Ceremony Music...

professorscience

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:0318cf8d-592e-4528-9c32-59b12706c2ef">Re:Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re:Ceremony Music... : Threads that get WAYYY off original topic and devolve into theological arguments with barely tangential (or no) relevance to marriage or Catholic weddings.  If folks want to have theological debates about those other topics... try Catholic Answers forum where they've been hashed and re-hashed about fifty dozen times.
Posted by newlyseliski[/QUOTE]

<div>I mean, as long as we can have these discussions without being downright rude to each other, it's not a huge deal to go off topic.  As long as we don't completely ignore the OP.</div><div>
</div><div>Edit: Lala, I agree with Banana about the number of people who speak out against welfare but don't seem to be doing anything to HELP poverty.  I think that can be a case-by-case thing, though.  You're right that I don't have any idea what my friends are doing, but some of the hatred I see on my facebook makes it pretty hard to believe that these people are doing anything charitable.  I'm not talking about criticizing welfare programs, because a lot of them need to be reformed.  I'm talking about straight-up mockery.</div>

ellen73

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:eb3ab9b7-6c9e-4cf4-886f-590799c08075">Re:Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]I believe in social justice which is why I am Catholic. Right now I FEEL that the Catholic church is much more concerned about abortion, BC, and Obamacare than social justice and the true roots of our faith. I am very jaded and upset. I understand that women are different from men but that is not the original reasoning behind women not being ordained. If they can change their argument about why, why can they not allow women to be ordained. <a href="http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/unclean.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/unclean.asp</a>
Posted by HandBanana[/QUOTE]

Start going to Old St. Pat's if you don't already, or St. Clement's :)

ElisabethJoanne

OP, I'm impressed by the musicality displayed in your selections. While not all the same composer or period, I think they'll all mesh really well.

agapecarrie

The fact that women are different than men IS the original and continuous reason that women are not ordained. It's a beautiful and wonderful difference. It is a good thing upholding women's dignity.

There is no "changing" the argument why women can't be ordained. Truth can't change. The priest marries the church. The church is the bride of Christ. There must be an initiator of a gift and a receiver of the gift. 

This isn't a mere discipline that is changeable, like fasting rules or translation of the liturgy. This is the very being and nature of the human person, therefore involved in the fabric of our faith that makes it so. 

HandBanana

In Response to Re:Ceremony Music...:[QUOTE]Wow I missed out on a lot today!! First, I belong to a diocese which is NOT liberal and my church allows Wagner. I get that priests can disobey it is possible. But I'm on the same page with Lalaith, I think. I don't always agree with you, girl, but lately I've just been nodding along to so much of what you say.

Second, I love derailed nonWR debates!! I dislike personal attacks and nasty tones, but I like debates bc I learn a lot from all you ladies Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

Ditto on the learning from others.

HandBanana

In Response to Re:Ceremony Music...:[QUOTE]In Response to Re:Ceremony Music...:I believe in social justice which is why I am Catholic. Right now I FEEL that the Catholic church is much more concerned about abortion, BC, and Obamacare than social justice and the true roots of our faith. I am very jaded and upset. I understand that women are different from men but that is not the original reasoning behind women not being ordained. If they can change their argument about why, why can they not allow women to be ordained. <a href="http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/unclean.aspPosted" rel="nofollow">http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/unclean.aspPosted</a> by HandBananaStart going to Old St. Pat's if you don't already, or St. Clement's : Posted by ellen73[/QUOTE]

I have considered. We are at St Gabe's in Canaryville where my priest's homily talks about current challenges to our faith, being able to question your faith shows strong faith, community, and love.

HandBanana

Agape, not ignoring your points. Just thinking and reflecting. Why I love this forum. I take issue with Catholics defending life in the womb so fervently but lacking the same compassion for the lives of our brothers and sisters in poverty. The hypocricy leaves me feeling jaded about yhe Catholic church.

monkeysip

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:7878e6dc-0940-4071-be9b-c5479413993e">Re:Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]Agape, not ignoring your points. Just thinking and reflecting. Why I love this forum. I take issue with Catholics defending life in the womb so fervently but lacking the same compassion for the lives of our brothers and sisters in poverty. The hypocricy leaves me feeling jaded about yhe Catholic church.
Posted by HandBanana[/QUOTE]

Handbanana,

I understand your frustration, and I have met plenty of people like you say that believe that pro-life only means being anti-abortion, when really, being pro-life should mean that you want to help and protect ALL people, of all stages, including the poor, the immigrant, etc. 

