“Being a Woman” Is Bad Without Big Government. #WarOnWomen

You cannot make this sort of stuff up, folks, because no one would believe you.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services tweeted this comment from the President of the United States:

 

Yes: Democrats believe that without a massive government program being a woman is a “pre-existing condition.” Womanhood is a disease you cannot shake. Femininity turns out to be a disability.

Talk about a war on women? This is an assault on womanhood itself: declaring being a woman tantamount to having cancer or a genetic disorder.

Absolutely disgusting, utterly patronizing, and wholly degrading.

The president better lookout if he doesn't want to catch what *she* has...

The president better lookout if he doesn’t want to catch what *she* has…

33 thoughts on ““Being a Woman” Is Bad Without Big Government. #WarOnWomen

  1. Teep Schlachter says:

    To Joseph, I think what Mr. Crowe is saying, and Tom correct me if I’m off here, is that Sebellius’ rhetoric is just the kind of thing that is misrepresentative of womanhood. While it is a fact that health insurance providers have routinely charged more for women’s health care than for men’s in the past, this is not, by definition, treating womanhood as a preexisting condition. Men pay more for car insurance than women because of the statistics that, on average, men drive more dangerously, i.e., they get in more accidents on average. Similarly, women, on average, make more use of health insurance because there are more medical expenses built into motherhood and menopause than in fatherhood. Now, it can be argued whether this is simply an unavoidable fact or a standards of care issue, but this is the market reason for why insurance charged more prior to the Obamacare mandate. Is it necessarily immoral or unjust that women make more use of the healthcare system and, therefore, cost more? How is that not a standard of care question as opposed to this weird rhetoric of “NO!!! WOMEN AND MEN ARE THE SAME,” a Feminist scream into the abyss that seems to be winning. Through the egalitarian feminist ill-logic, to somehow treat women differently, because well, they are different from men, is tantamount to saying that what’s really going on is that women are being treated as diseases. In point of fact, what the feminist illogic does is treat the idea of femininity as a disease to be snuffed out and replaced with its radical egalitarianism.

    1. GREG SMITH says:

      Tep – There is a VAST difference between auto insurance and health insurance. ~ Greg

    2. Teep says:

      Greg,
      No doubt there is. I don’t dispute that. I only mention it because the market logic falls along similar lines. I don’t intend to equate cars with people. Persons are not utile things, granted. My point is precisely that I think the egalitarian argument still treats women as things, not as persons, precisely because it reduces the issue to one of material cost.

  2. Joseph says:

    As a conservative Catholic, I largely disagree with much this administration has done & said. But this article is a gross misrepresentation of what Ms. Sebelius tweeted. It is plainly clear that what President Obama meant is that insurance companies (and those that oppose Obamacare) regard women’s health issues as no different than a pre-existing health condition; and that now, due to the implementation of the health care changes, women will no longer be viewed as such.

    I don’t believe the president’s assertion to be true, but I am not going to distort his words in order to vilify him unnecessarily.

    If you really want to rally support for the cause of Catholics (and, really, the liberty of all Americans)you are best served by avoiding this petty game of sensationalism. Our side lost points today because of this article.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Joseph— Which “women’s health issues” might they mean in making that determination? (And no, it is not “plainly clear.”)

    2. Chris says:

      Joseph, what are you talking about? I don’t understand you. This is clearly a disgusting case of Obama using women for political purposes. It is shameful.

      1. jgbech says:

        Chris, I would argue that the larger “tent” for women’s health and social issues is not the GOP tent!

        I am a Republican in transit, today Charlie Crist, who was my Republican Governor said at a rally he and I paraphrase, he “fely a breath of fresh air when he entered the Democrat larger tent”.

        There are unfortunately two tents that are declining… the Teaparty controlled GOP and the church. Cardinal Martini of Milan Italy said on his death bed that thew Catholic Church was 300 years behind the times. Hush!

