> accordingly, as a result, consequently, for this reason, for this purpose, hence, otherwise, so then, subsequently, therefore, thus, thereupon, wherefore
@PeterTurner First pass done...second passing coming...
pew pew pew
[tilts head] @Peter ? What's the difference between contraception and birth control? I have a vague idea, but you may want to put that there. On the other hand, it would probably be better for @wax to put that in his intro...
> If you want an orthodox Catholic answer to whether or not you should be using contraception or embark on sterilizing yourself within the family, that’s your answer.
That sentence feels a bit...awkward.
I think it's because "using" and "embark" are kinda different tenses.
EDIT: Added past continuous, trimmed image so it would be slightly larger, and gave it a transparent background.
EDIT 2: Added middle line, made some adjustments per @Kosmonaut.
> Rejection of contraception has two lasting and effects.
I think you're missing a word there...
Also, that 2-point section (of which I quoted a bit above) is in second person ("you") as opposed to first or third person. I would suggest rewording to avoid using forms of "you".
Oh, and there's "much more likely" in both points. Not really redundancy though.
Moving on to the three-point section after that...
It took me several reads to understand what was being said in the second point. Many reads later and I still don't really understand the italicized part.
> I know that not a few of the parents...
I would suggest replacing that with something like "I know that a significant number of parents...". It's...kinda hard to explain. I guess having the "not" there is messing with my mind when I read "either contracept or are sterilized". Also, while valid, "contracept" is a bit weird. I'd use "use contraception" instead.
> If you cease to consider the Euphemism of birth control,
Second-person voice again after the chart, but it's not quite so jarring there as it was in the first half.
> but if ads for hormonal birth control say they treat symptoms of PMS.
An if-conditional without a consequent! Oh, the horror!
> There’s a lot I didn’t cover, the whole argument against contraception is rooted in the Natural Law and the anagogical reading of the commandment against adultery covers the rest (man’s ultimate goal is to do the work of God in creating new human life).
This seems to be an unintentional garden path sentence; the "and" seems to be joining "Natural Law" and "the anagogical reading", but turns out to be joining two clauses.
That "joining two clauses" pun was totally unintentional. :P
Also made a bunch of minor fixes that most people wouldn't have noticed anyway. :P
So...yeah, @Peter, you've got a bit of work to do... :P
@ElendiaStarman thanks! that was some awesome advice. I think I've acted on all of it. (that 2-point section was totally unnecessary there). For the 3-point section, I think I'll add quotes from humane vitae. I got nearly everything from there anyway.
@PeterTurner I can't read your draft, which seems like a good way to avoid too much cross talk, but I'm curious how long it is. I'm at "Word count: 1375" and that feels about right to me.
I don't know if we should have a policy on this, but it might look weird if some articles are twice as long as others.
EDIT: Added past continuous, trimmed image so it would be slightly larger, and gave it a transparent background.
EDIT 2: Added middle line, made some adjustments per @Kosmonaut.
Eschewmenical Blog Room
Eschewmenical Blog Room