But I also have to say that it is unfair to generalize all or most pro-lifers that way.  I know a lot of pro-life people that are also really involved in all aspects of social justice.  It may just be that those who speak the loudest sometimes are the former group and not the latter.  But part of what I love about the Catholic Church is that I feel like, on the whole, they are more concerned with all issues, not just those deemed to be "moral issues" by the Right.

agapecarrie

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:7878e6dc-0940-4071-be9b-c5479413993e">Re:Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]Agape, not ignoring your points. Just thinking and reflecting. Why I love this forum. I take issue with Catholics defending life in the womb so fervently but lacking the same compassion for the lives of our brothers and sisters in poverty. The hypocricy leaves me feeling jaded about yhe Catholic church.
Posted by HandBanana[/QUOTE]

<div>The problem here is that they don't lack compassion for people in poverty. This whole HHS mandate debate is about that very problem. The church serves everyone, not just other Catholics. We serve the poor. They aren't turned away. All of the orders that are founded for the charism of serving the poor are everywhere. It's works of mercy. It's in the very nature of the faith.</div><div>
</div><div>I'm not saying every pro-lifer is perfect, but I think this generalization is way out of line, and incorrect. But really, the poorest of the poor are those that can't defend themselves. </div><div>
</div><div>It's in scripture about we all can't be eyes, all can't be ears, etc. We all have different gifts, charisms, etc. I have been blessed to be able to lead music at church and for worship. I serve that way. I cannot color in the lines, I am not blessed in art, so I should not be designing religious art. That doesn't mean I don't think its important or I don't support it. </div><div>
</div><div>Same with people that have a heart for the most defenseless in the womb. THey are called to fight that battle. But not everyone can protest abortion, AND, go do missionary work, AND go to the soup kitchen AND teach the faith at the parish AND.... and..... and....</div><div>
</div><div>That's not a hypocrit. That's using one's gifts in a certain area... and that doesn't mean there isn't compassion for others. </div><div class="sblk" style="color:#000000;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:20px;text-align:-webkit-auto;background-color:#ffffff;"><div class="scnt" style="margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:20px;">
</div></div><div>
</div>

HandBanana

I wasn't making a generalization about pro lifers. I refered to a specific group that have conflicting ideas about what kind of life is important. I do not think, it is a gift to be adamently pro life and anti things such as government aid for those in poverty. We had.a priest leave that I, loved. Mostly he would give moving and inciteful homilies about love, the Holy Spirit, etc. Every once in a while he spoke out against political issues such as healthcare for all. How can you be Catholic and be against healthcare for all of God's children? Again, not a generalization but it is an interaction that left me wondering how a lot of Catholics, not all, call themselves pro life but only seem to care about life in the womb. I think hormonal BC is more than just a tool to not have babies. It is a medication. That is why the mandate and the Church's stance on hormonal BC is a challenge for me. It has been something I have struggled with because I understand the philosophy behind being anti hormonal BC as BC.

professorscience

Banana, I think a lot of the problem comes from what government-regulated healthcare means.  I don't think healthcare for all is a bad thing (and I don't think the church thinks that either), but the government has already shown that if it is in charge of healthcare, the requirements are going to go against Catholic moral theology.