    3. ann says:

      I agree with Joseph. Please let us not take every comment made and twist it to make a point. There is enough clear comments to support the positions.

    4. Richard Johnson Wang says:

      Thank Joseph, I think the meaning of Obama’s statement went over the author’s head. Which is fine, but he should be mindful of that before writing articles about such things

  3. jgbech says:

    I have never tweeted. I don’t get it! Another negative blog against the president? You appear hell-bent on destroying the president. No wonder we have a political process that defies understanding. Those in political power that refuse to compromise should have their careers ended. The country can no longer survive less.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      jgbech— do you approve of what the President said here? Do you also believe that being a woman is a preexisting condition without a big government program?

      1. jgbech says:

        Tom. I have been through the mill with the church when it came to survival of my first wife.
        Women, without question, have been relegated to a lower status in life and in church life and in most other religions.
        My first wife and my family were faced with a major decision. She could not survive another pregnancy. The church decied for me that the fetus was primary. Thats when I left.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          jgbech— While a testimony that could launch a thousand conversations, how is all of that relevant to what the President said?

          1. Larry says:

            Tom, I believe jgbech answered your question with crystal clarity. Women have been suppressed in society and within the Catholic Church from day one. Suggesting that a woman risk her life for the sake of her fetus is a gross suppression of women; all women. I applaud jgbech and his first wife for leaving a church that defiles women while claiming the opposite.

          2. jgbech says:

            Tom, I thought I made my point when I felt the church treated my first wife with disregard to the fact that her life was threatened. They deny that their only focus is the fetus and procreation. That’s what we faced during a crisis.

          3. Slats says:

            Jgbech, in spite of any protestations Larry might make to the contrary, you have not made the content of your life situation with your first wife clear. In another thread, you were talking about how a priest (not necessarily “the Church”) told you that you couldn’t use contraception (or, presumably, sterilization) to prevent your ill wife from becoming pregnant. In that thread, you seemed very concerned and upset about the trouble “celibacy” (i.e., being asked to abstain from relations with your wife) caused you. In this thread, you are making reference to “the fetus,” which implies there was a pregnancy after all, *after* your conversations with the priest about contraception. Had there been a life-threatening pregnancy beforehand, since you said here that “the Church saying that ‘the fetus is primary,’” i.e., the pregnancy situation, is what made you leave, it hardly follows that you would have been chatting with the priest about contraception afterward. However, that doesn’t seem to fit well with what you were saying in the first thread.

            In my efforts to reconcile your two statements, it seems that there are two plausible scenarios of what happened with your first wife:

            1) Your wife had a situation of illness and poor health in which she was told by her doctor that another pregnancy could kill her. You approached your priest for advice, and he told you that you could not use contraception or get sterilized. On the basis of this conversation, you chose to leave the Church. If this scenario is true, I misinterpreted your comments about “the fetus was primary,” because there was no fetus.

            2) You had the aforementioned conversation with the priest. You were disheartened, but chose to try to follow Church teaching. Your wife became pregnant, and was told urgently by the doctors that she would not survive the pregnancy and needed to procure an abortion. The priest told you that you couldn’t do that, and however the pregnancy may have turned out, you chose to leave the Church, not on the basis of the pregnancy’s outcome for your wife, but on the basis of that second conversation with the priest.

            I hope it is clear why one would reasonably conclude from what you have posted here and on the earlier thread that one of these two scenarios is the case.

            I would like to engage your comments on this further, but I would prefer in charity not to say anything more without knowing which of the two scenarios was the case, or if I have completely misinterpreted what you have posted and something entirely different took place. What is your story? I acknowledge that I intuit that your first wife has since passed away, and that that must have been very painful for you. It does not seem to have been her passing itself that caused you to leave the Church, but rather how the priest involved applied the Church’s teaching to her situation prior to her death. It does not seem that the priest’s direction led to the death of your wife, but rather that you chose not to follow his counsel and thus left the Church prior to any situation that led to her passing, so that Church teaching did not contribute to her death. However, it does seem that the pain of her loss has a lot to do with how you approach and apply this situation to current arguments, and I am trying to reverence and respect that. Your pain is real.

