Monday, November 30, 2009

The Catholic Church and Women

The Christian Bible was put together after the life of Jesus was over. Between Jesus's life and the creation of the Bible there were many people who wrote about Jesus and his teachings. Not all of these writings, also called gospels, made it into the Bible.

Recently, I read one such non-canonical gospel called the Gospel of Thomas. It's supposedly a collection of things which Jesus said. Now, before going any further, I have to point out that this is a gospel which has been translated through multiple generations, and we cannot prove 100% that anything written inside the gospel is actually true. However, there are a number of quotes found in the Gospel of Thomas which are also in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

The point of this blog is about the Catholic church and it's treatment of women. The Catholic church is loudly against abortion, loudly against sexual education, loudly against contraceptives, loudly against women's sexuality. On top of that, women are not allowed to be priests or bishops, and seem to be wholly silent (or silenced?) in the Catholic church.

So when I ran across a quote at the end of the Gospel of Thomas, it struck a nerve with me.

"Simon Peter said to them, 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.'"


Simon Peter, I have confirmed, is the same St. Peter who became the "rock" of the Catholic church. Which means the Catholic church came into being by someone who thought women were "not worthy of life."

Now I understand that men were the center focus in Biblical times, and women were most certainly not considered the same as they are today. But to go so far as to say they are not worthy of life? Whether this is physical life or spiritual life, it is still a huge deal.

Unfortunately, this history has not disappeared. The Catholic church is still fighting against women. They fight to stop women from being able to make choices about their body and their life. They fight to make abortion illegal, which causes it to be unsafe, in turn making more women die and face irreversible damage to their bodies.

The Catholic church cannot be pro-women if it started out against women and continues to be against women.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Please read before you say something stupid.

Dear prolife, I'm sorry but I'm very tired of hearing your same flawed arguments over and over again. Let's set some things straight.

1. Human (adjective) vs human being (noun).

I've gone over this one before, but unfortunately no one seems to understand. Human used as an adjective can mean either a whole human being or parts of a human being. For example, human hair, human arms, human eyes, human heart, human toes, human females. When you say something is human, it does NOT automatically make that thing a human being / person. If someone says "prove the fetus is a human being" you cannot reply "well if it's not human, what is it? Zebra? Banana?" This is FLAWED. They did NOT say a fetus is not human, they asked you to prove it is both human AND a human being.

2. If the fetus is alive, it must be a human being.

Um, no. My arm is alive, my arm is not a human being. My cat is alive, my cat is not a human being. This is just stupid.

3. If the fetus is alive, then killing it is murder!

Again, no. A cow is alive, but if you kill it for meat, it is not murder. When you cut your grass (which is alive) it is not murder. When you wash your hands, it is not murder. Alive =/= murder.

4. If the fetus is a human being, then killing it is murder!

Okay, this one *almost* makes sense, but it still is flawed logic. All one has to do is consider soldiers, police officers, and the death penalty to realize that just because you kill a human being does not mean it was murder. What is the point of things like "manslaughter" and "self defense" and "death penalty" if all killing is murder?

Please consider these facts before you make your next post.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

We think the same.

I know Prolifers think the same way that I do as a prochoicer. I know prolife and I think the same thing of each other: "They're just ignorant to the REAL facts! If only they'd see the truth, they would change their mind."

We can't both be right, though. We can't both have the truth backing us up. So how can we tell who's right and who's wrong?

One good way is to look at sources. Where do the statistics and facts come from? Over and over again, pro-life uses pro-life websites. Pro-choice does use some pro-choice websites, but we also use a lot of medical websites, science websites and pregnancy websites. We use the websites of universities, websites about US law, and other websites completely unrelated to abortion.

Who is more likely to be lying? A pro-life website pushing a pro-life agenda, or a pregnancy website for happily pregnant women? Why would a cancer website, which wants to reduce/end cancer, lie about abortion increasing breast cancer risks? The simple answer is: they wouldn't.