agapecarrie

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:3a71396b-77ca-41fc-ad1e-367e6036c7fd">Re:Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]I wasn't making a generalization about pro lifers. I refered to a specific group that have conflicting ideas about what kind of life is important. I do not think, it is a gift to be adamently pro life and anti things such as government aid for those in poverty. We had.a priest leave that I, loved. Mostly he would give moving and inciteful homilies about love, the Holy Spirit, etc. Every once in a while he spoke out against political issues such as healthcare for all. How can you be Catholic and be against healthcare for all of God's children? Again, not a generalization but it is an interaction that left me wondering how a lot of Catholics, not all, call themselves pro life but only seem to care about life in the womb. I think hormonal BC is more than just a tool to not have babies. It is a medication. That is why the mandate and the Church's stance on hormonal BC is a challenge for me. It has been something I have struggled with because I understand the philosophy behind being anti hormonal BC as BC.
Posted by HandBanana[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>I am for healthcare for the poor. I am NOT for government provided healthcare. That is not the only way to solve the problem. I find it insulting for you to say here that anyone that is against government provided healthcare does not want "healthcare for all God's children". Creating government dependence leads to tyrrany, and as we can see this last 1/2 year, end of religious freedom. Just because someone disagrees with you on how social justice should be done does not mean they don't want and work for social justice. </div><div>
</div><div>Also, the church is not against medicine which has a secondary side effect of sterility. This one is pretty basic. If a woman has to get a hysterectomy for serious issues, the church is fine with that. Same with pills.  I work for the church and there is always allowances for needing the pill as a medication. </div><div>
</div><div>As an aside on this though, there are many many many docs who disagree that the pill does anything medicinal at all. They actually say it is poison. It's a class 1 carcinogen, and there are many alternatives to the pill which only masks symptoms instead of actually treating the problem at the root, and healing and fixing it, and it creates more problems while doing so.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

caitriona87

I’m late to this party but I just wanted to throw in an issue I see quite often that underlies the attitude that people who oppose the government (especially federal) taking care of poverty, healthcare, etc. therefore hate poor people or don’t care about their suffering. Not only is that an unfair tack, but it also completely ignores the principle of subsidiarity which is one of the most important principles underlying all of Catholic social teaching. Subsidiarity means that each need should be provided for at the LOWEST possible level (i.e. very rarely a federal government,) because a) people closest to the problem are best educated about the real needs and b) help administered by a soulless bureaucracy is absolutely lacking in love. We are supposed to help the poor out of LOVE, not because some of our tax money, which we’d go to jail if we didn’t pay, goes toward their material needs.

We should also be asking as Christians who are the true "poorest of the poor?" I submit that it is not people who lack material goods, (although we are certainly called to help them as well) as the larger secular society also provides for these needs and has compassion for them. Then unborn are the ones who are totally cast aside and regarded as subhuman, fit for the garbage heap quite literally. The fact that we are so reviled by secular culture for being uncompromising on abortion is a sign that we're doing the right thing. We were told the world would hate us because it hated Him first.

Riss91

I want everyone to have access to afforable healthcare - I just think the govt mandate is a poor method of accomplishing that.

People seem to get car insurance at really good rates without the govt being involved. If this was opened up to the free-market, insurance companies would have to compete on pricing. Right now there isn't a need for them to do so. And it needs to come out from the umbrella of empoyment. Having individuals go directly to the insurance company (again,  like they do for car insurance) to purchase insurance would expose the cost issue as well.

I feel the govt should offer a very affordable plan for people to purchase who can't get insurance otherwise. I fully despise the idea of the government forcing anything so personal on its people. And I do not believe they are going to bring the costs down without a free market solution. Look at school loans - once the govt backed everything, colleges had no need to compete on tuition costs bc anyone can get $500K in student loans without a problem.

I actually took an intensive economics course on public policy-type stuff and mathemetically proved through different models that pretty much every govt program is ineffective and causes more financial burden than it provides.

HandBanana

Car insurance is not a good example. Not everyone needs a car and not everyone with a car gets car insurance. I just don't understand the inability to see hormonal BC as medicine. It isn't just for pregnancy prevention. My mother had a hysterectomy. A hysterectomy is a form of BC. Should her employeer not have to cover that. What about religions that don't believe in medicine? Should they not have to cover anything for their employees?

Riss91

Car insurance is a good example of how individal/free-market insurance is much more affordable and accessible to everyone. When the problem in this country is that too many people don't have access to or can't afford insurance - it's a perfect analogy. Take the employers out of health care, let the individuals buy their own personal plans, and keep the government out of the details.

ElisabethJoanne

Car insurance is a bad example, actually. Or, Riss' premises about how auto liability insurance works are wrong.

