. Francis emergency room, should a pill which would prevent a pregnancy be made promptly available?” My guess is that 90% of Catholics would say yes, please do whatever is possible to prevent her from having to bear the rapist’s baby. So I don’t see how anyone can fairly characterize the Plan B bill as being anti-Catholic. What it is anti-authoritarianism, and frankly if the RC hierarchy is going to be in the hospital business they ought to be more responsive to your average lay Catholic.

    2) I stand by my assertion that anyone who wouldn’t want to administer Plan B following a rape is putting their ideology over commonsense. I appreciate Bryce’s opinion, and he is free to try enforce it upon his wife and daughter. I would never try to involve myself in his domestic affairs. But his statement that he would want his daughter to have the rapist’s baby is a far out opinion. I wonder what his daughter would say about the matter.

    3) I hear your point about there not being a huge number of CT women who have become pregnant via rape following treatment at a Catholic hospital. But this is like arguing that black people won’t go hungry if some diners refuse to serve them. My feeling is that a hospital isn’t much different from a restaurant, hotel or retail outlet, — in that they are pretty much in the business of accomodating the public. For that reason, yes, I believe they should put the public first. And again I dare say that public opinion is 95% plus that everything possible should be done to prevent a pregnancy when a woman is physically raped.

    4) Certainly you too believe in the public regulation of private institutions. Planned Parenthood is a private institution, but even they are governed by state laws and not free to do whatever they want. So in my book this argument that you can’t require anything of a Catholic hospital, (without it being the end of the world), … well, it’s a bunch of hoo-ey.

    Anyway, sorry if I got too hot. And please understand that I first posted here after Brian and Peter started quoting things I said on another blog. They have basically invited the dissension, and yet I agree that as blog hosts they have been exceedingly polite, and I shall try to reciprocate the civility.

  13. on 17 Mar 2007 at 5:39 pmDave

    I applaud the return to civility in our debates. Perhaps that, at least, is one thing we can agree upon despite all the other issues where we disagree!

  14. on 17 Mar 2007 at 7:05 pmmatt

    TBCT, actually it appears from past conversations that Judy actually doesn’t support the regulation of private institutions.

    If we could raise half the cost of putting a poll in the field with a question like you ask above, I wonder if the FIC would be interested in chipping in?

  15. on 18 Mar 2007 at 7:43 amopal

    Dear True Blue,

    I pray for you and your type. I have very close family who survived rape and kept the baby. This child of rape-gang rape at that-has grown up to be the most thoughtful young woman. When her mother finally had the breakdown mentally and emotionally that had been boiling up for so many years, it was her daughter who sat with her everyday in the hospital and her daughter (the by product of said rape) that took her home and cared for after having a mental breakdown. If Amanda had been aborted in “retribution” for a crime that she had not committed, Mom would not have had the love she needed after her emotional breakdown. She would have been alone.

    Secondly, as a devout Catholic, I choose not to pay for someone else to murder their own child-but the government makes me. That is an infringement on my liberties. I would choose not to allow my children to hear about sex when they should be playing at hopscotch, but the government would overrule me on that one too, if I allowed my kids to step foot in a public school. That is another infringement. As a devout Catholic, I don’t want my kids to know about homosexuality, until I am ready to explain it (even though all of my friends from highschool are gay and they are still my friends) but the government says that my kids need to hear this (at least according to the 9th circuit court). That is another infringement of my religious freedom. Apparently, the only ones who have true religious liberty in this country are those who have no religion.


  16. on 18 Mar 2007 at 11:02 amConnecticut Bob

    I have a question.

    The entire issue of Plan B is opposed by the people on this blog because of a section in the manufacturer’s notes that says something to the effect that it MAY contribute to a fertilized egg not attaching to the womb, thereby technically being a chemical abortion, is that how you see it?

    So let me ask you this. There are literally HUNDREDS of prescription medications that are routinely administered by both Catholic and secular ERs on a daily basis that may adversely affect a pregnancy, right? So if a woman who is unknowingly pregnant comes into the ER after suffering an accident, and she is given some sort of medication like a strong painkiller that causes her to lose the pregnancy, is THAT just cause to require testing of women for possible pregnancies BEFORE they are given necessary medication?

    Because you know, there absolutely have to have been circumstances where Catholic ERs unknowingly caused an abortion through normal medical practices. Especially in that extremely early stage before the egg has successfully implanted itself.

