Life, Choice, or Both?

          There is an issue that was not any major source of political debate in campaigns or elections in the recent past, certainly not in Presidential campaigns. Not to the degree that we are seeing now! I'm talking about the issue of reproductive rights in relation to religious liberty and what role contraception should have in health care. This holds true especially for women's access to oral contraceptives which many on the "far religious right" strongly oppose.
          Contraception as an issue is not the same as abortion, as abortion is the choice to end a life that has already been conceived (or, as many would call it, a potential human life). Contraception is a choice to prevent conception from happening in the first place. My observations of the current political debate, especially carried out by the candidates campaigning for a the spot as the Republican challenger against President Obama, is that time around, reproduction vs. religious liberty, seems to be the central issue to be reckoned with. We therefore needed to deal with it if we are to make an informed choice about the then-Candidate of our choice. Even if you are outside the US and in an area where this isn't being politicized, you will need to deal with the question of contraception, especially if you are married and in your childbearing years or if you are raising teens who are or want to be sexually active. And there are some health care settings where you must deal with it. We still need to deal with this even though the debate is not raging at this time, as these things do not go away even when Elections are won or lost.
         I have great admiration for those families who, because of their beliefs and their life circumstances, like the well-known Duggars, refuse to use any kind of contraception and keep adding one child after another to their family. The Duggars take the Biblical instruction to "Be fruitful and multiply" seriously; they are devout people of faith who believe that every child is a gift from God and should be welcomed as such. Yes, the Duggars have the resources, including the proceeds from a TV show and apparently good physical health, to be able to bear and raise a huge family. They have been in the position to have an unrestricted number of children, which we are told is around 20 children. In most cases, money will be an issue because most of us do not have unrestricted wealth and many of us may have health issues or relationship issues that make bearing and raising many children unwise, irresponsible or even risky. These factors, especially if you have more than one of these factors in operation, will limit how many children you can bear and raise or should bear and raise responsibly or safely. So, for most of us, even if we would want to have huge families, contraception is an issue. Unless you are unfortunate enough to be infertile and CANNOT bear children, there is no other way to limit family size other than sexual abstinence. And in marriage, that is NOT a good idea!
          In my own case, after I married, contraception was an issue because, from the beginning, I was discouraged from conceiving. This was not only because of our financial situation but because of my epilepsy and my Marfan's Syndrome making pregnancy risky for both a baby and me. So my spouse and I used contraception faithfully. Then I became unexpectedly pregnant and after the shock wore off, I was happy and excited. I did have to take an anti-convulsant during my pregnancy. Thank God, our beautiful, precious daughter was born healthy even though she was diagnosed with "Pervasive Development Disorder" which is a subtype of high-functioning autism. I have been unable to conceive again and have been strongly discouraged from bearing any more children. Today, for her sake, I'm much disappointed that we are being forced to raise our daughter as an only child though we are very pleased with her.
          The former political Candidate who started this debate during last year's Presidential Primaries,  Sen. Rick Santorum, is a devout person of faith who strongly opposes not only abortion but also birth control, especially oral contraceptives. I respect his personal choice to bear and raise a large family and to continue to add to his family. But finances and apparently health and relationships, are not issues for him or his wife. These things are issues for so many of us who have financial, health, or family problems. So, I don't think Sen, Santorum (or anyone) should put a guilt trip on anyone who feels the need to limit family size. Family size, whether it is large or small, is not right or wrong. What is a moral issue is respecting other people's choices and not judging them. Big families are fine as long as a couple have the resources, energy, health are support system to bear and raise lots of children responsibly, effectively and safely. Since most of us  have one or more reasons why we can't or don't feel comfortable bearing or raising lots of children, we will need to use contraception during some or much of our childbearing years. The debate is: Should it be the government's role to make it available? For contaceptives can be costly if one must pay for them out-of-pocket.
          What about contraceptives for unmarried people, including teens? The Bible is clear about that: It should not even be an issue, as contraceptives  are only needed if one is sexually active. And the Scriptures forbid sexual activity outside of marriage; it holds that sexual intercourse and bearing children are best reserved for the permanence, commitment and legal protections that marriage offers. As a child who was born to a teen mom and outside of marriage, I can testify from experience that teen parenthood means much hardship for a young mom and a life of permanent disadvantage for the child. And I have seen and read about many others who have had the awful experience of teen pregnancy. Many will say, "Use protection." I'm here to tell you that contraceptives do not always protect one from pregnancy and they often don't protect one from sexually transmitted diseases. I do not recommend contraceptives for young people; the ideal is to strongly encourage teens to save sex for marriage, for their own emotional, physical and spiritual well-being and that of their future spouse. It sounds old-fashioned but it is true; the best wedding gift one can give a spouse is one's virginity. Whatever your views on sexual intercourse and contraceptives for unmarried people, including youth, I encourage you to check out a website which discusses these matters in a sensitive, informative and truthful matter and is directed to young people. Please visit: Love Matters. If you are married and want to check out a website about contraception for married people and the ethics of using them as well as find other information that is truthfully and sensitively given, the following website: Christian Family Planning
