Last week at the State House as I stood in the hall for 5 hours, opponents of legal same-sex marriage were giving testimony. More than one citizen said that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and every sexual act must be open to the possibility of pregnancy or it was not natural, or blessed by God.
It’s a little under that radar that there are politically active and organized individuals and groups who oppose all forms of birth control.
Being old enough to remember when a woman could expect to lose a tooth with every baby, I know that it is possible to have more children than is healthy. I saw firsthand that children could arrive at school neglected, to be picked on by classmates and even the nuns, all because their parents simply had too many to handle. Ever hear of Irish twins? — babies 9 months apart.
These are different times, we make different mistakes. Those who idealize a time when the heterosexual couple let God decide how many children they would have and everything was perfect are using selective memory. Today’s problems are right in front of us in all their messiness and sorrow. Yesterday was not a simpler time, only a past time.
Do we have to fight to defend the right to birth control? Yes. Many anti-abortion activists define all forms of birth control other than abstinence as a form of abortion. That includes the “morning after” pill that is offered to rape victims ( see Sarah Palin), or used after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. It includes the IUD, and even ordinary birth control pills. Condoms are discouraged as not effective, even though they are.
Women who have good access to health care and information are not as vulnerable. But many women depend on programs like Medicaide, or have limited options. They are affected when their doctor discourages them from using birth control, when they are given misinformation by groups that have a political agenda, when they live in an area that lacks a choice of medical services. The poor, the rural, the young are most at risk.
There isn’t much validation for people who conscientiously use birth control. There’s no cute movie premise like in “Knocked Up”. The people who decide to “have as many as God sends us” do have a kind of impressive willingness, although I hope they are having them because they adore kids.
But why, since most Americans agree that preventing unwanted pregnancy is a good thing, is there not better access to birth control? I think it is partly that most people take birth control for granted, and there is still enough sense of shame that it’s difficult to see it as an act of love. But caring enough to protect yourself and your lover is a good and responsible thing to do. Birth control should be a normal part of health care for poor as well as rich. Making birth control available has social benefits for everyone.
NEW YORK (AP) Publicly funded family planning prevents nearly 2 million unintended pregnancies and more than 800,000 abortions in the United States each year, saving billions of dollars, according to new research intended to counter conservative objections to expanding the program.
Last month, under withering Republican criticism, House Democrats abandoned an attempt to include an expansion of family planning services for the poor in the economic stimulus bill. One anti-abortion activist, Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, called the short-lived proposal a “shameful population control program that targeted low-income families.”However, Democrats in Congress are not abandoning their overall goal. They plan to push soon for a major funding increase for Title X, the main federal family planning program, as part of broader legislation endorsed by President Barack Obama to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.
In the State House believing citizens described the rules they want the state to enforce. I heard a confusion between what the church and the state should do. I heard many speeches about the “major religions”, and tradition, and more than one speaker cited the beliefs of the majority as if that justifies persecuting a minority. But these same people would stand by their principles even if they were one in a thousand — or at least they hope they would.
To them I would say — Keep your church pure. Refuse to bless the marriage of the divorced, the unbelievers, the homosexual. Practice your religion as you see fit, but don’t try to shape civil law to reflect your ideal concept of marriage. The same rule of law that promises equality might protect you some day too. And many bad actions wear the cloak of morality. Expecting gay people and single people to live celibate lives is something you might try in church, but it’s bad policy for the state.
Kmareka.com 
Re: Marriage and Procreation
“More than one citizen said that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and every sexual act must be open to the possibility of pregnancy or it was not natural, or blessed by God.”
OK, if that’s their argument, then there should be fertility tests for both the male and female before marriage. If either of them is incapable of producing children, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Maybe even label them with a scarlet “Iâ€? for infertile or an “Sâ€? for sterile, so no one else is tempted to enter into a relationship that could possibly lead to a marriage proposal. Also, if they don’t produce children within some sort of contractual time period, their marriage should be annulled and they should be required to repay the government any tax breaks they’d claimed when filing as “marriedâ€?. If the religious zealots are going to use the procreation argument for marriage, let them enforce it 100% or not at all.
no one lately is chasing after old married people telling us to stop that foolishness. we’re safe for now.