1. Everyone who drives is required by law to carry insurance. That's not everyone-everyone being required to have insurance, but it is everyone who could possibly need it being required to have insurance. As everyone could possibly need healthcare...
2. What everyone is required to have, however, covers crazy-little. The tiniest fender-bender can easily eat through the limits of the legal-minimum policy. It's the equivalent of requiring people to have health insurance, but only so much as will cover a couple stitches, or the treatment to a diagnosis of cancer, but not the actual cancer treatment or not more than a couple stitches.
3. It's impossible for insurance companies to make money off of the worst drivers. The premium would be too high for any but the very wealthy to afford it. But, for complicated reasons, our general policy is to encourage driving and encourage auto liability insurance. So to insure these people, a portion of the premiums paid by profitable drivers goes to the state government. The state government then runs programs that insure the worst drivers.

lalaith50

HandBanana-

You keep on bringing up the issue of BC and hysterectomies when medically necessary.

First of all, NO ONE disagrees with you that they should be covered as a last resort.

However, one thing that gets greatly overlooked, and which you have not responded to yet, is how BC simply masks the symptoms. If there is something wrong, doctors just prescribe BC and don't even try to solve the problem. Anyone who has spent even a little bit of time studying the medical science behind NFP, especially NaPro technology, is aware of how successful it is in treating fertility issues.

What we on this board who are arguing with you care about, is actually TREATING the women with fertility issues. We WANT them to be treated and healed. It is only an INCREDIBLY small percentage of women who are on BC for "medical reasons" actually need BC. I have a good friend who had some fertility issues when she was 17, and they stuck her on BC (b/c that's justwhat you do!) and since the underlying issues were never resolved, a few years after that she actually went through a menopause-like-time, and now doesn't even get her period or ovulate  while now TTC. She wishes every day that her doctors and parents had looked harder to solve the medical issues that she had when she was 17, and so she now could be possibly conceiving a baby.

Women come on this board all the time and say, "oh well my doctor says I need to be on BC." Well, almost any NFP-user who has discussed their fertility with a non-NFP doctor knows how little most doctors know about the female reproductive system. Most doctors don't even believe that it could work- - even with the SCIENCE that is based on, and they apparently weren't taught in med school, and many on this board can obviously attest to the success of NFP. I'm saying all that, b/c that makes us VERY skeptical of the motives and knowledge of non-NFP doctors. We know, many of us from personal experience, how most doctors don't take ANY time to actually try and solve the problem, and simply slap the band-aid of BC on any fertility issue.

Summary: Of course BC should be covered when medically necessary-- but very rarely is it actually necessary!

Riss91

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:514c44bc-694b-4ad3-b875-2b61d4ca4656">Re: Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]Car insurance is a bad example, actually. Or, Riss' premises about how auto liability insurance works are wrong. 1. Everyone who drives is required by law to carry insurance. That's not everyone-everyone being required to have insurance, but it is everyone who could possibly need it being required to have insurance. As everyone could possibly need healthcare... 2. What everyone is required to have, however, covers crazy-little. The tiniest fender-bender can easily eat through the limits of the legal-minimum policy. It's the equivalent of requiring people to have health insurance, but only so much as will cover a couple stitches, or the treatment to a diagnosis of cancer, but not the actual cancer treatment or not more than a couple stitches. 3. It's impossible for insurance companies to make money off of the worst drivers. The premium would be too high for any but the very wealthy to afford it. But, for complicated reasons, our general policy is to encourage driving and encourage auto liability insurance. So to insure these people, a portion of the premiums paid by profitable drivers goes to the state government. The state government then runs programs that insure the worst drivers.
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

1) Yes, the populations are different. Not everyone will need car insurance, but everyone could need health insurance. But, in my example I'm talking about comparing the population of car drivers to the population of health care users. They become equal at the point. Every car driver needs insurance. Every medical user needs insurance. There are penalties if you drive a car without insurance and are caught doing so.

2)/3) You don't get car insurance to cover your oil changes, brakes, tires - "maintenance". These are costs that are small, easibly estimable and therefore easy to budget and save for. In healthcare, we cover "maintenance" like routine, annual checkups. I would suggest these not being covered. If they aren't covered, doctors will have to bring down their prices to be competitive. You can easily budget and pay for these on your own. You get insurance for large, unexpected occurences and chronic conditions. I pay car insurance regardless of whether I ever get into an accident. My premiums help support those that do get into an accident. In the current/proposed system, the "young/healthy" would be basically be indirectly covering these costs. That's the way insurance works. You pay more than you need to in the beginning, and you basically use that up later in life. There are also government programs like Medicare to help those that might not be able to get/afford coverage otherwise. And I believe the government should offer a low-cost plan that covers those that cannot otherwise afford insurance.