            I will wait for until Tuesday morning to see if you reply to this, and I will respond to what you have to say there. If you choose not to respond, I do feel in conscience that I will have to go ahead and post a reply to what you have posted thus far based on the two possible scenarios above. I think it comes out a lot fairer to you if you tell your story first, but that’s your choice. My whole point here is to engage what you have asserted about right and wrong (which, in my humble opinion, undeniably requires an answer) while at the same time attempting to respect the heartache and tragedy surrounding that situation with your first wife.

        2. Rachel Propes says:

          JGBech–so stay the heck off of a Catholic site!!! I mean, REALLY I am so exhausted with trolls!!! Your post has NOTHING to do with the threaded issue.

          1. jgbech says:

            Rachel, my poignant revalation is spot on with the thread. Carolyn’s health was not primary in the church. The war on women was more than apparent.

          2. GREG SMITH says:

            RACHAEL – Calm down. The man shared with us he lost his wife. Where is your Christian charity?

            Attacking him worn’t bring him back to the Church. Only gentle love and compassion will.

            Pax tecum, Greg

        3. Larry says:

          jgbech, good for you.

        4. Slats says:

          Addressing Jgbech, part 1 – Jgbech, in this case, as in several others, you have seen fit not to reply to my posts. I see three possibilities as to why this is: 1) you weren’t comfortable engaging what I had to say for whatever reason, or 2) you found me beneath contempt, or 3) there is an internet principle of “tldr” – “too long, didn’t read” – that the commentary was just too long to merit even being read. Since you are old enough to have been married in the ‘60s, and since this website covers serious issues such that “tldr” would be a sign of immaturity, I will assume that this *isn’t* why you haven’t replied. However, for your sake and those of others, I am breaking my responses to what you’ve written up into multiple posts.

        5. Slats says:

          Addressing Jgbech, part 2 – Firstly, I suggested that there were two possible scenarios to be derived from what you had posted, one in which you left the Church after being told by a priest that you couldn’t use contraception (and possibly sterilization) to prevent what would be a life-threatening pregnancy for your wife, and the other in which there was an actual life-threatening pregnancy involved. The confusion resulted from your statement that “The Church (decided) for me that the fetus was primary.” To take your comment in good faith implied that there was an actual pregnancy at some point. However, in re-reading the rest of what you have posted here, it appears that that is not the case, so it seems safe to conclude we’re looking at the first scenario I mentioned.

          So let’s look at that synthetic assertion that the Church said that “the fetus” was more important than your wife’s life. While other questions arise in the case of actual, dangerous pregnancies, that’s not the issue here. You are setting up a straw man here of the priest saying something like, “Oh, no, your wife’s life and health don’t matter here. What’s important is that the Church wants her to have another child! Won’t that be great – I know that the baby machine will be used up – I, I mean that your wife will be dead, but hey, the pregnancy might be far enough along that the baby will survive, and we’ll get a nice, shiny new Catholic out of your wife’s sacrifice.”

          Jgbech, that’s absurd. It strains reason to propose that the priest was telling you that you had to attempt to have another child. If nothing else, the priest had to be a smart enough guy to know that if your wife died early in the pregnancy that the child would die too, and hopefully you’re a smart enough guy not to attribute that to him. Now, there were some priests prior to Vatican II who would argue that married couples had to assay pregnancy after pregnancy without regard to any evident risks that might arise, and it is possible that your priest said this, but that’s not what you said he said. If he did say it, then it was wrong, and I’m sorry that happened to you, but once again, I don’t gather that that is what he told you. In any event, no mainstream, faithful-to-the-last-three-popes priest in North America would tell you that within the past 20 years or so, so even if your priest back in the ‘60s or some other priest told you that a long time ago, it wouldn’t pertain to the current discussion. Context matters! That means that your “the Church says (now, as opposed to what some marginal priest may have said in the past) that the fetus is primary over my wife’s life” is a case of bad-faith straw-manning. There was no real “fetus,” and there was no hypothetic fetus (“the Church” wasn’t asking you to have another child, and I’ll bet the individual priest wasn’t either). Rather, your statement is a rhetorical brickbat you are using to bludgeon the Church in this discussion. Furthermore, let’s say there was a “fetus,” that your wife did became pregnant. That human being in your wife’s womb, regardless of risks to her, is appropriately referred to by her husband, not as “the fetus,” but rather “my son or daughter.” The use of term “the fetus” is a self-justifying verbal and moral gymnastic. More on that later.