          The reason that oral contraceptives like the birth control pill and emergency contraception, "the morning after pill," can be controversial is that they are considered by many to be abortifacients, that is, they don't always prevent conception; when they don't, they work by ending a life already conceived, mainly by preventing the conceived embryo from implanting in the pregnant woman's uterus. Therefore, many people of faith strongly shun them. What these opponents don't seem to realize is that so many women use birth control pills to treat female gynecological issues like various menstrual irregularities. It angered me as a woman, as is has so many other, that the recent high-profile panel discussing contraception did not have even ONE woman on the panel. I also hate it that this issue tends to come off as one where men are telling women what to do with our bodies. It should not be this way! Birth control, bearing children and raising them, are as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. Can this be one big reason there are so many abortions of the unborn as well as abuse of so many born children, because women are doing the "heavy moral lifting" of these matters without male support? I think so!
          Whatever your view on abortion or contraception, because so many health care providers see abortion and even certain forms of contraception as very wrong and against their consciences, any political debate on reproductive rights and legislation on the availability of government funds for them, should always include a religious liberty or conscience clause. This is so that health care providers of faith or who simply believe that life begins at conception will not be forced to go against their principles and have to pay for or provide pills or procedures for their patients that they oppose. As long as we are talking tolerance, shouldn't we have tolerance for those of faith?
          There is the raging debate about whether many people, because of criminal or child abuse tendencies, should even be permitted to bear ANY children. Especially if you are unable to bear children or have seen or experienced child abuse, seeing or even hearing about people so easily bearing children and then hellishly abusing and even killing them, is infuriorating. Should contraception be made available? I say it should, but if they are unmarried, abstinence is by far the best choice. Many people declare that contraception reduces both abortions and child abuse, but I don't see that this is happening. There is no easy answer.
          What about the availability, even the mandate, of ultrasounds for women about to have abortions? What about vaginal ultrasounds? This raging debate, started by Sen, Rick Santorum, shows no signs of letting up. The argument for vaginal ultrasounds over abdominal ultrasounds is that the vaginal form is more accurate. But vaginal probing is invasive and makes the woman feel very vulnerable, as she must wear skimpy clothes with her legs falling apart in cold metal stirrups. When this is forced on her as a government mandate, this seems like a rape. No wonder there is such bitter opposition to vaginal ultrasounds! I agree that women who are about to have a serious, permanent procedure like abortion ought to be warned about the risks of this procedure and about what they are about to abort. They should be able to make an informed choice. Many post-abortive women have experienced tremendous grief and guilt and bear lifelong emotional scars from their abortions. If ultrasounds, even less invasive, abdominal ones, would save more of them from that and save their babies' lives, isn't this worth it? And they should be able to consent to this ultrasound, like any procedure. Still, I cannot see why every other medical procedure requires parental consent if done on minors. Abortion is a major procedure and its effects can never be reversed. They will last forever. So ought not parents know when their minor children are getting this procedure?
          Even though Sen. Santorum did not win his party's nomination as the contender for the White House against President Obama, and this has been taken off center stage in the current political debates, contraception vs. religious liberty remains a force many of us must reckon with. I disagree with Santorum and other strong pro-life, "anti-abortion" advocates on many other issues that it seems so many of them are inconsistent on, and that need addressing which may reduce abortions through making it less tempting or attractive to seek them.
          Abortion and contraception are like other "hot-button" issues; they are surrounded with strong codes of silence and those who are affected by them personally often wrestle with shame, stigma, prejudice, fear and even hopelessness. These kind of issues make most of us uncomfortable and are usually not easy to talk about. It's easy to live our lives so as not to offend people who vehemently disagree with us on issues deemed to be controversial, including abortion. But lives may depend on it.
As far as religious liberty goes, I read a most alarming statistic, just today, that over 70 percent of those females of those girls and women who seek abortions come from churches, where their pastors or priests are largely silent. Folks, wherever we stand on a "hot button" issue that affects the lives of people, nothing is worse than silence. Not even the position we may hold on the issue.