Another good way to compare pro-life to pro-choice is to look at their use of language. Pro-life is constantly complaining about the use of the word "fetus." Why? What exactly is wrong with the word fetus? Fetus is a legitimate term which is defined as "the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo." It's just a name. So why does pro-life fight so hard to destroy the word fetus and call it a baby instead? There's no medical or legal reason. The only reason they have is emotional appeal. When people think baby, they think cute, cuddly little bundle of joy. By making people think that when they think about a fetus, they abuse people's emotions.

Another example of this is the word murder. Abortion is clearly not murder, and it never has been murder. Yet pro-life use the phrase "abortion is murder" continuously. Why is this? Because they're trying to pull at people's emotions. Murder has a connotation, and by using that word pro-life can manipulate people's emotions and ideas.

This needs to stop- if pro-life is really the right side, they should be able to convince people with truth instead of emotional manipulation. If pro-life is right, they should be able to provide non-biased, neutral websites and sources which support their stance. Their failure to do both of these things proves that pro-choice is in the right, and pro-life is in the wrong.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Silent Scream is a lie.

I assume you heard someone talking about "the silent scream"? Here is the truth behind it. This was taken off of the NIH (National Institue of Health) website, so it is impartial and neither pro or anti abortion. It is simply medical fact.

The 12-week fetus experiences pain.
At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26-27 weeks' gestation (24-25 weeks' fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Statement on Pain of the Fetus
We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.
We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.
To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.

The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).
At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.
An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.
What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.
In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.
The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.

The fetus emits "The Silent Scream."
A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26-27 weeks' gestation (24-25 weeks' fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.

A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.
A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman's womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.

Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of "crushing instruments" for extraction.
At 12 weeks' gestation (10 weeks' fetal age) and even 1-2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus.

So to sum it up, Prior to atleast 24 weeks, it is medicaly impossible for a fetus to "feel" anything. That is not an opinion, it is medical fact. The parts of the nervous system and brain that we must have in order to feel something are not there. They have not developed yet.

Link List

Here are just a few links for your reading/bookmarking pleasure.

1. Women do not always regret abortion.

2. Illegal Abortion is unsafe, legal abortion is safer than pregnancy.

3. Fetus is not conscious until later in the pregnancy, brainwaves are not seen at 40 days.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Fetus's Right to Life- Irrelevant

If you're pro-life and reading this post, PLEASE read the whole thing before you make your judgment.

The most common idea of the pro-life movement is the fetus's right to life. They say that, if the fetus is recognized as a human being / person, that therefore it will have a right to life and therefore abortion will be illegal.

The idea sounds plausible, but we need to investigate further.

First off, should all people have a right to life? Yes. That's obviously true. All people deserve equal rights, and life is one of the basic rights we recognize.

The problem arises when we question whether the fetus's right to life would prevent a woman from choosing abortion. We must look into current rights given to people, and see if a right to life really would prevent women from aborting.

We'll start with a big picture idea. If everyone has the right to life, and that prevents them from being killed, then why do we have war or the death penalty? These examples show us clearly that a person with a right to life can still be killed.

Next we should ask- is it only after a government decision that a person can be (legally) killed? Nope. It's possible to kill a person without the government giving you the "go ahead." The best example of this is self-defense, such as a woman killing her rapist or someone killing a kidnapper.

Obviously, it is possible to kill someone who has a right to life, given you have a legally recognized acceptable reason.

Now we can look at the other side- does a right to life allow a person to use someone's body?

The answer to this should be simple. Every person has a right to their body- liberty, if you will. No one has the right to use a person's body unless it is consented to. But can we make an exception to save someone's life?

The answer is NO. We see in McFall v Shimp that a person cannot force another to have their body used, not even to save a life.
For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.

Less direct but of the same idea is the fact that we cannot force someone to donate any part of their body- blood, organs, bone marrow- even to save a life. There are thousands of people who die each year because they do not receive a donated organ in time. The government could force people to donate organs, and they would be saving thousands of lives doing so. However, the government recognizes the right of a person to liberty and their body.