        6. Slats says:

          Addressing Jgbech, part 3 – What the priest was on the other hand saying to you was that it would be wrong (“mortally sinful”) for you to use contraception or sterilization to prevent your wife from getting pregnant. That’s accurate. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other reasons for the marital act, nor does it mean that every marital act has to result in a child or the deliberate attempt to co-create a child, but it does mean that the procreative and unitive ends of the marital act cannot licitly be separated. He wasn’t trying to control you personally. He wasn’t trying to impose heavy burdens. He was just giving you needed information about what was right and wrong, information about how your actions one way or another in your current situation would affect your relationship with God, information which you could then take or leave. Does that lead to the logical conclusion that, to obey Church teaching and God’s law, your wife had to kill herself attempting to have another child? Of course not. Rather, if 1) you can’t use contraception or sterilization to avoid pregnancy, and 2) if another pregnancy would almost certainly kill your wife, and 3) since the rhythm method at that time was ineffective and NFP had not yet been refined, then the clear solution was to refrain from marital relations – at least until such time as your wife reached menopause.

          And this would not at all have even begun to be too much to ask, nor too difficult to figure out. Marital relations are ordered to the procreation of children, and marital relations involving a wife in her fertile times conceive children, so if a pregnancy would kill your wife, then it would not be a very loving conjugal action to ask her to engage in marital relations. Actually, since contraception has a failure rate, even had the priest made the sinister decision to tell you to “follow your conscience,” it wouldn’t have been very loving on your part to request relations with your wife even if contraception was involved!

          I know abstinence was a major issue for you, because you raised it in a prior discussion about same-gender relations and marriage. You said that “most people are not called to be celibate,” but it became clear that while the word celibate means the state of not being married, you were repetitively using it to mean genitally continent, even while allowing that genital activity should be carried out in a committed relationship. You were concluding that the obvious (and radically unproblematic) solution of not having relations with your first wife was asking you to be “celibate,” and that it was unreasonable or wrong. As I responded to you then, everyone is called to sexual responsibility vis-à-vis others. Given the imprudence of having relations with your wife, did you have a right to relations with her? Well, arguably so (1 Cor. 7:1-7), but it seems that she had a greater right not to have her life put in jeopardy, and that compassion, charity, and care would require you not to assert those conjugal rights, even to the point that it would be sinful for you to do so. If you chose not have relations with her, did you have a right to masturbate, to misuse your sexual powers and make solitary use of another person (such as your wife) in fantasy? No, that’s wrong. Did you have the right to go out and engage in genital activity with other persons? No, that’s wrong. Many men come to a point in their marriages in which there is a long period in which their wives are unwilling or unable to engage in relations, often due to medical conditions. Some of these issues can and should be resolved by addressing the situation medically, or with therapy or marriage counseling, but some medical conditions can end all marital relations between spouses in ways that certainly render that 1 Cor 7:1-7 moot. That can apply to the man as well (e.g. prostate cancer), but it’s usually the women, and usually of at least somewhat less distress to the wife if it is the husband. In any event, assuming the good faith of the spouse with issues, continence for the other spouse at that point is simply part of the reasonable sacrifices which the state and sacrament of marriage involves.