    So given your rational that requiring ERs to provide Plan B is the same as providing abortions, your hospitals have already been in the abortion business for decades.

  17. on 18 Mar 2007 at 12:51 pmRobin

    dittos, Holly…

    High Five!

    “Diversity” and “sensitivity”…being “open-minded toward other points of view” applies to all BUT practicing Christians these days…

    “Children’s rights” apply to all but the unborn child.

    Corporal punishment of children is proclaimed as abusive and blamed for making kids violent, while parents sit and watch their undisciplined children rule the household and learn violence from those who proclaim a woman’s right to choose to murder a helpless child in the womb.

    And now the religious beliefs that adhere to the beliefs of our forefathers, where all should have the right to life, liberty and happiness, are squelched so that women can be “raped” again with abortifacient chemicals at the expense of those who know the truth and vehemently oppose this practice.

    Thanks for sharing that great story, Holly. We must pray for your friend and her daughter — shining examples of true love for one’s fellow man.

  18. on 18 Mar 2007 at 2:09 pmBryce

    Catholic Hospitals, are Catholic Hospitals…Therefore they are indeed a private institution, they do recieve state money, as does planned parent hood. So let rape victims go to planned parent hood for the abortions, and let them go to the Catholic hospitals for “care”. They can recieve the primary care from the hospital, and therapy the need from surviving a rape. If they want to go kill their baby afterwards they can head down to planned parenthood. If they want to do the more sacraficial optinon they can save the baby, and have it. Why should the child suffer for the sins of the father? I know you won’t see my point, but that is what makes America great, I can have my opinion, you can have yours, and we can debate on who’s right and who’s wrong.
    I unfortunantly agree with you in the fact that the number of “Cathoilics” would agree that a pill should be provided to abort the baby of rape. The Catholic church has remained silent for to long, that is why we find ourself in this current morally depressing situtation.
    Now to get rid of “civility” for a while. My wife and daughter wouldn’t have the chance to be raped, due to the fact that I don’t let them out of the house without me by thier side. My wife knows to shoot anyone that breaks into the house, and I have a loud blood thirsty dog. The UPS man never comes down my drive, nor does Satan. I don’t have a T.V. and I don’t allow my wife to go online. She is “supressed”, she is indeed pregnant in the kitchen, fetching me a beer, and is barefoot. Or so you “left” wingers make the “homeschool” mothers out to be.
    My wife is the Queen of the house, I am the King, our children are the loyal subjects. We heve been married for three years now, and are currently on our 3rd child within three years. We were chaste up until marriage. Abstinence works. God has blessed us. She is treated like “fine china”, and I am your everyday ware. She has a college education, as do I, and she is a stay at home mom. We are more concerned on raising saints, and not Satanists.
    O.k we can return to civility.
    By the way if you insult my wife or daughter again, I will ask for you to be taken off the blog. I consider it a threat to my household. You can make fun of me, and my fellow right wingers, but please leave my family out of it. I forgive you. Please don’t do it agian.

  19. on 18 Mar 2007 at 5:05 pmTrueBlueCT

    Sorry Bryce–

    I looked back to try and see where I insulted your wife and daughter, and I couldn’t find it. (Was it where I suggested your daughter might have her own opinions?)

    Anyway, my apologies.

    P.S. I think you miss the whole point of the argument here. No one is saying that the RC hospitals should be in the abortion business. The Compassionate Care Law would just require every CT emergency room to offer Plan B, as a contraceptive, with the idea that a rape victim could avoid a possible pregnancy and potential abortion dilemma.

    Does contraception=abortion according to your belief system?

  20. on 18 Mar 2007 at 7:19 pmJudy Aron

    TrueBlueCT: You said “I hear your point about there not being a huge number of CT women who have become pregnant via rape following treatment at a Catholic hospital. But this is like arguing that black people won’t go hungry if some diners refuse to serve them.”

    huh? no it isn’t.. because women still receive a protocol of treatment at a Catholic hospital – they are not being refused service. Blacks were refused service period.

    In this case a woman is given a different protocol then what you want her to receive – that’s like a person being able to order dessert in a restaurant but everything except pie is being offered. Should be able to demand that they have pie on the menu even when they already offer other types of dessert?

    Should we also make Kosher restaurants offer pork? After all they must be able to serve people who eat and desire pork. Right?