        Photo Courtesy of MorgueFile.com Photo by RoganJosh This photo can be found here.

Marriage Equality and Religious Liberty

          Without a doubt this will be the most controversial topic I have ever blogged about to date but this ought to be talked about because it is one of the topics that many of our politicians are debating about it. It strikes at the core of the values of the two opposing sides of the debate, the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) community and their advocates/allies, and the Religious Liberty community, which includes people of all faith and worldviews who do not endorse GLBT marriage. The GLBT side values equality, tolerance, privacy and the acceptance of all people. The Religious Liberty community values principle, truth, morality, and the traditional family. But both sides value one thing: free speech.
          Currently, marriage equality has dominated the national headlines. If you follow the news, you no doubt have seen footage of many people marching at Washington, D.C., holding banners declaring their rights to legal and equal traditional marriage, with all the legal protections that have traditionally be given to husbands and wives, including in the even of divorce or death. The other side, those who support traditional marriage between husbands and wives only, also had their opportunity to protest the proposed marriage equality based on the belief that God established marriage to be between a man and a woman. Currently, during my time on Facebook, I have seen one person after another change their profile pictures to a red banner that may be solid red or have stripes or other inner images. Since I originally wrote this blog, over a year ago, I have learned of one heartbreaking story after another of displays of hate toward people based on their sexual orientation. I have learned of more stories of LGBT bullying that has driven even more victims to end their lives. It seems that the majority of those in my network that take a position on this heated issue, usually sympathize or even are hard-core advocates for marriage equality, regardless of sexual orientation. Most in my network remain silent on this issue and only a few oppose marriage equality, always on the grounds that it is against God's plan for marriage to take place between husbands and wives.
          Now I know full well that at any time, anyone reading this can be an advocate/ally of GLBT marriage or may even be GLBT yourself. And so I must say: On behalf of those on the Religious Liberty side who have or do not understand the grace (underserved favor) and forgiveness of God, you deserve apologies and restitution for the horrific and inexcusable things and "hate crimes" which have been done to many of you throughout the ages, but especially in these days when you have "come out of the closet" or may not be GLBT but just not fit the male or female stereotype. All of the "hate cimes," the "anti-gay" protests and counter-protests at "gay pride" rallies and even at military funerals, and the GLBT bullying, are all anti-God, anti-Bible and anti-Christ. These things go against God's image of perfect love and Jesus' compassion that was modelled in the Gospels. The anti-gay sites on the Internet and on social networks are plain wrong. It's shocking, sickening and heartbreaking how GLBT bullying has become such an epidemic and how so many victims have been driven to bullycide through it. My guess is that one big reason that this targeted GLBT bullying has grown so bad today is that even in schools, students are "coming out of the closet" and living as openly GLBT. In my growing up years and before that, there was a definite code of silence about GLBT issues, just as there was about so many other things that we talk about today. So such bullying was not known and if it happened, there was no awareness about it.