          In any event, this situation as presented with you, your first wife, and your priest was obviously about marital relations, not about the Church disregarding your wife’s life. So, once again, asserting that the Church cared more about procreation (or “the fetus”) than your wife’s life slanders the Church in this situation. It’s an interpretation of the situation based on false premises. I have a great deal of respect for your choice of words that you “felt” that the Church was disregarding your wife’s life and health. That’s honest and probably true. It seems to me that it is about feelings – strong feelings of love for your wife and care for her health situation, and frustration at being advised (in looking at the priest’s advice with correct premises) not to come together with your wife in conjugal relations. I would humbly recommend that you look at what was there as opposed to conclusions you jumped to out of frustration and desperation.

        7. Slats says:

          Addressing Jgbech, part 4 – Jgbech, both you and especially Larry have said some rather strong things about the Church’s teachings, about valuing “the fetus” over the woman. I believe I have effectively addressed why that didn’t apply to your first wife’s situation. What about cases of life-threatening pregnancies?

          First off, let’s immediately set aside the bad-faith terminology of “the fetus.” It is true that this is a scientific and medical term. However, more than anything else, it refers to location, which has little legitimate bearing in the moral discussion of pregnancy ethics. A fetal child at 27 weeks can be viable outside the womb. Moreover, location is immaterial insofar as a fetal child is located where he or she naturally belongs and thus has an inherent and fundamental right to be there, particularly considering his or her fundamental innocence in terms of personal action. Every pregnant woman (and her husband or significant other) who is preparing to raise the child with whom she is pregnant will refer to that child as “my baby,” not “the fetus,” unless of course she is some rigid pro-abortion advocate adhering to an inflexible linguistic code, and I’ll bet you millions that even such people would occasionally slip and say “the baby” or even “my baby.” If your wife became pregnant after the doctor’s warnings, as I said, the right terminology for you, jgbech, in referring to the being in her womb is then and would be now, “my son” or “my daughter.” That was and would be, ontologically and existentially, who he or she is. If your wife is pregnant and at risk, then this child’s identity must be considered. Any linguistic or moral move which claims that the child is less than a child and which denigrates his or her relationship with his or her parents is a moral gymnastic meant to dismiss the weight of what must be considered, to wrongfully ease the conscience or to self-justify.

        8. Slats says:

          Addressing Jgbech, part 5 – Now, let us consider further what surgical abortion is. Surgical abortion is the assault on a child in the womb, either by means of dismemberment, burning solution, or lethal injection with a large needle puncturing the chest and vital organs, to kill the child and thus end the pregnancy. It is an inherently violent and dynamically aggressive act, with some means being more violent and aggressive in their action and manifestation than others. If we witnessed someone doing to a six-month-old baby the things that an abortionist does to a fetal child, no reasonable and decent person would have a moral reaction to this event *less* virulent than, “Wow, that was really monstrous.” But wait! What if the person was doing that to that six-month-old baby because it would somehow magically bring about world peace? What if the violent killing of that six-month-old would save a city? 10 people? Two people? Then it’s okay, right?

          According to the consequentialist ethics by which most Americans and globalists operate, yes. According to natural law, and how human beings are built to treat one another, absolutely not. A good end or outcome does not justify doing something which is evil in its matter, or content. Going after a little baby in the womb is always going after a little baby in the womb. One can’t rightfully do it to achieve any conceivable outcome. Even if the child is going to die anyway? That’s right.

          It is licit to kill other human beings in defense from aggression. If one is a policeman, or if one’s family is being attacked, one has the right to defend the defenseless, even to the point of lethal force against the aggressor, and this is because life is sacred, not a denial thereof. However, included in this is the presumption that the aggressor, in attacking and denying the right to life of another human being, dynamically, partially, and temporarily surrenders their own right to life in the attempted commission of that act. A child in the womb is radically innocent in terms of his or her actions. He or she is where he or she belongs by nature. He or she can’t be “taken out” as an aggressor.

