Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.issues,clari.news.religion
Subject: Church blasts population control program
Date: 11 Oct 90 06:06:41 GMT
    
 
	MANILA, Philippines (UPI) -- Philippine bishops Thursday criticized
President Corazon Aquino's birth control program, dealing a major
setback to government efforts to curb one of the world's highest
population growth rates.
	The 87-member Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines in a
pastoral letter said the church in Asia's only Christian nation cannot
associate with Aquino's five-year, $208 million population control
program -- ``not even in appearance.''
	Reiterating a position adopted 17 years ago, the letter to be read in
churches throughout the land on Sunday said the church respected
responsible regulation of births using natural methods but condemned 
``contraception, sterilization and abortion.''
	The letter criticized local and foreign non-governmental institutions
involved in the program and warned the Philippines could become a victim
of ``contraceptive imperialism.''
	The World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the
U.N. Population Control Commission are the major supporters of the
program.
	``We are unwittingly caught in a systematic campaign against
childbearing. It is a worldwide drive that undermines the value of life.
It is evil. This attack on life is an attack on the human person's
capacity to love. Ultimately it is an attack upon God who is love,'' the
letter said.
	Aquino, swept to power in a civilian-backed military revolt in 1986
with the blessings of influential church leaders, has come under strong
pressure to take a serious look at the ballooning population.
	Official estimates put the Philippine population growth rate at
between 2.4 and 2.8 percent, one of the highest in the world. The
Philippines' 60.5 million population is 12th highest in the world.
	With 20 percent of the population centered in metropolitan Manila,
comprising 1 percent of the country's land area, the capital has one of
the highest population densities in the world.
	Demographers say the country's population will double in 25 years
unless measures are taken to put the growth rate down.
	Church opposition to the program could deal a severe blow to her
effort to curb population growth and address the nation's main problem --
poverty.
	Over the past year, Aquino faced coup attempts, a major earthquake, a
prolonged drought and a series of devastating monsoon floods. The
Persian Gulf conflict and rising oil prices have raised the specter of a
recession in the country saddled by a foreign debt equivalent to $26
billion.
	Government officials say the population control program is
essentially aimed at providing Filipinos information and family planning
services and helping them choose what options they want, and is not
aimed at imposing on them artificial birth control methods the church
frowns upon.
	Health Undersecretary Mario Taguiwalo has said many Filipinos desire
a small family, but the number of children they have is higher than the
number they want because safe planning methods are not available to
them.

    	IMO birth control, through any generally accepted means, is the
    best solution to the population control problem and is infinitly
    superior to abortion with respect to a woman's right to choose whether
    or not to have children. I have disagreed with the Catholic Church on
    this point for more than two decades and have been gratified to see
    both public opinion and public policy swing in my favor. (Not to
    suggest that the swing had anything to do with me, a lot of other
    people took that same stand.)
    
    	DaveM

    She said, nodding sagely.
    
    
    ;-)
    
    Nanci

Birth Control?

Collis *knows* birth control.

:-)

    The only sure-fire method of birth control is:
    
	abstinence.   
    
    Worked fine for me for 24 years. :-)

    	Abstinence is fine for those who can practice it, but not everyone
    can and not everyone WANTS to. A victim of rape has had too little
    choice in the matter, for instance.
    	For a woman, living more than 50 years is usually adequate to
    insure that she will not again become pregnant, but that doesn't deal
    with any concerns my 14 year old daughter might have.
    	BTW: If you've been abstinent for 24 years, just what do you think
    you have to SMILE about ? 8*D

    Gritting your teeth often looks like smiling.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    To me, it looks like someone with a toothache.
    
    ;-)
    
    Nanci

    This may seem wild (and it's not birth control, per se), but curbing
    hunger, malnutrition and disease has the effect of lowering the birth
    rate (or population growth rate, if you prefer).
    
    People who anticipate a high child mortality rate _are far more likely_
    to have more children than those who possess a sense of security about
    the longevity of their children.  This is especially true where
    children are considered an economic asset and "old age insurance."
    
    These conditions, while not prevalent in the U.S., are not uncommon in
    other parts of the world.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    India was able to lower population growth by installing
    electricity in some vicinities.
    
    Folks now have more choices at night, like watching the Raji
    Carson Show on TV.
    
    :-)
    Richard

Actually, Richard is hitting the nail on the head; so to speak.

When the world thinks of the future instead of day to day living,
they will space their sexual activity. On the premise that a busy
hand will keep daddy from mommy (or is it mommy from daddy).