Also - the costs of healthcare are absurdly inflated. This is because there is nothing preventing them from increasing year after year. Doctors/hospitals aren't forced to be competitive. If you bring in a free-market, they will come back down to earth, making it much more affordable than you think.

ElisabethJoanne

I was on hormone therapy for non-contraceptive reasons for about a year. I went off 2 months ago because I didn't think it was doing anything. Big mistake. I can't wait to go back on tomorrow.

Before I went on, I suffered through a bunch of non-hormonal treatments. They weren't as effective. Some were more dangerous. My mother is a member of the American College of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She knows "NFP" "works." ("NFP" and "working" are so vague that generalizations mean virtually 0, but she'll teach patients to chart, if that's what they want for TTC and TTA.) I know how NFP works.

I will be happy when I once again no longer have painful lesions on my back nor want to kill myself monthly.

monkeysip

@ Riss

But isn't one of the problems with the healthcare law the individual mandate that requires people to buy health insurance?  Isn't that what people are saying is unconstitutional?  (i.e.  The government can't force you to buy things?)

Car insurance is different because the government isn't requiring everyone to buy things.  It is only requiring you to buy something in order to be licensed to operate a vehicle.  There's no constitutional problem with this.


Of course, I'd be more in favor of something like Canada's health care system, but without the contraception/abortion coverage.  But I'm just saying that the car insurance system isn't completely analogous. 

ElisabethJoanne

My understanding is the ACA only requires people to buy "catastrophic care" coverage. I think it also requires coverage for preventative care. But there's a big gap between a high deductible+covered preventative care plan and insurance that covers all maintenance and tiny accidents. That is, the ACA only requires insurance for "large, unexpected occurences and chronic conditions."

And it's Medicare that you pay into and use up later, figuratively. Health insurance works by the healthy and not-interested-in-medicine people subsidizing the sick. [On average, women are more likely to get regular check-ups than men, whether covered or not. My little sister hates going to the doctor, so she's less likely to "use healthcare" for the same problem than I am. These are what I mean by not-interested-in-medicine."]

Healthcare is expensive because our liability system requires lots of care not just to diagnose and treat illness, but to save doctors' skins. Also, we as a society don't have a healthy attitude regarding terminal illness.

monkeysip

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:6d1dff1a-f6fd-4d98-9cea-135e5a118ee5">Re: Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]My understanding is the ACA only requires people to buy "catastrophic care" coverage. I think it also requires coverage for preventative care. But there's a big gap between a high deductible+covered preventative care plan and insurance that covers all maintenance and tiny accidents. That is, the ACA only requires insurance for "large, unexpected occurences and chronic conditions." And it's Medicare that you pay into and use up later, figuratively. Health insurance works by the healthy and not-interested-in-medicine people subsidizing the sick. [On average, women are more likely to get regular check-ups than men, whether covered or not. My little sister hates going to the doctor, so she's less likely to "use healthcare" for the same problem than I am. These are what I mean by not-interested-in-medicine."] Healthcare is expensive because our liability system requires lots of care not just to diagnose and treat illness, but to save doctors' skins. Also, we as a society don't have a healthy attitude regarding terminal illness.
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I see that, but my point was that you have to buy basic (bare minimum) car insurance as a condition for something else (driving).  There is no condition upon which you need to buy the catastrophic health insurance (except being a living human being).  The argument is that the government cannot force you to buy something unless it is upon condition of some other privielge (like driving).

The way SCOTUS got around that was to make it into a tax.  The government can tax you, but they can't force you to purchase things. 