          In the case of a pregnant woman whose life is threatened due to the pregnancy, why wouldn’t a good Catholic doctor or hospital perform an abortion to save the mother’s life? Ah, says the consequentialist, obviously they’re saying that “the fetus” is more important than the woman. Of course not! In saying that, the consequentialist is attributing his or her own warped ethics to the Catholics. If the mother dies, then both of them will likely die, rendering absurd the claim of a motive of a preference for the fetal child over the mother.

        9. Slats says:

          Addressing Jgbech, part 6 – What the Church is saying is that, we cannot and will not do something fundamentally and gravely evil to save you. The Catholic doctor is saying to the mother that for me to violate my well-informed conscience to help or save you doesn’t respect your dignity either. As for the mother (and her spouse) herself, the Church acknowledges that the greatest value is not her life, but her moral integrity and right relationship with God and others. The worse thing that can happen to a person is not that he or she die (which will happen some day anyway!), but that he or she be damned by virtue of an unrepented rupture in his or her relationship with God and others. Of course, that’s obvious from the perspective of belief in eternal life based on an integrity of right relationship with God and others, and is the key difference between how Catholics and non-believers would view things. However, I personally believe that real ethics (as opposed to consequentialist baloney-sandwiching) rightly applies to human interaction regardless of religious belief in eternal life. Evident relational integrity is evident relational integrity. It’s just that the hope of eternal life and the valuing of that over all else lend urgency to both action and argument in these matters from the Catholic perspective.

          In short, the assertions that “the Church doesn’t care about women,” or that “the Church says that the fetus is primary” are false and even calumnious. It’s more accurate to say that “the Church stubbornly refuses to do what is gravely evil, even to bring about a great good.” Or, in the case of what your ‘60s priest said, or what he or a contemporary faithful priest should say, “the Church stubbornly refuses to say that doing what is gravely evil is morally okay.”

        10. Slats says:

          Addressing Jgbech, part 7 – And that matters from a moral point of view, but even more from a religious point of view. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the meaning of the Fall, the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was that our first parents chose to arrogate for themselves the claimed ability to judge what was good and evil, as opposed to accepting the law of love God had put into their hearts in terms of communion with Him and each other. If what God said was good was good and what God said was evil was evil, then an alternate system of right and wrong, which Adam and Eve were claiming the right to devise, would certainly say that some evil actions were good or at least licit. Therefore, not only was their relationship with Him immediately destroyed, but also their relationship with each other (e.g., if evil could be justified as good “because I’m like God and I say so,” then they could no longer trust each to be loving instead of using and had to cover up).

          Human beings are designed naturally and spiritually to behave toward each other a certain way. Violating that design – sinning against God and one another – causes harm, but those sins and harms can be repented of and amended. Murders, adulteries, abortions – all can be repented of and amends can be made in the Blood of Christ. *What is far more damaging is to believe that what is good is evil and that what is evil is good.* It prevents repentance, because it engenders systematic self-justification. When many are doing it, as is the case in our world today, it leads others astray and makes evil behavior systemic and irreformable. From a Christian perspective, if someone who at one time called him- or herself a Christian does it, it essentially undoes the work of redemption that Christ wrought in his or her soul and returns him or her to a fallen condition with little help of repentance and restoration.

          As I said, we find in our world today systematic claims that what is good is evil and what is evil is good, especially behind the arguments for abortion rights and same-gender unions. There is no worse entity in the world than this philosophical move, nothing more destructive. It’s bad for the world, and bad for individuals. And of course, it has been used to develop an alternative moral system of objective goodness, of which Church teaching somehow falls short. This is absurd. When the truth of the human person is sought with right reason, the Church teachings about interactions between human beings are revealed to be loving, and most certainly not hateful.

          And that, jgbech, is why I took so much time responding to you. Your claims that Church teaching is hateful or somehow falls short morally are both inaccurate and harmful to others. I couldn’t let them go without a response. My goal is not to put you down or to triumph in “I’m wrong and you’re right,” but rather to protect others from those claims, and hopefully also to help you look at some of your difficult life events and experiences with the Church in a different light.