So let's review everything we've learned.

1. You can still be killed, even if you have a right to life.
2. The government does NOT force people to use their body to support the life of others.

Clearly, abortion will not suddenly be made illegal if fetus' are recognized as persons. A fetus's right to life does not allow it to use a person's body without consent- not even the pregnant woman. Giving the fetus a right to life will not stop abortion.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Names I have been called...

Names/things I have been called by pro-life Christians:
1. "unscriptural, extrabiblical, anti-christian, hateful, and murderous"
2. Murderer
3. Evil
4. Liar
5. "Lower than excrement'
6. Braindead idiot
7. dumb
8. Troll
9. Nazi
10. killer
11. babykiller
12. coward
13. Under the control of the devil
14. in the position of the anti-christ
15. spitting in the face of Jesus
16. anti-biblical & heretical
17. closed-mind to truth
18. moronic
19. sick monster
20. ignorant
21. advocate of baby murder
22. "lower than a snake's belly'
23. As intelligent as a 'mutant gnat"

and that's only from October 25th to November 3rd. oh man do I feel the love!

Some more:
24. "subhuman, animalistic, unbiblical, murderous"
25. "pitiful existence"
26. "pro death slut"
27. idiot
28. "just plain stupid"
29. not very bright
30. "favorite turd"

Update 4/4:
31. satan
32. Not a "True Christian"

I figure there should be some record of this.
It says:
1. they think they are hiding behind anonimity- theyre not-i made it my business to find out
2. they sow death and thats exactly what theyll reap

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Debunking Prolife Lies

Prolife is extremely good at twisting the prochoice position. They're extremely good at making it look like we say something we really never said. Let's take a look at what a prolifer says, and what the prochoicer really means.

1. "Prochoice thinks the fetus isn't a human being. What is it then!? A zebra? A tree? A dog?!"

Truth: There are many different pro-choice views on when life starts, when personhood starts, and when or if a fetus a should have equal rights to born human beings. So perhaps, yes, there are pro-choicers who think the fetus isn't yet a human being. However- and this is where prolifers twist the truth- that doesn't mean those people think it's a tree or a zebra.

There are two different ways to use the word "human." One way is as an adjective- 'I have a human heart.' The other way is as a noun- 'She is a human.' Prolifers either intentionally or ignorantly pretend these are one and the same thing. They are clearly very different! My arm is human (adj) but it is not a human being!

So while it may be true that some pro-choicers do not think a fetus is a human being, one would have to be an idiot to think the fetus was not human (adj). Unless, of course, we're talking about zebra fetuses. =D

2. Prochoice wants women to abort abort abort! That's the only thing they support.

Truth: Prochoice is about supporting all the reproductive choices available, including parenting, abstinence, and adoption. The only thing I've noticed pro-choicers being constantly against is force.

Now, it may be true that what you see *most* is prochoicers supporting legal abortion. Do you know why this is? It's because no one is against parenting! No one is out there screaming that abstinence is a bad thing when chosen. We don't need to scream and shout about our support for these things because there isn't someone out there trying to take them away.

Prochoicers do not suggest women choose abortion over another option. We suggest that a woman looks at all her options equally, picks the best choice for her. It's really that simply.

3. Prochoicers ignore the woman hurt by abortion!!

Truth: Nope. We acknowledge that there are a lot of different viewpoints and emotions that a woman can go through after having an abortion. We also acknowledge what multiple studies of thousands of women have shown: most women do not regret their abortion.

Studies have looked into women who do regret their decision, and noticed a couple of reoccuring themes. Women who regret often had low self-esteem *before* they even became pregnant. Women who regret their abortion are often women who were coerced/forced to abort, or women who actually held pro-life views but chose to abort anyway.

There are actually pro-choice websites and groups out there which offer support groups for women who are feeling sadness or regret after an abortion such as Emerge or Exhale.