    Sorry – If the Catholic hospitals offered absolutely NO protocol for rape victims then I would see your point… but catholic hospitals have their own rape protocol – just not the one you happen to want/like. I don’t think that it is right to force them to offer specific care that is against their doctrines, otherwise how can it be a Catholic hospital? Would you prefer to close down institutions because of their religious doctrine? That’s precisely what they did in Massachusetts with adoption services. That was a tragedy, because they did very fine work for many people. Now what is offered is even more limited.

    I think we lose a great deal in society when we try to mandate to religious institutions, and other private institutions, what they can and cannot do. In my book that is Fascism, and in this case it eliminates choice for people who want care based in religious doctrine.

  21. on 19 Mar 2007 at 5:21 ammatt

    It may be gauche of me to mention this, but individuals have rights, and buildings do not.

    IMHO, our cultural dialog is debased when we (rhetorically) bestow qualities of personhood upon things which are not people.

    Interestingly, if those lobbying on behalf of the hospitals accepted the compromise of allowing non-christian or outside counselors to provide EC, you could actually advance the cause of doctors and pharmacists who refuse treatment based on their own religious beliefs (currently a gray-area of the law). By refusing to compromise, and debating from the perspective that the hospitals have civil rights that supersede those of rape victims seeking treatment, you actually help set precedents that you will regret in the long-term.

  22. on 19 Mar 2007 at 7:09 amSteve

    True Blue,

    This is getting a bit wearisome.

    Again. Life begins at conception. Plan B can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Please go and read Plan B’s website – or even the testimony of Dr. Frank Davidoff when he spoke at the public hearing in favor of the law. Citing the latest studies, even he unwittingly demonstrates that Plan B can act as an abortifacient. See our discussion:

    It has been discussed, ad nauseum, that the catholic church already dispenses Plan B in cases where a woman has been raped and is not yet pregnant. In cases where a woman might be pregnant, the church would rather not administer a drug that might kill a baby. How hard is this to understand?

    Either you’re being dishonest or you’re not paying attention.

  23. on 19 Mar 2007 at 7:56 amSteph

    Does contraception=abortion according to your belief system?

    Yes, it does. If you have a contraceptive mentality then you have an abortion mentality. If you have an abortion mentality then life is not sacred, any life.

    Many people chose Catholic hospitals because they are Catholic, therefore hold the same beliefs. If you don’t hold the beliefs of the Catholic Church, don’t go to a Catholic hospital. One of the benefits of living in the U.S. and NOT having government mandated healthcare, you are free to choose where to go.

  24. on 19 Mar 2007 at 9:40 amSteve

    Another thought…

    Given good Dr. Davidoff’s testimony that Plan B is “almost” never effective after ovulation & fertilization, wouldn’t it make more sense for all hospitals to adopt a similar protocol to the Catholic hospitals’? If it doesn’t work, why use it?

  25. on 19 Mar 2007 at 9:42 amBryce

    To answer your question, does Contraception=Abortion in my belief system, indeed it does. The Catechism states:
    2370-Periodic continence, that is methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use if in-fertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of their spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, purposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
    Holy Mother Church teaches natural family planning, (the self-observation method) is to be used in GRAVE situations only. The only GRAVE situation for NFP to be used is if there is risk of death to the mother, if she had troubles on her previous pregnancy where her death was certain if she did indeed become pregnant again. Then NFP could be used. The unfortunate reality is that “Catholics” are using NFP for all the wrong reasons. They are using it as a form of contraception, and they consider GRAVE situations to be influenced by money, prestige, education, or their job. This is not inline with the actual teachings of the magestirum. Also NFP can be used if a woman is infertile and has been unsuccessful in conceiving. Once again there are people that use it to get pregnant faster because they feel an incredible guilt for using contraception previous to their conversion. Guilt is black grace, and when used properly, people should trust in God alone, and not do what they think God intends for them to do.
    You see TBCT the “intrinsically evil” part is a bad thing, a sin, as well as abortion, which is another “intrinsically evil” part of society. So as far as the belief system of the Catholic Church, the equation should be, Contreception+Abortion=Excommunication

  26. on 19 Mar 2007 at 10:24 ammatt

    Uh, Steve – because the egg takes at least 24 hours, and more generally 60-80 hours, to be fertilized after ejaculation.

    That’s why the policy is BS. Because the hospitals aren’t testing that sperm met egg, just declaring the ovulating but very-likely-still-unpregnant woman to be “pregnant” on zero scientific evidence.