If resources that keep people energized, they will have more time
to deal with life. I know that future thinking is not a natural
instinct but a learned one.

cal

    
    If fornication were eliminated from people's hearts, just think of how
    many problems could be solved. I wonder how many other of God's laws
    would have such a dramatic effect? Some things are just too simple to
    grasp.
    
    
    Jamey
    
    

    in re .44
    
    I don't find that to be a simple solution.
    
    BJ

    Can we all agree that birth control is a moral thing, if only to help
    protect the world from the ravages of overpopulation?   Can we also
    agree that the form of pro-active birth control really has little to
    do with morality?
    
    Mike

    Re:  back a few,
    
      I'm smiling because I am married now and no longer abstain. Having
    3 kids in 3 years is ample proof of that!
    
    Mike, (.16)
    
      I do not agree with you, as usual lately. I personally feel that
    "pro-active" birth control is not a moral option for me. I also believe
    that overpopulation is a fallacy (boy - if that doesn't get me flamed
    then a lot of people aren't paying attention)
    
    Pappa Gil
    

    
    
    Gil,
    
    Heavens, there's only room for 10 or 20 Billion more people....in
    Texas. Then again, the more people there are, the bigger problem Satan
    has....
    
    Jamey

    Gil .18,
    
    Three kids in three years huh?  Hmmmm.  No wonder you're smiling
    you ol' hound dog you :-)
    
    Anyway, (without flames), why do you think overpopulation is a 
    fallacy?
    
    Karen

    	Birth control, like abortion, is currently a matter of choice. If
    you don't want to, you don't have to. 
    	3 kids in 3 years ?  I hope you and your wife's OB are talking.
    Such fecundity has been known to be deleterious to a woman's health,
    and I have tragic personal experience with a similar situation. I
    directed a play while in the service and one of the player's had a
    similar track record and #4 was on the way. The Dr. had warned them and
    she had begged him but he persisted. She had her tubes tied as part of
    the "C-section" done "to deliver the baby". Though she'd had no
    previous problems. She was relieved and glad, the Dr. was also
    relieved. The husband went crazy. But that was his problem, hers was
    that the Dr.s said that another pregnancy might kill her.

Re: .20  Dave

I don't quite understand your story.  Were the woman's tubes tied without her
consent?  Sounds like lawsuit city, except for the fact that she was happy
with the operation after the fact.

FWIW: My mother had 5 kids in 6 years, and she's healthy except for being a
little overweight.

				-- Bob

    re.20
    
      Dave,
    
      Thanks for your concern. There has been no problem with my wife
    health due to the frequency of her pregnancies. And the OB knows 
    that we plan to have more children (though if we skipped a year
    before the next one we wouldn't complain) and sees no problems thus
    far.
    
      Gil (husband of "Fertile Myrtle")

    	No, she wanted very much to not have any more children. There were
    major problems at the time regarding "birth control" both because they
    were Roman Catholics and because it was a military hospital.
    	OK, guy, if the worst you are doing is contributing to heir
    pollution then the story doesn't matter. If she's in robust health and
    a willing accomplice then it's your mountain of diapers, not mine.
    Enjoy ;'D

    re: .overpopulation

    Say Gil, I don't doubt that if one stood all the people in the world
    side by side they could all fit in a land mass the size of Rhode
    Island, maybe. That would be fine, if all people did was stand around
    and take up space.  Unfortunately they do a whole lot more than that.

    For example:

    People need to eat.  There is just so much arable land available on
    this planet.  Already, areas of the earth are suffering from over-
    cultivation.  Of course we could cut down more forests to make room for 
    more fields, but forest land, believe it or not, is remarkably
    infertile.  Besides, we need our forests for other purposes.  Like
    healthy watersheds, animal habitats, oxygen production, wood for
    building, and so on.

    People need energy to cook their food and heat their homes.  Already
    we are seeing the effects of excessive burning of fuels in air
    pollution, destruction of forests, and animal habitat.  Fossil fuels
    are not a renewable resource.  The more people we have, the quicker
    this stuff goes.  Forests are a renewable resource, but they do
    require time.  If the population uses the forests quicker than they
    can regenerate, they are gone. 

    People need material to build homes with.  If we use natural materials,
    they must come from someplace, usually the woods.  If we use manmade
    materials, we have industrial pollution from the manufacturing
    processes that make this stuff.

