Oral Contraceptives: Blessing or Curse?

Oral contraceptives have been on the American market for the past 50 years. Have they done more good than bad? An April issue of TIME Magazine examined this question.

Oral contraceptives were the first medicines ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick. Its main inventor was a conservative Catholic who was looking for a treatment for infertility and instead found a guarantee of it. It was blamed for unleashing the sexual revolution among suddenly swinging singles, despite the fact that throughout the 1960s, women usually had to be married to get it. Its supporters hoped it would strengthen marriage by easing the strain of unwanted children; its critics still charge that the Pill gave rise to promiscuity, adultery and the breakdown of the family. In 1999 the Economist named it the most important scientific advance of the 20th century. One of the world's largest studies of the Pill — 46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years — was released this March. It found that women who take the Pill are less likely to die prematurely from any cause, including cancer and heart disease, yet many women still question whether the health risks outweigh the benefits.
The big change the pill has wreaked on the American people has been the social changes that have taken place. In 1960 the typical American woman had 3.6 children; by 1980 the number had dropped below 2. For the first time, more women identified themselves as workers than as homemakers. "There is a straight line between the Pill and the changes in family structure we now see," says National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O'Neill, " with 22% of women earning more than their husbands. In 1970, 70% of women with children under 6 were at home; 30% worked. Now that's roughly reversed.

The pill has seemingly forever separated the sex act from reproduction for many people. Women who use the pill for recreational sex say that it has liberated them for competition in the work place and from the necessity of taking care of children in the home! The pursuit of pleasure has seemed to replace the pursuit of integrity in family life.

In the early days of pill use, there was a strong tendency and even legislative force behind the prohibition of pill use, except for married women. But in 1960, the Supreme Court “discovered” a right to privacy implicit in the Constitution. That occurred in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut; and the doors swung wide open for widespread use of contraceptive pills.

As the pill became more popular, the birth rate dropped; and employers became more willing to hire women, knowing that they would probably not become pregnant. For the first time, women were admitted to professional schools on an equal basis with men.

Of course, the TIME article presented all this information in a very positive light—apparently seeing nothing derogatory about the widespread use of birth control pills. However, I think that there can be no argument about the fact that birth control pills have facilitated lots of sexual promiscuity outside of marriage (and probably inside marriage, too). We are witnessing the advancing deterioration of the family; and birth control pills are playing a large part in that effect.

Drug Trafficking

The United States is the world's largest market for illegal drugs, with some 13 million Americans spending about $60 billion each year. In the past, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were the most heavily abused drugs, but synthetic drugs such as amphetamines and "designer" drugs such as Ecstasy are claiming a larger share of the market. Methamphetamine is the cause of the fastest-growing drug problem in the United States.

Societies have tried to prohibit the sale and use of harmful drugs by prohibition laws, but these prohibition laws have been problematic in the past because often the targets of these laws are the only ones who are harmed; and the laws produce a perceived conflict between violation of statute and violation of free will. The use of addictive drugs by individuals is seen as enjoyable, and enforcement of the anti-drug laws is seen as more harmful to the individual law-breaker.

The difficulty of enforcing prohibitionist laws has been criticized as resulting in selective enforcement, wherein the enforcers select the people they wish to prosecute based on other criteria, resulting in discrimination based on race, culture, nationality, or financial status. Drug prohibition has been criticized as being a technique of social control of the "so-called dangerous classes."[ The first laws against the use of opium in the United States were enacted in San Francisco in 1875 when smoking opium was outlawed for Chinese immigrants; but taking liquid opium by mouth for white Americans was considered legal. Thus, the laws were based on the form in which the drug was ingested. This obvious discrepancy led many to think that the laws were basically a racist measure.

Laws prohibiting alcohol use in the United States were in place between 1920 and 1933. Although these laws resulted in a discernable decrease in alcohol-related diseases, such as cirrhosis of the liver, they were rescinded because they lead to high rates of violent crime, especially among drug runners and their customers.

Prohibitionism based laws have the added problem of calling attention to the behavior that they are attempting to prohibit. This can make the behavior interesting and exciting, and cause its popularity to increase.