4. Prochoicers make up science / prochoice ignores medical facts!!

Truth: I don't even know where to start on this one. Prochoice is all about given women information about all her choices, so that she can choose the best option for her. We do not want women to abort any more than we want women to be parents. I've never seen a prochoice person telling people that fetuses can think 40 days after conception, or that they can feel pain in the first trimester, or anything to that effect. as a pro-choicer, I try to ensure that I use nothing but medical websites when it comes to proving something to prolifers (I will use prochoice websites when talking with other prochoicers, sometimes).

It always amazes me how medical groups are trusted completely, until suddenly they post something which agrees with the pro-choice point of view. Then suddenly, they're liars! They're abortion profiteers! They're out to kill babies! But oh, on every other subject, of course we still trust them.


Parental communication

There is one thing that is often talked about which makes me angry.

The relationship and communication between parents and their children (usually teenagers).

The cries on the prolife/conservative side often ring to the turn of "government is taking away my right to parent how I want!" or "they're teaching my kids things I don't agree!" or "They're letting my kid do stuff without my consent!"

I have just one thing to say to these parents: If you have a good relationship with your child, none of those things would effect that.

The fact that they are SO worried about public education and the government leads me to think they don't have a good relationship with their children. Instead of a loving, two way relationship, the parents want to control every aspect of their child's life. It's along the lines of "I speak, you listen, and it doesn't matter what you think or feel."

It's depressing.

Families are supposed to be the base unit (no matter who they're made up of). Parents and children are supposed to have very, very strong bonds. And yet, we can see that some parents don't have that bond with their children.

Now, I wasn't best friends with my mother. I didn't tell her every thing I did. But she knew anyway. She knew a general idea of what I was up to, who I was with, what I liked, what my goals were. We most certainly had disagreements. But she never forced her opinion on me. I was taught to think for myself and make good decisions.

Parents need to remember that children are PEOPLE and not robots. At some point, we'll leave the home nest- and if you haven't taught your kids to think for themselves, they're going to fail in life.

If you teach your child to be a self-thinker and they disagree with your opinions, don't become angry. Consider, instead, why they disagree. Consider their viewpoint. Consider their life experiences. Perhaps it's just a phase, and they'll grow out of it. But perhaps, just perhaps, you'll see the issue in a new light, and decide your previous opinion was wrong. That's perfectly okay.

So if you're honestly worried about public education teaching your kids something you don't agree with, or the government controlling your child-parent relationship, think about how you raised your kids. Are your children self-thinkers, or are they puppets which mime whatever they hear? Are your beliefs founded in logic, or are you too parroting what someone else told you? If your child is a self-thinker it doesn't matter what the teachers at school or the senators on the TV say- she'll make the right decisions.

If you're really prolife... SexEd

If you're really prolife, you want to end/reduce abortion right?

And if you're really prolife because you want to save babies, you'd believe that reducing elective abortions is, at the very least, a step in the right direction- correct?

So why is it then that most prolifers are against multiple different ways to reduce the abortion rate? Is it, perhaps, because they do not actually care for the fetus? I pray that is not true.

Today we will look at comprehensive sex education, which prolifers are often against.

1. Comprehensive Sex Education. This one is a no brainer! Teenagers are having sex. Young 20somethings are having sex. If they're having sex, they are risking pregnancy. If they get pregnant, many will choose abortion. So how do you stop those abortions? Prevent the pregnancy before it happens!

There seems to be a misunderstanding, that comprehensive sex ed is just "throwing condoms at teenagers." Absolutely not. I don't even think actively handing out condoms should be part of comprehensive sex ed. It's EDUCATION, not a store or a giveaway.

Comprehensive sex education is about teaching kids about: abstinence, sexual intercourse, STDs, pregnancy, adoption, parenting, abortion, rape, how to say no, respect for the opposite gender/other people, the benefits risks of different types of sexual encounters (committed relationships, one night stands, drunk sex), puberty, menopause, periods, contraceptives, gender roles, and SO much more.