    People generate wastes.  Human wastes and wastes from various sorts of
    economic activities.  To be sure, much of the waste we generate here in
    the USA can be recycled or otherwise safely disposed of, but in general
    the planet can only accept so much wastes without causing harm to the
    environment, which we all need to survive. 

    And so on.  Our dependence on nature is sometimes forgotten in our urban
    lifestyles, but we are ultimately dependent on nature, and nature can
    only withstand so much abuse.  

    Of course all this assumes that humans properly should be allowed some
    sort of lifestyle other than living in disease ridden hovels.

    Mike 

Re: "overpopulation is a fallacy"

A question for those of you who think that overpopulation is a fallacy: how
many years do you expect the human race to survive on earth?  10 years?
100 years?  1,000,000 years?  Do you *want* the human race to survive?
If so, do you think there is a way to increase the human race's lifespan?

				-- Bob

  >How many more years...

Oh, my guess is a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 50.  Plus a thousand.

Collis

Re: .26 Collis

In that case, since we have a different set of assumptions then it's not
surprising that we'd come to different conclusions.

				-- Bob

    I do not think the problem is one of over-population, but rather in at
    least 2 other areas:
    
  1  Allocation of resources. I burns me to think of millions atsrving while
    our gov't wastes money paying untold amounts of farmers to leave land
    fallow. Farming is to be my future vocation therefore I have done a lot
    of reading on the topic and talked to a fair amount of farmers. i can
    say that not only does this system limit the amount of food available
    but it fails  in its intent to control the market. Many farmers take
    the money given them by the govt and put it into their operation,
    making it efficient enough to produce nearly as much product on the
    land that is utilized as they would have done using all their land by
    their previous methods. In this way the farmer gets extra income to pay
    off humunghous debts.
    
      Somehow I feel it would be better to use the money to pay farmers for
    the product they would have produced anyway and send it to those in
    need. This could also create needed jobs in distributing the food.
    
      Maybe I'm too simple and there really is a good reason for doing
    things as they currently are. 
    
    This is just one example of many we could come up with if we try.
    
    2  Change of lifestyle. Much of the environmental problems plaguing the
    planet are due to the thoughtlessness of man. Stewardship of the planet
    entrusted to us by God has been woefully negkected. This applies to
    every one at every level.
    
      Take care of what we have, share with others less fortunate, work to
    undo the wrongs we have done to the only place we have to live -
    
    these kinds of actions will allow the the earth to sustain everyone on
    it with LOTS left over for any new people that are born.
    
    Gil

    Gil my man,
    
    Surprise!  We agree!
    
    Although I don't understand the farmer's situation to the depth you
    do, I share your thoughts exactly in the last paragraphs of .28.
    
    Thanks for sharing them.  I've read a lot about this subject lately
    and we do have all the necessary resources to create a solution to
    the poverty, disease, and hunger that affects millions on this planet.
    The key is adjusting our mindsets on personal and ultimately a global 
    scale. 
    
    Karen

    re: .28 (Gil)
    
    I can't argue with you on any of this.  Hey!  Does that mean we agree?
    
    I think, then, what we are really talking about is a recognition
    that, even with good husbandry, there are limits on the number of
    people that the earth can support.  Perhaps we are just talking about
    what that number really is.
    
    In my opinion, right now we are beyond the maximum number of people the
    earth can comfortably support, given the state of the various economies
    here on earth.  On the other hand, if the various nations on earth
    implemented some of the things you are talking about, we could then
    more easily support more people.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    	in addition to the heir pollution problem, we also have the problem
    of who gets to control a woman's body. Heir pollution is a macro
    problem, a woman's choice to bear - or not - is a micro problem. One
    involves the whole world, the other may mean the world to a small
    number of people. I think it's important to keep in mind that there are
    other problems which are addressed by birth control, beyond the
    population crunch. Just think, if every woman who did not want to bear
    children could reliably avoid pregnancy, there would be no call for
    abortions!  This is unlikely, given that there are still neandrethals
    out there who believe that the only justifications for the existence of
    women are to serve men and to bear their burdens - progeny, I meant
    PROGENY !
    	DaveM, baritone

    Dave,
    
      Like I said before the only 100% reliable way to avoid pregnancy is
    abstinence. Anything else you take your chances.
    
    Gil, bass baritone :-)

Hi Gil,

Just wanted to take a moment to say I'm glad you came back to this notesfile.
I'm enjoying your sharing with us about your children and your plans on
becoming a farmer.  Although we don't agree on many things, what you're
sharing about yourself allows us to see the things we do have in common as
Christians (our common concerns for the earth, our families, and our fellow
men/women).  Thank you.