In response to rising drug use among young people and the counter-culture movement, government efforts to enforce prohibition of drug use were strengthened in many countries from the 1960s onward. Mandatory jail sentencing laws in the United States have caused prison crowding and have lead many to question the used of jail time to curtail the use of drugs by non-violent drug users.

The former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Drug Czar, John P. Walters, has described the drug problem in the United States as a "public health challenge," and he has publicly eschewed the notion of a "war on drugs." He has supported additional resources for substance abuse treatment and has touted random student drug testing as an effective prevention strategy. However, the actions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy continue to belie the rhetoric of a shift away from primarily enforcement-based responses to illegal drug use.

Social conservatives have long advocated illicit drug enforcement laws. I ask my readers: Do you think we need these laws? Are they doing more good than bad? What is the solution to the character disintegration that comes from illicit drug use? Please comment on this blog post.

Result of the Health Care Bill: My Opinion, Part 2

The alternative to the 1st possibility I outlined in my last blog is that many people will be disenchanted with the new health care deal; and they will revolt. Already we are seeing that companies that insure their employees are revising their health care contracts, preparing for new expenses. It is reported in the Wall Street Journal today that drug companies are raising drug prices 10%--the largest hike in years. The drug companies are anticipating increasing costs mandated by the new bill.

These tendencies give more fodder to Republicans who want to win in November; and if voter discontent with the bill is strong enough, they certainly will. When the Republicans recover control of Congress and the Senate, they will most certainly make modifications to the health care bill. Hopefully, they will keep some of the good parts and insert some good things. They will keep the features that allow sale of health care policies across state lines. They may well keep the parts called “rationing” by opponents of this bill, i.e., the committees that supervise distribution of questionable surgeries and treatments. I hope that they will make marked inroads into lowering tort claims, and I hope that they will institute a prohibition against using Federal dollars to fund abortion.

There is no doubt that President Obama will veto most of the changes that Republicans make to the bill, and it is quite likely that the hoped-for Republican take-over will not include a filibuster-proof majority in either house. However, public opinion may be so strong that even President Obama may bend to the wishes of the American people, at last, and do something acceptable to us.

I sincerely hope that this last option will be the one that finally takes place. The present bill is ill-conceived and will be horrendously expensive.

Results of the Health Care Bill: My Opinion

I believe that we, in the United States should look carefully at the model of socialized medicine we can see clearly in Great Britain that we can see in their National Health Service. The Brits are now in a great controversy with their elections coming up on May 5. They are seriously considering revamping their health service because their cancer survival rates are lagging behind the rest of Europe and especially far behind those rates in the United States. The Conservative Party is proposing pumping £1 billion into the system to improve access to cutting-edge cancer treatments. The Tories are proposing allocating £200 million to pay for drugs that have been prohibited or controlled by Britain’s’ rationing bureaucracies, thereby giving doctors more latitude in prescribing. The Labour government wants to avoid both of these measures. What does all this mean? The Brits are unhappy with their medical and treatment options for cancer.

So…what can we learn from this? I believe that the new American health care bill will result in one of two likely outcomes. The first, I will outline below; the second I will post on my blog next:
1)There will be a mixture of outcomes in America. Many people will be happy with the new services resulting from the new law. Some will be unhappy, particularly older people; but, overall, the positive effects will override the negative outcomes; and a majority will want to keep the services.
2)The costs of the program will go out the overhead.
3)Republicans will paint the program in such an unfavorable light that they will sweep into control of the government.
4)Then, the Republicans will refuse to fund the services adequately.
5)Services will deteriorate; and controversy will cover the whole program.
6)Democrats will come back into power, raise taxes, and borrow more money from abroad to fund the program.
7)Republicans will return to power.
8)Etc., etc. The cycle will continue.
I believe this is the worst outcome of the new law. Follow the next blog post to see the alternative.

Why Go To Church?

(This blog post was excerpted from a blog post by Hank Hanegraaff.)

Will you show up for an Easter worship service this year out of guilt, childhood habit, or is it your weekly routine. The question is, “Why should I attend church services?” More to the point: “Why join a church?” Today, I want to explain the importance of committing to and joining with a local church.

Let me clarify: joining a church should not be approached as an obligation or duty, such as registering to vote, supporting the public library, or taking the trash out. No, joining a local church should be considered a great joy and sacred privilege.