          We have definitely come a long way from the time when society frowned on homosexuality and on homosexuals. Today, they and anyone with sexual orientation differences are a protected minority group. I will boldly say that today it is less of a stigma to "come out of the closet" about being GLBT than it is to "come out of the closet" about invisible disabilities like many mental illnesses, autism, epilepsy and about other misunderstood medical or neurological conditions. I'm sure that this is because GLBT groups and individuals have tirelessly lobbied those in power, gaining influence; many celebrities have also added their voices to the effort. Today, it is "homophobia" that society frowns on but I fear that this word as well as the term "hate speech" are used to crush any civil and rational debate on this topic.
          We can blame many of our problems encouraging gay marriage as an alternative, to the failure of so many heterosexual marriages and families, along with a high divorce rate, domestic violence, child abuse and rebellious children. But heterosexual unions aren't to blame for these social evils; growing up without learning empathy and self-control are. Abuses of a good thing does not mean it is bad, or has become bad. Just because heterosexual unions have been widely abused does not make traditional marriage bad. The Religious Liberty side views all of this with grief and dismay and finds it easy to overreact and to view GLBT marriage as the threat to religious freedom. And GLBT people likewise see the other side as a threat to their cause. This means war!
          The media have a lot of power in shaping our opinions. And so much of the media tell os half-truths or give us the news as based on their biases. So we hear much about what the GLBT community suffer at the hands of those who are identified with the Religious Liberty community. And let me make one things clear: There are many, many people who do not identify themselves either with GLBT people are with Religious Liberty people, so the majority of people are largely silent on this matter; it is not their priority either way. And there are many denominations which do openly support or tolerate GLBT lifestyles. This is my observation.
          Today it's politically correct to cry foul whenever anyone dares to challenge alternate acts or lifestyles, whether they are GLBT, co-habitation (living together without being married), premarital sex, abortions or anything else that has become accepted in society but which goes against the core values of those in the Religious Liberty community. It's usually the unstable, emotionally immature but also stable, mature but opinionated people, who let discussions on controversial topics deteriorate into name-calling, shouting matches, bullying, personal attacks and even worse. Such individuals, who often make the headlines, give many in the religious Liberty community, who truly care about people, a bad name. Worse, they hurt God's Cause on earth. Sad.
          The Religious Liberty community hold the Bible to be God's inspired Word to us. In it God says that He made us male and female so He instituted marriage so we can reflect His image. This is at the core of the Religious Libery's side of this debate. Yes, it's true that lots of evils have come out of male/female marriage but this isn't the fault of such marriages but of the people's failure to learn empathy or self-control. Yes, I know that this may not be a good enough reason for those who value other matters but this is God's reason. Those who oppose marriage equality out of deeply-held religious convictions are not narrow-minded, intolerant or hateful. If they understand God's grace and forgiveness and love, they love and accept all people, do not force their beliefs on anyone, and welcome anyone, including GLBT individuals, and love them as valuable creations of God.
