When I heard about the shooting in Connecticut, and about the shooter, I thought, “That young man is a genius, and he learned well.”
For the past year, we have screamed, “Birth control! Birth control!” as though preventing the existence of children is the single most important concern of our lives. Oh, the assertion that contraceptives must be had or else women will be completely and utterly useless has been around for quite some time—about eighty years now. However, people have been particularly vocal about it recently. It does not matter why the discussion began anew or who began it. The assertion is clearly there, and it always has been: that preventing the existence of children is a wonderful thing and we are proud to be able to do it.
For the past fifty years, we have been saying that if we fail to prevent the existence of new human life, we should kill it; with certain restrictions, of course—the main one being that we can only do it if we have no sense of emotional attachment to aforementioned human life. We go so far as to call an unborn child a child when we want it and a “blob of tissue” when we don’t.
And if these new human individuals, these blobs of cells, happen to defy this attempt to make certain they are never born, we give them comfort rooms. We are proud of the fact that we helped them die among blankets and flowers, and conveniently ignore the fact that we did nothing to help them live. Some say that this doesn’t happen and no one wants that. Yet I have had long discussions with more than one individual who said that we should not put forth any effort to save infants who have survived abortions, even if they are viable. “Imagine the emotional trauma that would put a woman through, knowing that she wanted an abortion and it failed and the child is out there living in the world!” one woman said. Another man stated that it would be “too expensive” to try to save the infants “no one wants anyway”.
We told this mother that she should have killed her son before he was born, simply because he was born blind. We tell something similar to mothers whose children have Down Syndrome, and boast of the fact that about 80-95% of human individuals with Down Syndrome never see the light of day. I guess caring for them would be “too expensive”.
When we saw that two disabled adults had been in homes since they were ten, when we heard their mother say that they had no joy, we did not have the bright idea of trying to bring them some joy. Instead, 90% of us cried, “Yes! Kill them!” Many of us are advocating that we make it happen, legally and frequently. Why keep a human individual alive through “extraordinary measures” when it is cheaper to let them starve? Why put forth effort to bring them joy when we can prevent their suffering by killing them?
We are good at finding reasons not to want human individuals. We are equally good at doing mental gymnastics to prove that these reasons justify getting rid of these human individuals, or that they make it impossible for such human individuals to, in fact, be human individuals.
For a good half-century and longer, we have done just about everything in our power to prove—in word and deed—that we do not value the lives of human individuals…unless we happen to want them. And then we have the audacity to act surprised and horrified when one of our children comes along and actually puts that philosophy into practice.
That young man was a genius, and he learned well. He learned the lesson that we as a society have been preaching for so very long, and we are hypocrites if we condemn him for it. We are hypocrites and idiots if we tell a young man with a disorder that inhibits him from connecting to other human beings that it is wrong to kill them, and then turn around and argue we can kill other human beings because it is impossible to establish a connection with them*.
From Here
People are looking at the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook, and asking, “How could this happen? Why did this happen?” Some assert that it is the fault of guns. Others postulate that it happened because of violent video games. Still others accuse mental illness. I say that it is our fault. Your fault. My fault.
We did it.
It happened because we teach our children that the lives of human individuals do not matter and have no value, and we have proven via our actions that we stand by this belief.
It happened because we made it happen. Because we taught that it should.
And the only way to prevent it from happening again, is to change. Change the way we think about our fellow human beings. Begin valuing lives; not just the ones we naturally are inclined to want, but every human life. Every single one. Everywhere.
That young man was a genius, and he learned well. We have a great power to teach. Now, let’s change the lesson.
*I am NOT saying that those with Asberger's are naturally violent, or that it was autism that caused the shooter to do what he did. I am merely pointing out that he validly had the same excuse we use to defend ourselves: lack of empathy with those human individuals we want to kill.