Warmest regards,

Ro

<      Like I said before the only 100% reliable way to avoid pregnancy is
<    abstinence. Anything else you take your chances.
    
Well, I don't abstain, and I don't have to use birth control, either.
So, there is at least 3 ways that I know of to avoid pregnancy without
abstinence.  :-)

As to the subject, I am in favor of low-cost, readily-available birth
control for both men and women.  I would like to see something that could
only be used once a week/month/or_year that would be 100% effective, and
which could be easily removed once a couple was ready to conceive.

I know, dream on...

         Carol

There are two ends to the population over-growth, so to speak.
There is the increase in birth rates in under developed nations
and over age of the developed nations. The former Govenor Love of
Colorado said that the elderly has a right to die; mainly taken
apart for not explaining his words, did hiot it on the nail. We
do spend huge amounts on keeping some older folks alive by
artificial means when their dignity might have been better off if
they have died naturally.

I face this issue since my mother is in and out of the hospital
and she, in her resolve to live, bounces back. Her health is
degraded enough that me sister is quit working to care for her.
Her health is, in my mind, is in God's hands since as mom says, I
will be ready when He calls.

Question: are we un-naturally keeping people alive?

calvin

    
    
    Just a nit. It was Governor Lamb, not Love. Love was a couple of
    Governor's before Lamb. 
    
    The question to me is not whether we are spending too much time and
    money keeping people alive when they are old, but whether our elderly
    are actively seeking God above their own lives. Fighting the good
    fight, including the use of the God-given wonders of medicine, for His
    sake and not our own. 'He who seeks to gain his life will lose it...'
    
    Jamey

<    Just a nit. It was Governor Lamb, not Love. Love was a couple of
<    Governor's before Lamb. 
    
Another nit: it was Governor Lamm, not Lamb.

Interesting mistake, in this conference.  :-)

           Carol

    
    ;) If you only knew how interesting it was ;) ;) ;) ;)
    
    Jamey

    Heard on the news this morning about a legal suit over a condom
    manufacturer using the name "Stealth."
    
    The condom manufacturer says this shouldn't cause consumer confusion,
    and added that their product, "provides greater protection at a much
    lower price."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.group.women,clari.news.religion,clari.tw.health
Subject: Birth control controversy in Peru
Date: 1 Nov 90 21:35:57 GMT
 
	LIMA, Peru (UPI) -- President Alberto Fujimori started a raging
controversy with Peru's powerful Catholic Church when he ordered a
national birth control program that includes giving out free
contraceptive pills and prophylactics.
	The Peruvian Episcopalean Conference, the ruling body of catholic
bishops in Peru, issued a statement last week that the position of the
Catholic Church was outlined by Pope John Paul II, who rejects 
``unnatural'' methods of birth control.
	The government has destined more than $1 million to finance a program
that, starting this month, is intended to make birth control pills and
prophylactics available to women across the country free of charge.
	A nation of 22.3 million inhabitants, Peru's population is growing at
an annual rate of 2.5 percent, according to official figures. On an
average, 5.2 children are born to each woman.
	Fujimori responded Wednesday to Church criticism of the program by
saying that some ecclesiastical sectors had ``medieval opinions and
recalcitrant positions'' in being against artificial birth control.
	Later in the day, Archbishop Luis Bambaren, head of the Family
Commitee of the Bishop's Conference, retorted that ``it is medieval that
medicines do not reach those who are sick.''
	The Catholic Church, of which 85 percent of the Peruvian population
are members, encourages what birth control specialists call the ``rhythm
method,'' wherby a couple keeps track of the woman's menstruation cycle
and only has intercouse when she is statistically less susceptible to
pregnancy.
	The Church calls prophylactics and the birth control pill 
``artificial'' contraceptive methods because they involve using manmade
devices or substances to avoid pregnancy.
	Bambaren last week argued that the government's apparent concern for
unborn children was surprising while living Peruvian children were dying
of hunger.
	Fujimori said he considered such arguments ``completely wrong.'' The
president said the population growth has nothing to do with economic
growth, while poverty in Peru was a function of the economic situation.
	Fujimori, a Roman Catholic of Japanese ancestry, also ran into
problems with the Peruvian Catholic Church during his campaign in June.
	Church officials alleged that a number of protestant Fujimori
campaign workers had distributed pamphlets that ``defamed'' the Virgin
Mary and the Catholic practice of revering saints as ``fetishistic and
pagan.''
	Fujimori denied his campaign workers had anything to do with the
pamphlets.

