Anybody looking for a real live education in Roman Catholic Attitudes on anything, NOT church teaching, but real people’s attitudes who are in that church, should spend some time here: http://forums.catholic.com/ I haven’t been there in a while because I just can’t take it.
If ya look you would find some old posts of mine though. Just search for Tiribulus. I had to get away. Absolutely heart rending to anybody who loves Jesus.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[1] National Survey of Family Growth/Centers for Disease Control, cited in R.K. Jones and J. Dreweke, “Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use,” Guttmacher Institute, April 2011.
[/quote]
Link please. I’ve googled and can only find it used as a source. I would like to look at the methodology used in that study.[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[1] National Survey of Family Growth/Centers for Disease Control, cited in R.K. Jones and J. Dreweke, “Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use,” Guttmacher Institute, April 2011.
[/quote]
Link please. I’ve googled and can only find it used as a source. I would like to look at the methodology used in that study.[/quote]
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf[/quote]Very good. There is a positively heeeyoooooj topic for discussion here that has nothing whatever to do with contraception. That is only the occasion.
EDIT: In case anybody doesn’t know this, if you include the hypertext prefix to a link in a quote using this forum software (http://), the tagging will not work properly. In this case change this: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf to this: www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf in the quote to allow the bbc tags to render the post correctly.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[1] National Survey of Family Growth/Centers for Disease Control, cited in R.K. Jones and J. Dreweke, “Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use,” Guttmacher Institute, April 2011.
[/quote]
Link please. I’ve googled and can only find it used as a source. I would like to look at the methodology used in that study.[/quote]
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf[/quote]
Methodology:
This report was based on data from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth(NSFG).
Desingned and administered by the National Center for Health Statistics(NCHS)
the NSFG produces estimates of factors affecting pregnancy, including sexual activity and contraceptive use.
Data were(sic) gathered using in-person interviews with 7,356 women aged 15-44 between June 2006 and December 2008. All data used for this analysis were(sic) weighted, and the findings are nationally representative
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
DO NOT take this the wrong way, but are you this used to being surrounded by people who lie?
[/quote]
Keep it classy, Tiribulus.
edit: What the heck happened to you? You have to drag your crud into a thread about religious liberty? Learn some manners, you’re in a public space. You use a laughable show of hands at a pro-life rally to take pot shots at the Church, in a thread about religious liberty? And then you try to turn it around on me with this bull-malarky? Newsflash, there’s no more spiritually dead faith in this country than your beloved Calvinistic-Puritan-whatchamadoodle. Oh yes, Tirib, ‘your folks’ certainly were the face of early America, for the most part. But, look at their descendents now. Look at those folks’ country now. Eviscerated. Hollowed out. Their sons and daughters secularists. Where still religious, splintered into a multitude of squabbling denominations who’ve apparently arrived at different understandings, via sola scripture. Go look for tables to overturn somewhere else. Don’t come at me with your right hand out in friendship, only to smack me with the left. Save your reply until you think it through real hard. I’m already about over your forum-waged sectarian crap and thread hijacking.[/quote]Emphass mine. Thank you. I knew you wouldn’t let me down.
And especially in reference to your above post:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:<<< Very good. There is a positively heeeyoooooj topic for discussion here that has nothing whatever to do with contraception. That is only the occasion. >>>[/quote]I did not realize you were this angry with me. Now we’re really getting somewhere. You are the strongest Catholic here. No doubt about it. I cannot help what you believe, but this is most unpleasant for me.
I AM drawin down on you. I will start another thread where you can once and for all debunk all my “pot shots, crud and bull-malarky Calvinistic-Puritan-whatchamadoodle” that by your own words was indeed the face of early America. The America that rose and dominated the world. I challenge you sir. Right here and now. I predict you will not step up. Certainly not because you are stupid or even a coward. But because NOBODY can prevail in a defense of the indefensible. You are on the losing side in a looooong dead church. My sense is that you are becoming increasingly aware of that. Prove me wrong.
Here comes some “I don’t have time and this ain’t worth it and this is a politics forum” diversion. Come on. We can finally do this right. These people are drooling right now. In this case I’m ready to give me what they want.
BTW, nobody stabbed you in the back. I AM YOUR FRIEND. Now more than ever.
And why should I discount the CDC as a source? Do they have a history of producing biased studies? And what about the Guttmacher Institute?
So what if their pro choice? How does that effect this study on contraceptive use? Contraceptive use reduces the need for abortions.
The reality is their research is consistent with EVERY poll, survey and study previously posted in this thread which there have been several.
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/documents/Poll.pdf
More than 63% of catholic voters surveyed supported health insurance coverage for contraception
It was carried out by a 3rd party:
Belden Russonello & Stewart conducts survey, focus group and other research for
non-profit organizations, foundations, political campaigns, the new media and others.
