Papa-Lu: November 2003 Archives

Dining chez-Lu

|

With a pregnant wife, an incompetent chef of a husband, no microwave (by choice) and an oven that is on the fritz, you might think meals are somewhat lacking over here these days. Mais non! You would be mistaken!

I cannot lie - meal quality has generally taken a downward turn since Baby-Lu came into existence (well, more to the point, since Mama-Lu started having intense morning- 18-hour a day-sickness). But things have lately picked up as I've grown accustomed to fending for myself in putting flesh on my own bones, especially these days when Mama-Lu is feeling a bit better and I can actually cook things without sending her sprinting to the bathroom to unload a day's worth of nutritional progress. Whereas she was here-to-fore restricted to a sparse diet of saltines, bagels and Gatorade, she has of late been feeling strong enough to venture into more substantial fare. As a result, I have for two evenings in a row been able to do two things at the same time which for at least a week have not been able to coincide.

  1. Enjoy a meal consisting of something other than bread, &
  2. Do it at home without tipping anybody.

Thanks to the recommendation of my mother, the missus decided that maybe a baked potato was something she could eat. Due to our lack of a microwave and dangerous oven situation, J-Lu - who, for many reasons ranging from homemade blizzards to a picnic at Allerton has earned the nickname "Idea Queen" - came up with the idea of cooking them in the crock-pot. Skeptical I was at first, but a few hours later when all 2 1/2 rooms worth of our apartment were filled with the aroma of juicy, potato-y goodness, I knew the Queen had struck again.

And so, for dinner tonight, I enjoyed a scrumptious appetizer of cheese pizza made by the world-famous chef - Jack's, followed by a main course of a reheated (per our wonderful toaster oven) baked potato smothered in butter, sour cream, shredded cheddar and bacon bits.

I'll give you a minute to snicker if you wish.

Moving along, I will get to the true stroke of genius. One of the benefits of being married to a woman who is bringing forth life is that they get to eat whatever they want, or rather, whatever sounds good to them at the time. This behavior - which would be deemed reckless in any other human being - is encouraged by all who have anything to say about pregnancy. Due to the fact that the concept of almost all foods utterly repulse J-Lu, she is encouraged to eat anything that doesn't make her ill. In fact, I have come to realize that one of the best (and few) things I can do for her is to be able to give her whatever she wants to eat.

Because of this remarkable and completely unique condition, in which a member of the human race can - with absolutely no guilt on their conscience - request any food or combination of foods and be completely affirmed and encouraged in their choice no matter what, I was able to walk into Baker's Square on Friday, and with an equally non-existent amount of guilt, order a full plain cheesecake with a side carton of Triple-Berry sauce. Such a purchase for the consumption of two normal people could rightly be deemed decadent, but when there's a pregnant woman involved, all bets are off.

And so, my cheese pizza and baked potato with the works were capped off with a hunk of soft, luscious cheese cake smothered in a sauce thick with chunks of actual berries accompanied by a glass of the sweet, (and potent) port which I picked up yesterday specifically to complement the cheese cake.

Yes, I do miss the bacon-wrapped Cornish hens with raspberry glaze which the lady of the house has masterfully pieced together for me on two separate occasions, but until such time as my queen can return to her command post in the kitchen, I guess I'll have to get by with cheese pizza and potatoes, cheese cake and port.

Bookmark and Share

Pastoral letter from bishop of St. Augustine

|

Here's how it starts:

Some state legislatures are presently considering bills that would redefine marriage as the stable union of any two adults regardless of gender. Such legislation would equate same-sex unions with traditional marriage. Furthermore, divorces continue to escalate to the point where couples may now get a bona fide divorce online for fees ranging from $50 to $300.

These latest developments are mere symptoms of a vastly more serious disorder. Until the taproot of that disorder is cut, I fear that we will continue to reap the fruit of failed marriages and worsening sexual behavior at every level of society.

The disorder? Contraception. The practice is so widespread that it involves 90% of married couples at some point of their marriage, cutting across all denominational lines. Since one of the chief roles of the bishop is to teach, I invite you to revisit what the Church affirms in this area, and more importantly, why.

A very good read, although he fails to mention that NFP should be used to avoid conception only in grave circumstances. It's a bit of a glaring admission since he seems to be writing to change hearts and minds away from contraception.