ElisabethJoanne

I'm taking no one's word on what the Court did or said, but if the reports are correct, it's not just being a person the IRS can access, it's being a person with a certain income, which the IRS can access. It's not a poll tax.

monkeysip

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:9fe76d40-f58a-4bae-925b-60e5f424bbf7">Re: Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]I'm taking no one's word on what the Court did or said, but if the reports are correct, it's not just being a person the IRS can access, it's being a person with a certain income, which the IRS can access. It's not a poll tax.
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]

I'm totally not an expert on any of these issues, so my impressions could just be wrong.  A lot of this is still confusing, I think to even constitutional experts, so I'm open to anyone's more knowledgeable assessment.

lalaith50

[QUOTE]I was on hormone therapy for non-contraceptive reasons for about a year. I went off 2 months ago because I didn't think it was doing anything. Big mistake. I can't wait to go back on tomorrow. Before I went on, I suffered through a bunch of non-hormonal treatments. They weren't as effective. Some were more dangerous. My mother is a member of the American College of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She knows "NFP" "works." ("NFP" and "working" are so vague that generalizations mean virtually 0, but she'll teach patients to chart, if that's what they want for TTC and TTA.) I know how NFP works. I will be happy when I once again no longer have painful lesions on my back nor want to kill myself monthly.
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am sure that there are many, many, ineffective "treatments" of fertility issues. But have you actually investigated NaPro? This is a great book for all women to read, as well as describing NaPro treatments for pretty much every issue-<div><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/The-NaPro-Technology-Revolution-Unleashing/dp/0825306264/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340922527&sr=8-1&keywords=naprotechnology+revolution">http://www.amazon.com/The-NaPro-Technology-Revolution-Unleashing/dp/0825306264/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340922527&sr=8-1&keywords=naprotechnology+revolution</a> </div>

ElisabethJoanne

Mine weren't fertility issues. I investigated all the non-hormonal (and some hormonal, but not sexual hormones) treatments available. Not only did I read about them, I tried them. Not only did I try them, they were things that I already do and/or continue to do in my normal life.

Result: Daily nausea, frequent vomiting, painful lesions, suicidal thoughts, PMDD, dysmenhorrea.

The last 3 I consider serious enough that, having found an effective treatment which I consider safe, I'm reluctant to continue to go without that treatment to avoid...avoid what? The risks associated with the hormones, which I have studied for decades? I've already accepted those risks. The expense of the hormones? Again, totally worth it to escape my conditions.

[The first 2 I've mostly worked around by the timing of when I take my pills. For the lesions that came up (literally) when I went off the hormones, I went on a less-safe antibiotic, so I'm doubling-up treatment for those. That makes sense to me, considering they're disfiguring and cause constant pain.]

mica178

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ceremony-music-6?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:a5406239-28da-4a2c-ba77-362d03169d25Post:08764541-cd08-4bce-87d7-1d6f7e443b5a">Re:Ceremony Music...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re:Ceremony Music... : I am for healthcare for the poor. I am NOT for government provided healthcare. That is not the only way to solve the problem. I find it insulting for you to say here that anyone that is against government provided healthcare does not want "healthcare for all God's children". Creating government dependence leads to tyrrany, and as we can see this last 1/2 year, end of religious freedom. Just because someone disagrees with you on how social justice should be done does not mean they don't want and work for social justice.  Also, the church is not against medicine which has a secondary side effect of sterility. This one is pretty basic. If a woman has to get a hysterectomy for serious issues, the church is fine with that. Same with pills.  I work for the church and there is always allowances for needing the pill as a medication.  As an aside on this though, there are many many many docs who disagree that the pill does anything medicinal at all. They actually say it is poison. It's a <strong>class 1 carcinogen</strong>, and there are many alternatives to the pill which only masks symptoms instead of actually treating the problem at the root, and healing and fixing it, and it creates more problems while doing so.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>That's a misnomer.  It's a "Group 1" carcinogen.  Anti-birth control people call it "Class 1" to make it seem more noxious than it really is.  Also, did you look at the rest of the list?  It includes oil used in deep frying and acetaminophen (Tylenol).</div><div>
</div><div>And I'm saying this as a person who does not use artificial birth control.

</div>

agapecarrie

I've heard it used both ways, and either word does not change any kind of subconscious meaning for me. There was no agenda for me using whichever word. 

amartell

Also - the costs of healthcare are absurdly inflated. This is because there is nothing preventing them from increasing year after year. Doctors/hospitals aren't forced to be competitive. If you bring in a free-market, they will come back down to earth, making it much more affordable than you think.
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

Just to keep things in perspective, healthcare for the uninsured is expensive because the drugs and machines are very expensive,  the reimbursements from insurance companies are often very low and losing the hospital or pharmacy money, and healthcare professionals are several hundred thousand dollars in debt from their education and deserve proper reimbursement for their expertise and care of patients.