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Value of Motherhood & Children
It was Margaret Sanger's birthday a few days ago, so she inevitably ended up on my facebook home page. Thus, in honor of the event (and in response to the facebook comments), I decided to read a bit of her work. While reading THIS, I came across a very surprising quote. After waxing eloquent on the harships of poverty and disease upon women, children, fathers, and society in general, Sanger ended with,
It sounds so very ennobling, which makes the irony all that more poignant. If Margaret Sanger did truly care about impoverished and unhealthy women, her vision for a better world has failed miserably.
Margaret Sanger did little in her life to actually alleviate poverty. She basically said that, "You are poor, you are diseased, and life sucks for you. At least it doesn't have to suck for the kids you don't have!" Her idea of helping those children already born into poverty was to kill them, as she so succintly stated when she said that, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Artificial Contraception has not helped our society to value motherhood. One need only go to a few comment pages on blogs about birth control, the HHS mandate...or anywhere, really...to see this. Both women and men freak out at the mere idea of getting pregnant and having children. I once had a discussion with a guy who called children "little leaches" and was thankful that his girlfriend was naturally sterile. More mild stances go along the lines of: "We decided not to have children because we discovered we were happy without them." One Mom was told that she was greedy to want more than two children. I know many mothers of "large" families who have been considered crazy for having more than one or two children...like my aunt who, upon walking through the store with her four children, was accosted by a woman who asked, "Are they all yours?" and, upon receiving an affirmative answer, said sincerely, "I am so sorry". Perhaps the most telling recent example is this familiar piece internet rhetoric:
The very idea of motherhood is likened to drowning!
I think that it is safe to say that motherhood is not valued highly in our society. Women (and men) are not being self-sacrificing. They have not sacrificed their mothering instincts, their love of mothers and children, for the sake of some noble statement and higher good. They have smothered these "instincts". They are happy without them. The "common good" has become the personal good. Children are more of a commodity than they have ever been; commodities and children are things to be had when you want them and discarded when you don't. And that is just the contraceptive (and abortive) mentality. Sanger did nothing to right the wrongs she saw in the world. She has, if anything, made them worse. Those who praise her for allowing and feeding society's lack of value for motherhood and children misunderstand her efforts. Those who agree with her assessment of poverty and disease had best find a better visionary...one who actually saw problems and decided to fix them.
"Shall [woman in general] say to society that she will go on multiplying the misery that she herself has endured? Shall she go on breeding children who can only suffer and die? Rather, shall she not say that until society puts a higher value upon motherhood she will not be a mother? Shall she not sacrifice her mother instinct for the common good and say that until children are held as something better than commodities upon the labor market, she will bear no more? Shall she not give up her desire for even a small family, and say to society that until the world is made fit for children to live in, she will have no children at all?" (emphasis is mine)
It sounds so very ennobling, which makes the irony all that more poignant. If Margaret Sanger did truly care about impoverished and unhealthy women, her vision for a better world has failed miserably.
Margaret Sanger did little in her life to actually alleviate poverty. She basically said that, "You are poor, you are diseased, and life sucks for you. At least it doesn't have to suck for the kids you don't have!" Her idea of helping those children already born into poverty was to kill them, as she so succintly stated when she said that, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Artificial Contraception has not helped our society to value motherhood. One need only go to a few comment pages on blogs about birth control, the HHS mandate...or anywhere, really...to see this. Both women and men freak out at the mere idea of getting pregnant and having children. I once had a discussion with a guy who called children "little leaches" and was thankful that his girlfriend was naturally sterile. More mild stances go along the lines of: "We decided not to have children because we discovered we were happy without them." One Mom was told that she was greedy to want more than two children. I know many mothers of "large" families who have been considered crazy for having more than one or two children...like my aunt who, upon walking through the store with her four children, was accosted by a woman who asked, "Are they all yours?" and, upon receiving an affirmative answer, said sincerely, "I am so sorry". Perhaps the most telling recent example is this familiar piece internet rhetoric:
The very idea of motherhood is likened to drowning!