          It is not that God and the Religious Liberty people who understand God's love and grace, don't value tolerance, acceptance, privacy or equality. It's just that this community values truth and morality as most loving and in the best interests of all. And in all the talk about acceptance and tolerance, there is often no tolerance for or acceptance of Religious Liberty people who "come out of the closet" in both a loving and truthful way, about their beliefs. They are vilified as "homophobes" and "hatemongers" and worse. Tolerance and acceptance should be extended to both sides. And what is "homophobia"? It is the fear of anything GLBT. Talking about GLBT issues or challenging them as a lifestyle are not homphobia if this is done in a caring and loving way.
          In both the Old and New Testament, God is silent on sexual orientation itself and on homosexual thoughts or feelings. He only grows vocal about acting on these just as He condemns hating or not accepting any peple, which includes GLBT people. God's words against GLBT lifestyles doesn't mean that God is homophobic or encourages homophobia. It's only through male/female unions that we can naturally procreate future generations and keep the human race going. This has been God's plan from the beginning and this has not changed. In gay marriage, unnatual forms of reproduction must be done to procreate.
          What about the matter of whether GLBT people are "born that way" or at one point in time, made a conscious choice to adopt same-sex orientation as a lifestyle? This is not an easy topic to sort through, as sexual orientation is very complex. It seems, according to testimonies of so many GLBT people, that they struggled with their thought and feelings even as young children, many as long as they can remember. So it is not a simple matter of making a conscious choice of adopting a lifestyle. I see no easy answers to this one and I can understand why so many GLBT people decide to embrace their sexual orientation as a difference, just like having a different skin color or having disabilities. The only trouble with that is, in both the Old AND New Testaments, God does not view GLBT lifestyles as "just another difference." I have provided the verses below; these are the words of a much Higher Authority than I.
          Be assured that God, in the Bible, does NOT single out homosexuality as the only misuse of sexuality. He comes out against many other misuses of sexuality, including prostitution, incest, rape, premarital sex, adultery, bestiality, and more. And He comes out against divorce in male/female marriages over and over and as often about adultery. But what would be His position on legalized gay marriage? I think that He realizes that GLBT issues are an established fact in this culture that while it is NOT His ideal, that He has other priorities, such as our coming to know and love Him and to love others. It seems to me that He would tolerate legalized gay marriage more than He would much of the other social ills of this day. What about homosexuals adopting children? I think it is much better to grow up in a loving, stable home of a GLBT couple than with cold, unloving, abusive heterosexual parents. But God's ideal is for children to grow up in a loving, stable male/female union.
          Are GLBT relations the business of society? I agree that it is NOT our business what our neighbors do in the privacy of their bedrooms and that as long as the people involved are not hurting or bothering us, we should leave them alone. But God also made GLBT people (and all of us) and what they (and we) do is His business. So no one can tell Him, "What I do in the privacy of my bedroom or anywhere else is any of Your business."
          What about those who are sick and tired of the GLBT lifestyle, are trying to escape it and what about those who are trying to help and assist them in this most difficult process? Again, if we want to see tolerance and acceptance toward those in the GLBT community, we should have tolerance and acceptance toward this community, also a minority. What we need is tolerance and acceptance toward all people. When controversial topics spawn hate and intolerance toward opposing sides we do not have this.