    
    Report: US Knows Little About Sex
    ---------------------------------
    New York (AP), Sept.6, 1990
    
    Sex may be on the minds of nearly everybody, but a new Kinsey Institute
    survey finds that 55 percent of Americans don't know that much about
    it.
    
    Those Americans who flunked an 18 question test of basic sexual
    knowledge, Kinsey director June Reinisch said Wednesday.
    
    Poll results exphasize a need for sex education of pre-adolescent
    children, she said.
    
    Only about 25 percent knew that the typical American has first
    intercourse at age 16 or 17, or that an estimated 30 percent of married
    men have had an extramarital affair, the report said.
    
    Only 21 percent knew that more than a quarter of American men have had
    a sexual experience with another male as an adolescent or adult.
    
    Half incorrectly thought that rectal intercourse itself can cause AIDS,
    even if neither partner was infected by the AIDS virus.

>    Only about 25 percent knew that the typical American has first
>    intercourse at age 16 or 17, or that an estimated 30 percent of married
>    men have had an extramarital affair, the report said.
>    
>    Only 21 percent knew that more than a quarter of American men have had
>    a sexual experience with another male as an adolescent or adult.

    Why should anyone know the answers to these questions? And I'm not
    convinced the answers given here are correct. I know that I hope they
    are not.

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    	how are these questions irrelevant ?  Why should anyone NOT know
    the answers to these questions ?  Do you feel that it is better not to
    know the facts so that you need not be concerned about them or better
    to know what everyone else is doing ?  Being aware of the facts does
    not equate to condoning such behavior. Knowing that more than a quarter
    of all American men have had a sexual experience with another male
    MIGHT, though, lend a new perspective to gay bashing - even the sort
    that some have waged in this file. Knowing that many people experience
    their first intercourse at 16 or 17 helps parents know what to expect
    and when. And just TELLING them not to is more likely to be an
    incentive than a prophylactic.

>  how are these questions irrelevant ? Why should anyone NOT know
>    the answers to these questions ? 

	No reason not to know then and I don't mind if people do. It's just
	that they don't mean anything to me. I don't see how they help or
	make anything worse. Do do I see not knowing these things as helping
	or hurting anyone. I see this information as neither helpful or
	harmful that is why it is irrelevant.

> Do you feel that it is better not to
>    know the facts so that you need not be concerned about them or better
>    to know what everyone else is doing ? 

	First off I dispute these facts. I do not have much respect for the
	Kinsey group. As one trained in the social sciences I believe their
	methods to be suspect. Also I don't think it's any of my
	business what other people do. Or theirs what I do.

> Knowing that many people experience
>    their first intercourse at 16 or 17 helps parents know what to expect
>    and when.

	Why? How? I have much higher expectations for my son then this. I
	see know reason to lower them because others lower theirs for there
	kids.

				Alfred

    Alfred,
    	you need not *lower* your expectations due to this information. You
    should, perhaps, *adjust* them. I always found that it has been helpful
    to duscuss (NOT tell) things with my kids well before I think they will
    have to deal with them. I have discussed sex with my 14-year-old
    already, both because I'm aware that she is entering a time of
    temptation and because she is being regularly mistaken for a college
    student. She has the body of a young woman and the manner of a
    well-read and mature person - traits normally associated with someone
    much older than 14. So we have discussed sex. More than once. We have
    discussed boys who don't know when to stop and how to avoid
    misunderstandings, among other things. My intent, in part, was to strip
    the topic of the facination of the absolutely forbidden, of that about
    which we do not even SPEAK. I also let her know what MY expectations
    were and why and that I would love her even if she did not act in
    accordance with them. I did not lower my expectations, I prepared to
    have them met.

    I was 9 years old (1 month before age 10) when I got my first period.
    Consequently, I sat each of my sons down as they entered *5th grade*
    and told them that it was possible that one or more girls in their
    class might be mature enough to get pregnant.  And I sort of playfully 
    added something to the effect of "Don't you be the one to get anyone
    pregnant!"  Now, that may sound crass, but it wasn't... you see, our
    boys already knew "the facts of life" and even what condoms were
    (though they may have called them something else.)  I explained that I
    wanted them to understand any changes they might notice in their female
    friends.
    