BRS has provided hundreds of clients in the US and elsewhere with research and
counsel to help them understand and communicate effectively with the public and their
particular audiences since 1982.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-04-03/us/pope.poll_1_john-paul-catholics-average-pope?_s=PM:US
Seventy-eight percent said the next pope should allow Catholics to use birth control,
Two-thirds (65 percent) of US Catholic voters believe that hospitals and clinics taking taxpayer dollars
should not be allowed to refuse to provide certain medications or procedures
Another one carried out by Belden Russonello & Stewart.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And why should I discount the CDC as a source? Do they have a history of producing biased studies? And what about the Guttmacher Institute?
So what if their pro choice? How does that effect this study on contraceptive use? Contraceptive use reduces the need for abortions.
The reality is their research is consistent with EVERY poll, survey and study previously posted in this thread which there have been several.
[/quote]
The popularity and use of birth control is not relevant to the issue. The church is not a democracy and it’s not up for a vote. The main question on the table is this, should religious entities or any entity for that matter be force to pay for things they stand against. The answer is a resounding “No”.
You see what they do? You see what you’re dealing with here? I take the time to enquire into the methodology of this study conducted by a pro-abortion group and funded by the federal government and what do I get? I ask for the original study so I can look at the methodology and instead I get a plethora of other “studies.” They just move onto the next nonsense in an attempt to overwhelm and obfuscate. Do you want me to scrutinise those too? Can we admit that the first “study” is inadmissible and move onto the next ones? I’ll look at those too and get back to you, okay?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And why should I discount the CDC as a source? Do they have a history of producing biased studies? And what about the Guttmacher Institute?
So what if their pro choice? How does that effect this study on contraceptive use? Contraceptive use reduces the need for abortions.
The reality is their research is consistent with EVERY poll, survey and study previously posted in this thread which there have been several.
[/quote]
The popularity and use of birth control is not relevant to the issue. The church is not a democracy and it’s not up for a vote. The main question on the table is this, should religious entities or any entity for that matter be force to pay for things they stand against. The answer is a resounding “No”. [/quote]
And we’ve established that.
I’m saying most Catholics are in favour contraception use and having their hospitals provide these services based on the evidence.
NO one is is disagreeing with this, there’s no need to bring this up again and again.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here comes some “I don’t have time and this ain’t worth it and this is a politics forum” diversion. Come on. We can finally do this right. These people are drooling right now. In this case I’m ready to give me what they want.[/quote]
Sorry, but I’m not self-abusive enough to deal with one of your 2+2=4 threads. Nor, your ranting about sola scriptura, only to watch you come with some bizarre extra-biblical explanation for why the earth and cosmology look NOTHING like (firmament, waters of space, gates in the dome, what’s described in the old testament.
[quote]BTW, nobody stabbed you in the back. I AM YOUR FRIEND. Now more than ever.
[/quote] You once were a friend. My friends have more respect. Go find someone else to stalk.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
NO one is is disagreeing with this, there’s no need to bring this up again and again.[/quote]
Um, yes there is. Because you folks keep bringing it up instead of dealing with the actual issue. Religious liberty.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You see what they do? You see what you’re dealing with here? I take the time to enquire into the methodology of this study conducted by a pro-abortion group and funded by the federal government and what do I get? I ask for the original study so I can look at the methodology and instead I get a plethora of other “studies.” They just move onto the next nonsense in an attempt to overwhelm and obfuscate. Do you want me to scrutinise those too? Can we admit that the first “study” is inadmissible and move onto the next ones? I’ll look at those too and get back to you, okay?[/quote]
No, I’ll look for the study, but I’m questioning the points your chose to bring up.
A study done is by the CDC therefore it must be bias
They didn’t provide the exact questions they asked therefore they are probably twisting their data
You didn’t just “enquire” you jumped to the conclusion that it was “Semi-literate, pseudo-academic gibberish” because it was done by a group supporting abortion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
NO one is is disagreeing with this, there’s no need to bring this up again and again.[/quote]
Um, yes there is. Because you folks keep bringing it up instead of dealing with the actual issue. Religious liberty.
[/quote]
I already said Obama shouldn’t force Catholics to administer these services.
We are discussing a COMPLETELY different question now.
I posted the other studies to show that their data is not an aberration
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
NO one is is disagreeing with this, there’s no need to bring this up again and again.[/quote]
Um, yes there is. Because you folks keep bringing it up instead of dealing with the actual issue. Religious liberty.
[/quote]
I already said Obama shouldn’t force Catholics to administer these services.
We are discussing a COMPLETELY different question now.[/quote]
Why the heck are you discussing a different topic when liberty is at stake?!