          1. Slats says:

            Naturally, I meant to say that I didn’t mean to glory in “I’m right, you’re wrong…”

          2. jgbech says:

            Slats, I am amazed at your expose on church doctrine. We all have some weakness. Mine is theology. I am not religious, I am spiritual. I pray for God’s help daily.

            Carolyn was not pregnant when she died. I defied the church and had a vasectomy. Was I wrong? Given the rules… I probably was. Am I repentant? No! I will someday face my maker and this too will pass. The pain caused by Father Farrelly’s unrelenting dogmatic stance was more than one should have to bare. He did not take me aside and council me. He was harsh by asking me to leave. Not Catholic at all.
            .

          3. Slats says:

            Jgbech, thank you for the response and the compliments. I didn’t mean for my posts to be seen as theological or doctrinal so much as dealing with the real world questions of how we relate to God and each other, and how Church teaching reflects that. Communication is an ongoing struggle… As I was saying in Part 7 of my long response, believing that good is evil and evil is good doesn’t make the world a better place, but a worse one. It damages relationships. To me, relationship is the whole point of “spirituality,” and “religiousness” is simply the acknowledgement that of course our spiritually is rightly developed with others and in relationship.

            My whole point was that sterilization was not just a matter of “the rules,” but that it impinged in a real way on your relationship with her and with God. It was a spiritual matter, not one of human precepts. I get the impression that Fr. Farrelly was not very pastoral or gentle, and that that has a lot to do with how you think and feel about the situation. Brusqueness was uncalled for. Once again, I’m sorry that happened.

            But, once again, on the other hand, it is not to his discredit that he didn’t tell you that you could use contraception or sterilization to avoid pregnancy. That was true. His manner evidently left lots to be desired. Perhaps he personally, to his discredit, didn’t care as much as he should have about your wife’s condition (which would definitely be spiritually negative!). However, the fact that he didn’t lie to you or didn’t tell you that you could do something evil to bring about a good does not in and of itself rightly lead to the conclusion that “the Church” disregarded your wife’s life. That is a conclusion which you reached on faulty and untrue premises. That’s what I was trying to explain.

            Your action of getting a vasectomy was wrong, not because of the rules, but because of how God designed you and other human beings to treat those around you. Only He can judge you insofar as your culpability in His sight (i.e., if your knowledge or consent were legitimately compromised in the depths of your conscience), but any person using right reason can rightly judge the action. I would hope for your sake either that He does judge you mercifully in that sense (and that you are correct that “this too shall pass”) or, if your conscience shifts, that you do repent of the action. Please pray for me, and I’ll pray for you.

      2. GREG SMITH says:

        Tom ~ Just FYI, the major health insurance carriers classified pregnancy as a preexisting condition. One of the things the now dead Pregnant Woman’s Support Act would have done is outlaw that practice. ~ Pax, Greg

    2. Rachel Propes says:

      JGBech–You are another exhausting libtroll. Don’t you libs have enough to busy yourselves with on your own sites??? This monster sitting in our White House has done numerous things proving his total inadequacy from NOT being a naturalized citizen to Benghazi and Boston. You are on here because you hate the Church. That is very sad.

      1. jgbech says:

        Rachel, such vitriol. I don’t hate anyone. Do your words indicate that you have hatred in your heart for anyone who takes issue with the church?

        What I said was directly relavant to how women are treated in society and the church. How about “the glass ceiling”, the Magdaline House a laundry for “stray women” in Ireland, Sister Margaret Farley and the radical Nuns, just to name a few women’s issues.

        All I can say is walk in my shoes… once durine the 1960s. We had two sons and Carolyn could have no more, according to her Doctor George Einterz who took up the collection at our church. Her kidneys were too weak. If we stayed attached to the church we were going no where. We left.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.