Comprehensive sex education does NOT stop parents from controlling their children's education. Most sex ed classes allow parents to choose to pull their child from the class, if that parent so chooses. Parents who wish to teach their children at home about sex are still perfectly capable of doing so. But students who's parents don't care, are misinformed or non-participants in the student's life will be able to learn what ever human being deserves to know.

Studies have shown over and over that comprehensive sex ed helps to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Studies have shown time and time again that abstinence-only education does not stop teenagers from having sex- it just stops them from using contraceptives. New research has shown that in more conservative religious states, there is a higher rate of teen pregnancy (even after adjusting for abortion rates). Conservative religious states are where abstinence-only is taught and pushed more by the community.

It is only when we are fully informed with facts and not lied to that we can make the best decisions for ourselves and our families and our lives.

It is morally repulsive for anyone to lie to people, but it is especially repulsive when an educator lies to a student. Educators should be trusted to tell the truth. We shouldn't even worry about educators lying- and yet we have to, when it comes to abstinence only education.

Over and over and over we have seen that abstinence-only education programs lie to and deceive our youth.

Everyone learns as a child that it is wrong to lie, and this is especially true for Christians. We should never lie to push an agenda. If we do not have the truth on our side, we should question why we are promoting the things we are saying. We should always strive to tell the truth.

Government funding of ineffective, lying abstinence-only programs should be dropped. Comprehensive sex education is how we will share the truth with our future generations, and greatly reduce the number of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies.


This is an incredibly short blog, but supposedly if you use #beatcancer in your tweet, facebook status or blog today... 1 cent will go to cancer research every time its used.

So I decided I would make a post. I'm pretty sure that each blog post only counts once, but just in case I'll throw random #beatcancer notes in.

Here is a link to the #beatcancer website:

I'm not used to the code used on these sites. I'd much prefer to just used [url] but that doesn't seem to work.

Ah, life. I need to get organized- a couple of big projects are coming up and if I don't get started soon, it will be too late! #beatcancer

Off I go. #beatcancer

How do I forgive?

This is a post copied from the Christian Living site.

How Do I Forgive ?

American Idol contestant, Mandisa forgave Simon Cowel for his unkind jokes and gave an awesome testimony to her Christian belief. Can you forgive someone who has hurt or humiliated you?

1. The dictionary says that to forgive means:to grant free pardon for an offense or debt.
2. to give up all claim on account of
3. to cease to feel resentment against.

When I have been deeply hurt, how do I give up my claim to revenge? How do I grant free pardon to that person so that they have nothing to repay? How do I cease to feel resentment? - Not just put it out of my mind, but have clear or even loving feelings toward them.

As I see it, the only way to realize that kind of attitude is to find the special relationship with Jesus Christ, who offers forgiveness and unconditional love in spite of my many affronts toward God. I remember how much I have been forgiven. I know that whatever I have done in the past, I have a glorious future with God. This future is a gift from Him, not something that I have had to fight for or strive for. Nothing that happens to me in this life can take that future away.

Recognize that God created us all. Reading the Bible, I began to understand that as long as we are in this life, we always have our own selfish nature whispering in our ear. We will all face temptations to be selfish, to self-promote, and to hurt others in order to better ourselves. I have learned that the other person is not the enemy. They are subject to the same struggles in life that I am.

Feel sadness for them. The only difference between us may be that I have been blessed with knowing God’s love and mercy and they have not.

Ask God to let me see them through His eyes.

Pray for them. I pray that they will begin to know Christ and the forgiveness that He brings and that through that they will begin to feel love and kindness toward others.

Forgiving is not easy, but we have the perfect role model in Jesus.

* Romans 12:17-18 tells us not to seek revenge, to do what is right and to live at peace as far as it is possible
* Ephesians 4:32 tells us to forgive each other as quickly as God forgave us.
* John 18:15-18, 25-27, and 21:15-19 Jesus forgave Peter, even after he denied knowing Jesus three times.
* Luke 23:34 Jesus didn’t need someone to ask for forgiveness before He forgave. While He was on the cross, He forgave those who crucified Him.