    At that young age, they knew (and knew that I knew) that they were not
    interested in sexual activity.  But they got the message.  One of them
    said, "That must be why Laura spends so much time in the bathroom!"
    
    Nancy

    RE: .46 I agree pretty much with what you say in .46. I've done much
    the same with my 12 year old. In fact much of the reason my son's
    school has sex education is because I, who was chairman of the school
    board at the time, insisted on it. This is spite of the fact that I
    don't believe the facts quoted earlier are in fact true.
    
    		Alfred

I read a newspaper article about this survey about 3 or 4 months ago.  It
was severely critical of just about everything to do with the survey.
It noted (if my memory serves me correctly) that only 2 of the 18
questions had to do with aids and one of them was worded in such a
way that the right answer was ambiguous.  It also questioned whether
some of the other answers which were called "right" were really right
and those that were called wrong were really wrong.  It's main point,
however, was that the survey told us practically nothing about the
sexual knowledge of Americans (which it purports to do).  It noted that
some publications had refused to publish the survey because of its many 
flaws.

Collis

    Oh, no! The Globe and I agree. Perhaps I better re-think my position.
    :-)
    
    			Alfred

Found the following tract at a hamburger stand yesterday.  The bracketed
remarks are mine:

The TRUTH about...CONDOMS

FAILURE rate is 40% in some groups in preventing pregnancy.  [Must be
the group that uses a condom after intercourse.]

FAILURE rate in stopping sexually transmitted disease is nearly 100%.

FAILURE is high because all condoms have holes 500 times larger than
the size of sexually transmitted diseases.  [No mention of which STDs,
and whether they're talking about latex versus membrane condoms.]

FAILURE of condoms and promiscuous sex is responsible for:
	1. 1,000,000 teen abortions per year.
	2. 60% of all abortions are by teens.
	3. 27% of all newborns are by unwed mothers.
	   [Some quite deliberately so.]
	4. 77% increase in AIDS.
	   [Doesn't say up from what, nor since when.]

FAILURE 50 Sexually transmitted diseases exist among teens.  20 are
incurable.  [No mention of which ones.]

CONDOMS - THE GREAT HOAX PLAYED ON OUR TEENS



[I'll post the text of the reverse side at a later time.]

JESUS CAME...BECAUSE WE SIN "For all have sinned and come short of the
glory of God." Romans 3:23

JESUS DIED...TO PAY FOR OUR SINS "...while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us.  Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be
save from wrath through Him." Romans 5:8 & 9.

JESUS AROSE...TO SAVE YOU "...God hath given us eternal life, and this life
is in the "Son."  1 John 5:11.

YOU MUST REPENT...Admit that you are guilty of sin and that you need Jesus
Christ to save you. "...except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
Luke 13.3.

YOU MUST TRUST...Have faith "For God so loved the world, that He gave His
only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have
everlasting life."  John 3:16.

WHAT IS YOUR DECISION?

[]  I choose Jesus Christ  "He that believeth on Him is not condemned but
whoever does not believe stands condemned already..." John 3:18 "...for
whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

[]  I do not want to accept Jesus as my Savior.  "And whosoever was not
found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15

I want more information:

Name_______________________________Age____________
Address___________________________________________
Phone_____________________________________________
City__________________State__________Zip__________

PLEASE MAIL US YOUR DECISION

Truth Literature Crusade
A Division of Crossfire Ministries
PO Box 36000-206
Colorado Springs [Where else?], CO 80936-3600

    My initial thought after reading the flyer in .51 was, "Well,
    if this is true, why would anyone ever use a condom?"
    
    The flyer doesn't openly promote abstinence.  I guess the reader is
    just supposed to know without saying.  Or maybe they get around to
    it in another "The TRUTH about..." flyer.  This one was obviously
    designed for readers with short attention spans.
    
    It doesn't sound like a condom does any more good than holding an
    aspirin between your knees.
    
    Richard

    The aspirin works......
    
    Marc H.

    Funny thing.  Earlier in the school year there was a pamphlet
    distributed in the schools, a portion of which was a list created
    by students of things to do instead of having teen sex.  It drew
    blasts of criticism from a least one pulpit locally (and made the
    local news), because it included things like rubbing suntan lotion
    on each other's back.
    
    Richard

    "Suntan Lotion!!!!"
    
    Quick, bring all the children inside.....lock up the woman!
    Theres danger out there........A large container of Suntan Lotion!
    
    That is ridiculous.....
    
    Marc H.