Scriptural verses that are uses in the GLBT/Religious Liberty debate:

Genesis 1:27--The purpose of marriage-Image of God in us as male and female as shown in marriage.
Genesis 2: 18-25--  " "

Genesis 1: 28 God's plan for natual procreation in marriage

Leviticus 18:22 God's words about homosexuality as a lifestyle (NOT a sexual orentation)

Matthew 19: 4 Jesus' words about God's plan for us as reflecting HIs image as male and famale in marriage
Mark 10: 16  " "

Romans 1: 26-27 God's words about homosexuality as a lifestyle (NOT a sexual orentation)
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 " "

http://christiansnswers.net/
This is a website that is run by a pastor who lived a formerly homosexual lifestyle and found his way out of it. This site contains stories by men and women who lived formerly GLBT lifestyles and have found their way out. This pastor answers questions with faithfulness to Scripture and truth but also with sensitivity and compassion, as one who has been there.

http://courageerc.net/
This is a social networking site of members who are or have lived GLBT lifestyles and who want to escape. The site is run by Catholics who provide articles and posts which are marked by compassion and love as well as being true to Scriptural principles.
      

About Reproductive Rights and Religious Liberty

          There is an issue that was not any major source of political debate in campaigns or elections in the recent past, certainly not in Presidential campaigns. Not to the degree that we are seeing now! I'm talking about the issue of reproductive rights in relation to religious liberty and what role contraception should have in health care. This holds true especially for women's access to oral contraceptives which many on the "far religious right" strongly oppose.
          Contraception as an issue is not the same as abortion, as abortion is the choice to end a life that has already been conceived (or, as many would call it, a potential human life). Contraception is a choice to prevent conception from happening in the first place. My observations of the current political debate, especially carried out by the candidates campaigning for a the spot as the Republican challenger against President Obama, is that time around, reproduction vs. religious liberty, seems to be the central issue to be reckoned with. We therefore need to deal with it if we are to make an informed choice about the Candidate of our choice. Even if you are outside the US and in an area where this isn't being politicized, you will need to deal with the question of contraception, especially if you are married and in your childbearing years or if you are raising teens who are or want to be sexually active. And there are some health care settings where you must deal with it.
          I have great admiration for those families who, because of their beliefs and their life circumstances, like the well-known Duggars, refuse to use any kind of contraception and keep adding one child after another to their family. The Duggars take the Biblical instruction to "Be fruitful and multiply" seriously; they are devout people of faith who believe that every child is a gift from God and should be welcomed as such. Yes, the Duggars have the resources, including the proceeds from a TV show and apparently good physical health, to be able to bear and raise a huge family. They have been in the position to have an unrestricted number of children, which we are told is around 20 children. In most cases, money will be an issue because most of us do not have unrestricted wealth and many of us may have health issues or relationship issues that make bearing and raising many children unwise, irresponsible or even risky. These factors, especially if you have more than one of these factors in operation, will limit how many children you can bear and raise or should bear and raise responsibly or safely. So, for most of us, even if we would want to have huge families, contraception is an issue. Unless you are unfortunate enough to be infertile and CANNOT bear children, there is no other way to limit family size other than sexual abstinence. And in marriage, that is NOT a good idea!
          In my own case, after I married, contraception was an issue because, from the beginning, I was discouraged from conceiving. This was not only because of our financial situation but because of my epilepsy and my Marfan's Syndrome making pregnancy risky for both a baby and me. So my spouse and I used contraception faithfully. Then I became unexpectedly pregnant and after the shock wore off, I was happy and excited. I did have to take an anti-convulsant during my pregnancy. Thank God, our beautiful, precious daughter was born healthy even though she was diagnosed with "Pervasive Development Disorder" which is a subtype of high-functioning autism. I have been unable to conceive again and have been strongly discouraged from bearing any more children. Today, for her sake, I'm much disappointed that we are being forced to raise our daughter as an only child though we are very pleased with her.
          The political Candidate who started this debate, Sen. Rick Santorum, is a devout person of faith who strongly opposes not only abortion but also birth control, especially oral contraceptives. I respect his personal choice to bear and raise a large family and to continue to add to his family. But finances and apparently health and relationships, are not issues for him or his wife. These things are issues for so many of us who have financial, health, or family problems. So, I don't think Sen, Santorum (or anyone) should put a guilt trip on anyone who feels the need to limit family size. Family size, whether it is large or small, is not right or wrong. What is a moral issue is respecting other people's choices and not judging them. Big families are fine as long as a couple have the resources, energy, health are support system to bear and raise lots of children responsibly, effectively and safely. Since most of us  have one or more reasons why we can't or don't feel comfortable bearing or raising lots of children, we will need to use contraception during some or much of our childbearing years. The debate is: Should it be the government's role to make it available? For contaceptives can be costly if one must pay for them out-of-pocket.