A couple of things.
There are two aspects of marriage. 1) is the legal aspect, which is solely and exclusively about property rights. Don’t believe that? Ask anyone who’s been through a divorce. What is all the contention about? Who gets what. Too often, the kids get lumped in with this.
Oddly, I’ve read (don’t recall where, so I won’t swear to this) that couples who do a pre-nup are less likely to get divorced. Why? Because they had the common sense to enter into this legal commitment with a little clear-eyed realism about what they were getting into. It wasn’t all gossamer and pink hearts.
2) I’m sorry, but a lot of the religious hoohah about prohibiting all forms of birth control isn’t about kids; it’s about controlling who gets to control a woman’s sexual behavior. And some of this is just plain silly. Or, perhaps, anachronistic. In a nomadic warrior society, birth rate = military power. Breed them little warriors. I don’t know if the ancient Hebrews practiced female infanticide, but a lot of cultures did.
So, maybe it made sense 3,000 years ago, but today, maybe not so much. And Leviticus/Deuteronomy are full of all sorts of cult ritual: when to sacrifice, what to sacrifice for different occasions, that sort of thing. If the Bible is the Holy Word of G-d, then why have we decided that such practices can be eliminated? And, if these can be, why not others?
So, yes, let each church bless what it considers to be valid unions under their beliefs. But don’t confuse the sacrament with the legal contract. They are two very different things. Pre-Christian Greeks and Romans got married. Non-Christian Chinese and Indians get married. All without the benefit of any sort of Christian blessing, so the latter is obviously not a necessary condition for the legality of the contract.
well said. and acknowledging people’s right to marry doesn’t mean you have to approve of the marriage. when i was the nurse who did the blood tests for the marriage license i saw couples who in my opinion would have been better off chewing lightbulbs than getting married—but that was none of my business. they had the right and it was my job to help them.
According to Catholic Church teaching, being open to the possibility of procreation means doing nothing to thwart the nature of the sexual act, such as using a barrier or suppressing the female reproductive system with a chemical contraceptive. The Church actually says that couples, for good reasons, such as financial responsibilities, physical or psychological problems, etc. may responsibly decide to postpone pregnancy temporarily or indefinitely, using methods of natural family planning. And, I’m not referring to the out-dated rhythm method, which was not effective. I’m referring to modern methods of NFP, which have a sound basis in science (I am near completing my masters in nursing in a program that is research-intensive) and research. These methods empower women, giving them fundamental knowledge of their bodies, which is their right, as was said by the famous Carl Djerassi (ironically, co-developer of the pill, which along with the other chemical and barrier contraceptives, have reduced women to objects with no control over or knowledge of their reproductive health).
Batrice, good luck in your nursing studies. I think that it is a good thing for women to learn to recognize the signs of ovulation. It is empowering for women to know their natural cycles. NFP can be a good method for women who want to limit conception but are able to accept a risk of pregnancy.
But each woman has her own circumstances. Some women find the necessary monitoring and restrictions of NFP to be more a burden than an empowerment. Choices about family planning are made in the context of many other life events. Not least her man’s willingness to watch the calendar. Not least the woman’s medical history. Some of us are on a regular cycle, some not. And I know about the basal thermometers. I broke so many it’s lucky I didn’t get mercury poisoning. Tough taking a temp before you are fully awake.
Being old, this is a moot point for me, but when I was younger I tried almost all the methods.
They all have disadvantages, they all have good points. I am fortunate in that I have never felt reduced to an object in any relationship,even the bad ones. I have a difficult personality and men who want an object avoid me.
Certainly using methods to prevent unwanted pregnancy never made me feel anything but grateful that I live in this time and place, where death in childbirth is rare, and we can have confidence that our children will live to adulthood. This was not the norm through most of human history.
Nancy, I have known you since 1983 (or thereabouts) and have to disagree with any notion of you having, “a difficult personality”.
I would dearly love to see more people (or any) in positions of authority with personalities resembling yours…
I’m entirely serious.