    Not only is it an ignorant policy, it also is an UNBELIEVABLY callous and cruel thing to make a victim think she’s pregnant with her rapist’s child when she (most likely, assuming she appears at the ER within 24-36 hours) is not. If you knew any survivors, you would understand why this is by no definition “compassionate.”

  27. on 19 Mar 2007 at 1:04 pmConnecticut Bob

    Hmm…nobody answered my question from yesterday (comment 16). Did you all have trouble understanding what I was asking? I’ll be happy to clarify it if you want me to.

  28. on 19 Mar 2007 at 1:14 pmSteve

    Matt – I can see your point about the timing, but after thinking about your answer, my thought is that I don’t think it would matter even if there were a test for “sperm met egg.” Fertilization could occur in the interim, waiting for the drug to take effect. (Unless I’m mistaken, such a test doesn’t exist anyway.) I don’t think that better science would help the situation unless we could be certain of stopping fertilization before it occurs in these cases. Thus, I also don’t think that Plan B could be administered even with a negative “sperm met egg” test if the woman is ovulating. Hence, it seems to me that what Catholic hospitals are doing is the best available choice.

  29. on 19 Mar 2007 at 2:02 pmSteph

    Do you really want an answer to your question? I’m thinking not… but…
    Most hospitals, at least the ones I’ve been in, ask for date of last period and if it’s not known will run a pregnancy test before doing risky testing or giving risky meds.

  30. on 19 Mar 2007 at 3:33 pmBryce

    To my above post this is only my interpretation of the Catechism, and not the offical stand on th Catholic Church. I’m sorry if I have offended anyone. Once again this is my belief system…

  31. on 19 Mar 2007 at 6:47 pmchele


    What IS the official stand of the Catholic Church?

    What made you offer that disclaimer at 3:33?

  32. on 20 Mar 2007 at 6:26 ammatt


    Directive 36, which allows intervening prior to fertilization.

    An inconvenient truth, as they say.

  33. on 20 Mar 2007 at 6:59 amSteve

    Yes Matt. The Church does indeed frown upon taking lives at any stage of development, born or unborn. A most inconvenient truth for many, it would seem.

  34. on 20 Mar 2007 at 4:31 pmchele


    So all women’s ova, fertilized or not, are subject to the Roman Catholic church?

    Ultimately then, the Catholics lay claim to women’s reproductive systems from birth onwards.

  35. on 20 Mar 2007 at 5:41 pmBryce

    The reference I was making Contraception=Abortion was wrong. I was told by a little birdie that I was false in my understanding of the question at hand. The ruling is:
    “The Church does not equate contraception as equal to abortion. The Catholic hospitals are actually allowed by the Preoria Protocol to administer contraception to rape victims based on the principle of double effect.. One takes a human life and one unnaturally stops a human life from being created”.
    So that answers the question. I was wrong in equating the two as equal. The Church does teach that contraception is against the Catechism as I stated earlier. I was just arrogant in my ways of trying to answer the question put forth by TBCT. But the Church is against both contraception and abortion. I didn’t want to harm our cause by putting forth false information. I am willing to admit when I am wrong. But I do stand by what I said as my belief system. Once again sorry if I lead anyone astray I will try not to do it again.

  36. on 20 Mar 2007 at 8:49 pmchele

    Wow Bryce, they sure come down hard on you guys when you stray from their message, don’t they?

    Plan B is contraception.

    Catholic hospitals will not give it to a rape victim if she is ovulating. The odds are that the egg has not been fertilized in the short time following her rape, but the Catholic hospital refuses to give Plan B, which would prevent the fertilization.

    Therefore, they are refusing to give contraception.

  37. on 21 Mar 2007 at 5:16 amSteve


    If the “odds are” that the egg has not been fertilized, then you’ve conceded the fact that it’s also possible that it has been.

    The more I talk to you guys, the more I’m convinced that you’re not interested in facts. I’ve said it before – it seems you’re on a mission but in search of a reason.

  38. on 28 Mar 2007 at 7:37 pmknight errant


    You really seem to be anti-woman! You would favor traumatizing a poor rape victim who was violated, to be violated again through either chemical or physical abortion. My goodness, your misogynistic attitude must be rooted in some deep psychological trauma.

    It doesn’t seem complicated really. THE BABY THAT IS CONCEIVED DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME!

    I am all for punishing the rapist severely – no problem with that, but leave the poor little child alone huh!

    I will pray for you.

Leave a Reply