          What about contraceptives for unmarried people, including teens? The Bible is clear about that: It should not even be an issue, as contraceptives  are only needed if one is sexually active. And the Scriptures forbid sexual activity outside of marriage; it holds that sexual intercourse and bearing children are best reserved for the permanence, commitment and legal protections that marriage offers. As a child who was born to a teen mom and outside of marriage, I can testify from experience that teen parenthood means much hardship for a young mom and a life of permanent disadvantage for the child. And I have seen and read about many others who have had the awful experience of teen pregnancy. Many will say, "Use protection." I'm here to tell you that contraceptives do not always protect one from pregnancy and they often don't protect one from sexually transmitted diseases. I do not recommend contraceptives for young people; the ideal is to strongly encourage teens to save sex for marriage, for their own emotional, physical and spiritual well-being and that of their future spouse. It sounds old-fashioned but it is true; the best wedding gift one can give a spouse is one's virginity. Whatever your views on sexual intercourse and contraceptives for unmarried people, including youth, I encourage you to check out a website which discusses these matters in a sensitive, informative and truthful matter and is directed to young people. Please visit: http://www.lovematters.com/. If you are married and want to check out a website about contraception for married people and the ethics of using them as well as find other information that is truthfully and sensitively given, the following website: http://www.christianfamilyplanning.org/.
          The reason that oral contraceptives like the birth control pill and emergency contraception, "the morning after pill," can be controversial is that they are considered by many to be abortifacients, that is, they don't always prevent conception; when they don't, they work by ending a life already conceived, mainly by preventing the conceived embryo from implanting in the pregnant woman's uterus. Therefore, many people of faith strongly shun them. What these opponents don't seem to realize is that so many women use birth control pills to treat female gynecological issues like various menstrual irregularities. It angered me as a woman, as is has so many other, that the recent high-profile panel discussing contraception did not have even ONE woman on the panel. I also hate it that this issue tends to come off as one where men are telling women what to do with our bodies. It should not be this way! Birth control, bearing children and raising them, are as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. Can this be one big reason there are so many abortions of the unborn as well as abuse of so many born children, because women are doing the "heavy moral lifting" of these matters without male support? I think so!
          Whatever your view on abortion or contraception, because so many health care providers see abortion and even certain forms of contraception as very wrong and against their consciences, any political debate on reproductive rights and legislation on the availability of government funds for them, should always include a religious liberty or conscience clause. This is so that health care providers of faith or who simply believe that life begins at conception will not be forced to go against their principles and have to pay for or provide pills or procedures for their patients that they oppose. As long as we are talking tolerance, shouldn't we have tolerance for those of faith?
          There is the raging debate about whether many people, because of criminal or child abuse tendencies, should even be permitted to bear ANY children. Especially if you are unable to bear children or have seen or experienced child abuse, seeing or even hearing about people so easily bearing children and then hellishly abusing and even killing them, is infuriorating. Should contraception be made available? I say it should, but if they are unmarried, abstinence is by far the best choice. Many people declare that contraception reduces both abortions and child abuse, but I don't see that this is happening. There is no easy answer.
          What about the availability, even the mandate, of ultrasounds for women about to have abortions? What about vaginal ultrasounds? This raging debate, started by Sen, Rick Santorum, shows no signs of letting up. The argument for vaginal ultrasounds over abdominal ultrasounds is that the vaginal form is more accurate. But vaginal probing is invasive and makes the woman feel very vulnerable, as she must wear skimpy clothes with her legs falling apart in cold metal stirrups. When this is forced on her as a government mandate, this seems like a rape. No wonder there is such bitter opposition to vaginal ultrasounds! I agree that women who are about to have a serious, permanent procedure like abortion ought to be warned about the risks of this procedure and about what they are about to abort. They should be able to make an informed choice. Many post-abortive women have experienced tremendous grief and guilt and bear lifelong emotional scars from their abortions. If ultrasounds, even less invasive, abdominal ones, would save more of them from that and save their babies' lives, isn't this worth it? And they should be able to consent to this ultrasound, like any procedure.
          Even if Sen. Santorum does not win his party's nomination as the contender for the White House against President Obama, and this is taken out of the raging debate, contraception vs. religious liberty remains a force many of us must reckon with.