By Ronald FischerAs Mr. Fischer attempted to do to Ms. Cohen, I will in turn attempt to do to him.
GRAND FORKS — In reading ultraliberal writer and political activist Nancy Cohen’s column, one would think that the creation of the birth-control pill was the best thing that ever happened in the world (“It all started with the pill,” Page A4, March 7).
Like most extreme liberals, Cohen offered misinformation and outright inaccuracies in her column. I will address the four most blatant.
** First, Cohen suggests that the pill and abortion were needed for gender equality, without explaining why a woman’s ability to have sex without accepting the natural consequences of that act — the possibility of becoming pregnant — in any way elevates the status of a woman.
I submit that woman, created last by God, rather than being inferior to man is the highest and best of all creation. She has the ability to conceive and bring forth new life, consistent with God’s command in the Bible to go forth, be fruitful and multiply.
By marketing the pill and making abortion legal, society actually degraded women and objectified them as sex objects. For people such as Cohen, it is as if engaging in sexual activity without consequence is the be-all and end-all of achieving equality with men. But take a look at the viral proliferation of pornography since the onset of the sexual revolution, and you will see just one of many examples of how rampant the degradation of women has become.
Sex without consequences has the end result of destroying — not building up — society.
** Second, Cohen says those opposing the sexual revolution (including aspects such as gay marriage and abortion) started as a tiny group of women who also were far-right Republicans and Protestant fundamentalists. She conveniently leaves out the Catholic Church, which always has opposed both artificial means of contraception and abortion.
Lest there be any doubt and as just one example, Herald readers should read Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), which was issued in 1968.
** Third, without citing the source, Cohen states that a recent poll showed 63 percent favored insurance coverage for birth control. While that may be true, it misses the main point that a vast majority of Americans do not believe that the government should have the right to force an employer to provide such coverage against the employer’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion. In other words, that majority also opposes the Obama administration’s most recent attempts to severely restrict religious freedoms.
** Fourth, Cohen states that a solid majority of Americans support abortion rights and gay marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even in California, one of the most liberal states in the country, a majority voted in favor of a constitutional amendment keeping marriage as a union between a man and woman.
While some liberal courts and legislatures have created a “right” that has never existed before, whenever the issue has come up for a popular vote, Americans have soundly rejected it, clearly wishing marriage to stay as it was naturally intended.
And as far as abortion is concerned, the well-respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has conducted many surveys and polls, which show that a vast majority of Americans either outright oppose abortion or favor placing restrictions on abortion, making them more difficult to obtain.
Cohen says those pushing the liberal sexual revolution agenda will not give up. That may be true. But neither will the majority of Americans who oppose the evils wrought by the sexual revolution give up.
We will continue to fight for morality based upon objective truth and natural law. We will continue to expose the ever-growing hazards (including cancer) to women from the pill.
We will continue to fight to uphold marriage as between a man and woman. And we will continue to oppose abortion because it involves the destruction of innocent human life.
He starts out immediately by painting Ms. Cohen as an "ultraliberal" and an extremist. I would at this point paint Mr. Fischer as an "ultraconservative" but as a conservative myself, I would be offended by such a remark. Instead I will just post this:
Since reasoning with an extremist of any flavor is an exercise in futility, I will instead just point out Mr. Fischer's own failings of logic to make myself feel better and then wash my hands of his lunacy.
**First, Ronald [can I call you Ronald? Or Ron? Ronnie? I'll stick with Ronald.] draws attention that women who have sex, have the possibility of becoming pregnant and apparently an attempt to remove that possibility is bad. He then submits his argument that... wait, what? The beginning of your argument is "The Bible says..."? Ron, buddy, you have to come out strong here. You are setting the tone for the rest of the article. Sigh... so, your argument is that the Bible says be fruitful and multiply yadda yadda, birth control will end society. Cool. Since my ears are bleeding from my mind trying to figure out how you passed the bar exam, I'm going to go forward pretending that entire section doesn't exist.
**Second, Ronald points out that Ms. Cohen forgot to mention the Catholics. So he points her towards some particular piece of dogma that he feels, I don't know, is magic? I'm not nearly as educated as Mr. Fischer so I'm not sure how what the Pope says does anything other than point out how poor his argument is so far... NEXT!
**Third, (and this one is my favorite) he criticizes Ms. Cohen for not providing a source for her statistics that he says are likely true, and then turns right around does the exact same thing whilst attacking the straw man of religious freedom. Really? REALLY? You are going to throw a flag for not citing her source of the poll she quoted, and then in the very next sentence claim to speak for the "vast majority of America"? Then you claim that we want religious freedom as though that is somehow related with allowing employees access to insurance coverage. Guy, no. No, no, no, NO!
You attempting to force your religious beliefs on others is NOT religious mother fucking freedom! That is called oppression you asshat!
Let me paint a picture for you to make it easier for you to not understand and continue to refute regardless of the undeniable truth presented before you.
I am an Employee. I am Religion X.
I work as a janitor at a School of Religion Y.
I get my health insurance through my work.
My daughter is Religion Z.
Too complicated? I lost you already? OK, I'll literally paint the picture for you then:
As you can clearly see, the first amendment in fact protects people from being oppressed by religion, not by allowing others to oppress because of their religion.
**Fourth, Mr. Cohen claims that the "liberal courts" are creating rights (gay marriage) that have never existed before and implies that since it gets rejected in a popular vote, it should remain as it is. I wonder if Mr. Cohen even read the words over after he typed them? Need I really list every single "right" that we now have that, when they were fought for, never existed? Ugh.
Finally he concludes by calling birth control, gay marriage and abortion "evil" which must be fought. (I am going to ignore the fact that he says birth control is hazardous the same way he ignores that it is helpful.)
Neil Patrick Harris marrying his boyfriend is evil.
A rape victim taking the morning after pill is evil.
Every Catholic who I've ever had sex with who used birth control (100% btw) is evil.
Well sip my tea, I had no idea this kind of thing was evil. Silly 'ole me I thought things like rape and murder and child molestation were evil. (Hmm, how many of the those has the Catholic church done in their name...? All? Oops! We'll ignore those facts!) I thought people like Saddam or Bin Laden or Hitler were the evil. Here it turns out I am surrounded by evil!
Oh, and all I have left for this gem: "Morality based on objective truth and natural law" is:
That's cute. [Full aside, I just looked him up, he's an ambulance chaser, go figure eh?]