I think that it is safe to say that motherhood is not valued highly in our society. Women (and men) are not being self-sacrificing. They have not sacrificed their mothering instincts, their love of mothers and children, for the sake of some noble statement and higher good. They have smothered these "instincts". They are happy without them. The "common good" has become the personal good. Children are more of a commodity than they have ever been; commodities and children are things to be had when you want them and discarded when you don't. And that is just the contraceptive (and abortive) mentality. Sanger did nothing to right the wrongs she saw in the world. She has, if anything, made them worse. Those who praise her for allowing and feeding society's lack of value for motherhood and children misunderstand her efforts. Those who agree with her assessment of poverty and disease had best find a better visionary...one who actually saw problems and decided to fix them.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Counting and Target Practice
I have been hearing lately that 98% of Catholics have used contraceptives...
Or maybe it was 98% of Catholics currently use contraceptives...
Or maybe it was 98% of Catholic women...
There was a lot of confusion surrounding the figures people were citing. They weren't sure what the numbers counted, but they counted something and the number was definitely 98. So I decided to do a bit of research, myself, and here is what I found:
The accusation is based on THIS STUDY. I read all of it, but you don't have to. let us just look at the chart. This chart tells us that 83% of the Catholic women interviewed use a type of contraceptive obviously condemned by the Catholic Church. 4% use "Other" (strange techniques also condemned by the Church). 11% admit to using no method at all, and only 2% claim Natural Family Planning. Get out your calculators now, people.

98% (what everyone keeps spouting) +
2% (NFP) +
11% (nothing at all)=
111%.
2% (NFP) +
11% (nothing at all)=
111%.
That's right. One hundred and eleven percent. Do you see something wrong here? In case you didn't catch it, the elevent percent of Nothing-Users were lumped together with the artificial contraceptive users. Last time I looked, "No Method" meant "No Method," not "Contraceptive." Therefore, based on the numbers of this study, one could at most conclude that 87% of Catholic women are currently using contraceptives.
Let us not forget the confusion surrounding what the numbers counted, though. Who, exactly, make up these numbers? Well, they are women. They are sexually active (i.e. had intercourse in the last three months). They are ages 15 to 44. They are not post-partum. They are not pregnant. They do not want to be pregnant. If that isn't clear enough, it's under chart three, under the supplementary chart, and in bold on page eight.
Furthermore, less than a third of these women take seriously
their Sunday obligation:
So who do the numbers not count?
Women who obey the Church by valuing children and so becoming pregnant.
Women who obey the Church by valuing children and being willing to become pregnant.
Women who obey the Church and practice chastity (continence).
Who do the numbers count?
A large number of women who don't go to Mass, disregard the Church's teaching on abstinence, and disregard the Church's teaching to be open to children.
Do you mean to say that "98%" of Catholics least likely to obey the Church's teaching on sexuality use contraception?!? They actually did a study for that?
....I see Captain Obvious is well employed.

....I see Captain Obvious is well employed.

When the Church preaches that we should be open to having children, and you are doing a study on the percentage of Catholics who adhere to Church teaching on the matter, it is more than a little fishy to exclude everyone willing to have children. Hint: the faithful Catholics were either pregnant or willing to become pregnant. Why? Because they are faithful.
"Yes, the study is targeted. But that's necessary. It's a study on contraceptive use, of course they are only going to study those women who need contraceptives!"
If this is what someone tells you--or if you are thinking this yourself--the point has been missed. Let me expound.
If I make the claim that 98% of computer users employ a mouse, I would not cite a study that only interviewed desktop users. Why? Because that study doesn't support my claim. It would only support my claim if my claim were, "98% of desktop users use a mouse" or "98% of an unknown fraction of computer users use a mouse."
Perhaps the Guttmacher institute had a reason for so restricting their study (riiight), but the fact remains that the claim "Catholic women don't follow the Church as regards contraceptives" is still a lie. 98% of Catholic women do NOT use artificial birth control. 98% of sexually active Catholic women who aren't pregnant, post-partum, and do not want to become pregnant, use artificial birth control.