Let’s consider why.

First, throughout the Bible, we see that the believer’s life is to be lived within the context of a family of faith (Ephesians 3:4–15; Acts 2). Indeed the Bible knows nothing about lone-ranger or “closet” Christians! Far from being born again as rugged individuals, we are born into a body of believers of which Christ is the head. A friend of mine aptly remarked, “When we are born again, we are born into a ‘forever family.’”

Furthermore, spiritual growth is impossible apart from membership and participation in a healthy, well-balanced church. It is in the church that we weekly receive the Word and sacraments as means of grace. Recall the early Christians who “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). Moreover, belonging to a body of believers also allows for accountability. The Bible requires that believers respectfully call attention to patterns of persistent, sinful behavior on the part of a member (Matthew 18:15–17).

Finally, while it is in the church that we enter into worship, experience the fellowship of believers, and become equipped to witness, church membership itself does not save us. No, we are rescued from God’s wrath, forgiven of all our sins, and declared positionally righteous before God solely by grace, through faith, on account of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:17; 3:21–4:8; Ephesians 2:8–9).

America's Founding Principle

A French dignitary, Alexis de Tocqueville, toured America in 1831-1833 to research our prisons and justice system. The American experience had a lasting effect on him, causing him to write his hallmark Democracy in America. For a child raised in the politically tumultuous country of revolutionary France, this expansive volume was the result of his fascination with our government and its founding.

His research and observations uncovered many things about our young country, not the least of which was his realization that a belief in God played a very critical role in its birth. "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds," he wrote, "that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other."

Yet Alexis also had a warning:

Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?

Are Earthquakes Good? You Bet!!

I have read Chapter 9, of Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee, “The Surprising Importance of Plate Tectonics” to try to understand why we have earthquakes and whether they do any good as far as life on earth is concerned.

Actually, I find that the phenomena of plate tectonics is very important to the development and maintenance of life on earth!

The earth has a core of solid iron, but the outer part of the core is liquid iron heated above the melting point by radioactive isotope degeneration. Outside of that is a vast amount of liquid magma, which we know as basalt. Convection currents in this liquid, overheated, basalt cause the hottest parts to rise to the surface where it cools and becomes more dense or actually solidifies. Then, the more dense basalt sinks into the earth causing movement of the liquid and convection currents. The rising and sinking of basalt is called “subduction.” This “boiling” motion causes movement in the thin, outer crust of the earth, and huge chunks move around much as a scum of congealed liquid might move about in a pot boiling on the kitchen stove. The movement of these crustal elements is what geologists call “plate tectonics.” These moving plates colliding with one another are the cause of earthquakes. The collisions cause the rise of parts of the earth’s crust and the formation of continents and linear mountain ranges. Without plate tectonics, we would not have any dry land on earth.

As the hot basalt rises to the surface of the earth, it sometimes breaks forth into the atmosphere causing volcanoes. These volcanoes occur dozens of times every year; and they usually do not do any harm; but they receive lots of media coverage. A volcano discharges huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; and are the main sources of greenhouse gasses that allow the maintenance of warmth from the sun to remain on our earth—without this CO², the earth would be a frigid, frozen, place, where life would be impossible. Volcanoes are the primary source of greenhouse gasses on the earth.

As the earth spins, and the inner core of solid and liquid iron lags behind the spin of the earth, a magnetic field is created around the planet. This magnetic field protects the earth from the bombardment of vast numbers of subatomic particles that are racing through outer space. The particles are electrons, protons, and helium nuclei that emanate from the sun and from star explosions in distant areas of the universe. These particles would kill off all life on earth if they were not prevented from doing that by earth’s magnetic field.

The movement of tectonic plates also contributes to the growth of bacteria in the oceans of the planet. This happens because of the recycling of nutrients into the oceans of the planet—these nutrients are necessary for the growth of microscopic life forms. Bacteria and other microorganisms are the source of oxygen in our atmosphere which allow the development and growth of complex animal life. We are indebted to plate tectonics for the presence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere, which allows and facilitates the animal life on this planet.

WE COULD NOT LIVE WITHOUT EARTHQUAKES!!