Ronn Blankenship wrote:
>
> At 12:21 AM 11/9/02, Julia Thompson wrote:
> >"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> > >
> > > At 10:34 PM 11/8/2002 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
> > > >But, they do; if you get down to the fundamental precepts of the religion.
> > > >One's can go against the pope and be a non-sinning Catholic. One cannot
> > > >violate one's own conscience.**
> > >
> > > Right, but unless one has a grave reason to use contraception,
> >
> >Would being on the pill for medical reasons not having primarily to do
> >with contraception be reasonable, in your opinion? I've had friends of
> >mine on the pill not because they were having sex and didn't want to
> >become pregnant (at least one of them was a virgin at the time this came
> >up in conversation) but because it provided some hormone regulation that
> >their doctors thought they ought to have (and some of them, once they'd
> >been on it for a few months, agreed wholeheartedly that they were better
> >off
>
> . . . until their mothers dropped by, snooped in their medicine cabinets,
> and jumped to the wrong conclusions . . .
Actually, the first friend that told me about it had been on it since
before going to college, and her mother was fully aware of the
situation. The only mother I knew of who freaked out about it already
had all sorts of issues with her daughter anyway. (And some of my
friends might have mentioned that they were having problems and going to
the doctor, and the mother would want to know what the doctor had said,
and that would have kept things in perspective.)
Now, the one who went on the pill primarily for birth control, that's
another story, but that's not covered under the scenerio I outlined
above.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