Given that we do not know what fraction of sexually active Catholic women--much less Catholic women in general--actually met the requirements for the study, it is a very big leap to then say that the majority of the Church has accepted artificial birth control, and that the celibate heirarchy is just "catching up."
"98% of an unknown percent of sexually active women of an unknown percent of Catholic women" is not a very convincing premise, and it is the only premise the Guttmacher study gives us. It leaves out too many Catholics to give an accurate percent of our more rebellious sisters.
"Yes, the study is targeted. But that's necessary. It's a study on contraceptive use, of course they are only going to study those women who need contraceptives!"
If this is what someone tells you--or if you are thinking this yourself--the point has been missed. Let me expound.
If I make the claim that 98% of computer users employ a mouse, I would not cite a study that only interviewed desktop users. Why? Because that study doesn't support my claim. It would only support my claim if my claim were, "98% of desktop users use a mouse" or "98% of an unknown fraction of computer users use a mouse."
Perhaps the Guttmacher institute had a reason for so restricting their study (riiight), but the fact remains that the claim "Catholic women don't follow the Church as regards contraceptives" is still a lie. 98% of Catholic women do NOT use artificial birth control. 98% of sexually active Catholic women who aren't pregnant, post-partum, and do not want to become pregnant, use artificial birth control.
Given that we do not know what fraction of sexually active Catholic women--much less Catholic women in general--actually met the requirements for the study, it is a very big leap to then say that the majority of the Church has accepted artificial birth control, and that the celibate heirarchy is just "catching up."
"98% of an unknown percent of sexually active women of an unknown percent of Catholic women" is not a very convincing premise, and it is the only premise the Guttmacher study gives us. It leaves out too many Catholics to give an accurate percent of our more rebellious sisters.
Some people don't like to face the obvious, however, so no doubt when you mention those abstaining, someone is going to point to chart two...
...and say only 30% of never-married Catholics are abstaining. They will then try to tell you that the remaining 70% are included in chart three, and that 98% of the 70% of unmarried women therefore use contraceptives, which is still a high enough number to prove that most Catholic women don't listen to the Pope (or something along these lines.)
People like this are grasping. That 98% is a dearly loved figure that no one wants to let go of. The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that all 70% of never-married Catholic women fit the requirement for chart three. This may not be so. They may be willing to become pregnant. They may not be sexually active. Of, yes, Guttmacher says they are "sexually experienced," but that could mean they had sex only once in their lives. It does not necessarily follow that they are "sexually active." We don't know what fraction of this 70% meets the restrictions for chart three, so we cannot try to apply the figures in chart three to them. Note, also, that chart two describes them as "never-married," not "unmarried." We don't know the number of never-married Catholic women to all Catholic women, therefore making it an even bigger leap from "sexually experienced" to "the majority of Catholic women don't follow the Church's teaching on birth control."
People like this are grasping. That 98% is a dearly loved figure that no one wants to let go of. The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that all 70% of never-married Catholic women fit the requirement for chart three. This may not be so. They may be willing to become pregnant. They may not be sexually active. Of, yes, Guttmacher says they are "sexually experienced," but that could mean they had sex only once in their lives. It does not necessarily follow that they are "sexually active." We don't know what fraction of this 70% meets the restrictions for chart three, so we cannot try to apply the figures in chart three to them. Note, also, that chart two describes them as "never-married," not "unmarried." We don't know the number of never-married Catholic women to all Catholic women, therefore making it an even bigger leap from "sexually experienced" to "the majority of Catholic women don't follow the Church's teaching on birth control."
So next time someone comes to you and tells you that 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives, show them Guttmacher's target practice and teach them how to count. Be nice; anyone could have missed it, and we all know no one actually reads the studies they cite, anyway. Just thank God for this chance to instruct the ignorant.
Related articles:
http://www.phatmass.com/dust/98percent/
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics_exa_1.html
Related articles:
http://www.phatmass.com/dust/98percent/
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics_exa_1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