Also, he uses an analogy to describe NFP that contains an interesting omission:

"Or to return to our analogy of the language of the body: To say that NFP is no different from contraception is like saying that maintaining silence is the equivalent of telling a lie."

Isn't it true that we can just as often sin by omission as by commission? Don't we have an obligation to speak the truth when the situation demands it?

Finally he says this:

"But how does natural family planning differ from contraception? And why bother, if their objective is the same? To understand the difference, one must realize that having a right intention for an action does not always justify the means."

Can anybody interpret this to mean something besides: the objective of birth control and NFP is the same? He doesn't mention what the rigt intention actually is, so couldn't you assume that "not having a(nother) kid is a "right intention?" This needs to be explained.

He also confuses things by constantly referring to "artificial birth control," when comparing it to NFP. It takes no stretch of the imagination to think that he's giving NFP the label "natural birth control." As if the means is the problem and not the idea of "controlling birth."

This is why it is crucially important to be very careful when speaking of Natural Family Planning. The last thing the Church needs to do is to let contraceptive couples think they're not contracepting simply because they do it with a chart and thermometer instead of with a pill and some latex.

Yeah, so anyway, the first eleven sections of the letter are awesome!

Bookmark and Share

Choosing without freedom

|

NARAL wants you to choose abortion without knowing what you're choosing.

Is there any other explanation for why they would call the use of ultrasound technology - to show women just what exactly the fetus in their womb looks like - "a weapon?"

"They don't want them to go to Planned Parenthood, where they'll get their full range of options. They just want them to go to crisis pregnancy centers, where women will be exposed to this weapon at taxpayer's expense."

A weapon is used to destroy. The only things an ultrasound destroys are lies, illusions and myths. Tell your congressmen what you think about allowing women to know exactly what choice their making.

You cannot make a choice in perfect freedom if you do not know the truth about what you choosing.

Bookmark and Share

Viagra vs. the pill

|

You know what I am sick of?

Arguments for including the pill in health care plans because those plans cover Viagra.

Let me start off by saying this: I don't particularly think Viagra needs to be covered. I dont know the Church's position on it, but when we're talking about plans (such as for State of Illinois employees) that use my tax dollars, I'm a little wary of funding a drug that one can live happily and healthily without.

That said: The purpose of Viagra and related drugs is to correct a medical deficiency. If a man cannot acieve an erection, there is something biologically off with his body. Viagra (allegedly - I don't know too much about it) fixes that. The drug makes the man whole.

The purpose of the birth control pill is to violate the natural wholeness of a woman's body. A healthy pre-menopausal adult woman has a menstrual cycle wherein she ovulates once a month and her body gears up for a potential pregnancy. If this pegnancy is not achieved, her body expels the unfertilized egg and all of the biological materials that have accumulated in preparation. This is the normal, healthy, natural order of things. The pill takes this (quite beautiful) order and jams it up.

Men who take Viagra would not be able to have sex without it.

Women who take the pill are quite capable of having sex without it. It is in no way analogous to Vigara.

The purpose of the pill is to prevent the natural consequences of sexual intercourse to take place. The pill does not heal, it does not make whole, all it does is prevent pregnancy and abort any conceptions that mistakely occur. The logical consequence of accepting the pill as a "medicine" is to label pregnancy as a disease, which many proponents of birth control and abortion do.

This is most ironic, since the pill has so many side effects, and pregnancy is in fact so beneficial for the health of a woman.

So here we have a "medicine" that heals no illness, rights no wrong, compensates for no deficiency, and instead prevents one of the best things that can happen for a woman's body from taking place and also causes a host of side effecs which in the long run will cause the woman physical and emotional trauma (not to mention the monetary cost).

Let me again conclude, this is not a pro-Viagra post. I don't know what side-effects the big V has, I don't know if i's even morally licit. I only mention it because so many of the arguments for including birth control in health plans complained of unequal treatment by health plans that covered Viagara, but not the pill. They complained that health care providers were providing "reproductive freedom" to men but not to women. This assertion is completely false.

Viagra facilitates reproductive ability to men. The pill facilitates reproductive irresponsibility to women. Both groups are free to choose what they will.

Bookmark and Share

Pages

Mama-Lu's Etsy Shop

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries written by Papa-Lu in November 2003.

Papa-Lu: October 2003 is the previous archive.

Papa-Lu: December 2003 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.