Sex makes babies?

Found this online and felt it needed to be posted.

First, how likely is it for sperm to connect with egg to make a zygote?

"The probability of conception ranged from 10% when intercourse occurred five days before ovulation to 33% when it occurred on the day of ovulation itself." (1)

"Researchers found that couples who had sex every day had a 25% chance of conceiving, while couples who had sex every other day had a 22% chance. " (9)

"Conception is most likely to occur in the first month of trying (about a 30% conception rate)." (10)

Let's be generous, and go with the 30%. That means, if 100 women have sex for a month, 30 of those women will have a fertilized egg.

Next- will that zygote implant?

"John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed." (2)

"Between 20 per cent and 80 per cent of newly fertilised eggs (zygotes) fail to implant in the uterine wall." (3)

20-80 % is a wide wide variety. But it's hard for us to know, because it's so difficult to know if a woman has conceived before the pre-embryo implants. To make it easier, I'll just go with 50%.

So of the 30 women who have fertilized eggs, only half of them will have those eggs implant. That leaves us with 15 women.

Next question: Will the pregnancy make it through the first trimester/ to 20 weeks?

This can be a difficult question. The longer the pregnancy lasts, the less likely a miscarriage is to happen. For instance, this website ( ) shows that in the first two weeks of pregnancy (after implantation) chances of miscarriage are at a high 31%. But by 12 weeks, the chance of miscarriage is only 5%.

"The overall risk of miscarriage once a woman knows she is pregnant is 12 to 15 percent, the researchers note in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology."


"For women in childbearing years, the chances of having a miscarriage can range from 10-25%, and in most healthy women the average is about a 15-20% chance." (5)

Since the two links both say 15%, I'll stick with that number. So we have 15 pregnant women and 15% miscarry, which leaves us with 12.75... 13 women who are still pregnant, since it's hard to have 3/4th of a woman!

After 20 weeks, a pregnancy loss is called a stillborn. How many times does having a stillborn happen?

"A baby is stillborn in about 1 in 200 pregnancies." (6)

"Each year in the United States about 25,000 babies, or 68 babies every day, are born still. This is about 1 stillbirth in every 115 births." (7)

Even if we average these two, it leaves us with 0.63% of pregnancies ending in stillbirth.

"Stillbirth rate is 1%." (8)

This rate is not high enough to affect our small sample of pregnant women. If we had a larger group, it would, but for now it wont work.

So in the end, we've got 100 women having sex for a month, and only 30 women will get pregnant, and only 12 women will carry pregnancies to term. This of course, does not factor in things like contraceptive (which would make our number of conceptions much much lower), extreme / elevated stress, which could lead to more complications, or a lack of health care.

If they are having sex everyday, that means we have up to 3,100 cases of sexual intercourse which result in 12 babies. I don't know how anyone can claim making a baby is the main purpose of sex when it happens so infrequently!


Yes, it's true.

I am a Pro-choice Christian.

No, you are not dreaming.

Contrary to what you might believe, there is a community of Christians who hold true to the Pro-choice viewpoint. We are not a very vocal community, but we are strong in our beliefs.

Here is what the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice says about being pro-choice and Christian:

What does being religious and pro-choice mean?

Religious Coalition supporters are pro-choice not in spite of our faith but because of it. We recognize and affirm that all life is sacred and that part of being human is the responsibility to hold all life and creation in sacred trust. Part and parcel of that trust is the call to be responsible moral decision-makers.

To be pro-choice is to respect all points of view and respect individual conscience. To be pro-choice is to trust women and families to make their own decisions. And it means speaking openly in our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques about sexuality, knowing we have the love and support of our faith communities, whatever our circumstances.

Here is a list of some Pro-choice Christian groups on the web:

Catholics for Choice
Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom
Any many more!

Don't let the vocal pro-life groups confuse you. There is no hypocrisy in being pro-choice and Christian.