Protestant food for thought: Pro-life house divided

Xizors Palace

Morbert wrote: »

If we assume the methods are used incorrectly, the failure rate of the Fertility Awareness method is about 25%. It is on par with the withdrawal method (27%). The same goes for the rhythm method (25%). The failure rate of the COCP is 8%.

If we assume the methods are used perfectly, the failure rate drops to 3% for natural methods, and 0.3% for COCP (i.e. 10 times more reliable than the perfectly executed natural method, which translates to a lot more accidental pregnancies with natural contraception if we consider a population). It should also be noted that it is far more difficult to execute natural methods correctly (so much so that instructors are often needed.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

% failure rate, in other words, is not equivalent to % of fertile days in a cycle.

the modern methods of nfp are much more reliable than this. E.g. the Billings method.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

If we assume the methods are used typically, the failure rate of the Fertility Awareness method is about 25%. It is on par with the withdrawal method (27%). The same goes for the rhythm method (25%). The failure rate of the COCP is 8%.

If we assume the methods are used perfectly (which is not typical), the failure rate drops to 3% for natural methods, and 0.3% for COCP (i.e. 10 times more reliable than the perfectly executed natural method, which translates to a lot more accidental pregnancies with natural contraception if we consider a population). It should also be noted that it is far more difficult to execute natural methods correctly (so much so that instructors are often needed.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

% failure rate, in other words, is not equivalent to % of fertile days in a cycle.

It was tongue in cheek. I didn't actually think I'd get away with it what wiv you being all scientific like.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was tongue in cheek. I didn't actually think I'd get away with it what wiv you being all scientific like.

I am scientific, and therefore have no sense of irony or sarcasm. It's mean to exploit my disability like that.

georgieporgy

antiskeptic wrote: »

The divil is in the detail. So let's probe.



Okay



Contracepted sex isn't engaging in the act of creation - per definition. Only if you first define sex as an act of creation does that point stand. Your previous point doesn't define sex that way. It simply says that God wants us to procreate (which people who contracept can do)





How is one to do this?

Assuming something other than abstention, then why artificial forms problematic over natural forms.





Okay. Off topic but okay


I

What's so difficult about simply saying it as it is? You, I mean.

Antiskeptic, I was trying to be brief!

sex is an act of creation, we are using the procreative faculties. It doesn't mean every act results in pregnancy. But we mustn't render pregnancy impossible. ie we must be 'open to life' in each and every act of intercourse. God doesn't force us to have kids though so we can avoid sex at the fertile time if we wish (for good reasons etc etc)

As for me saying it as it is, being the good teacher?, well as for as you guys know, I could be a real nut case. (ask Mr P)

The teachers I used myself were all canonized saints. I picked one or two from each century and read their books. I may have missed the odd century but I thought it was a great way to see if they all believed the same thing.(they did of course). I've done a fair bit of travel and research too.

Granted I was born and raised catholic so I already accepted the notion of canonized saints. Others may not feel ok with that approach.

Most adult ex catholics haven't a clue about their faith and sadly outsiders judge the rest of us by their behaviour.

Morbert

Xizors Palace wrote: »

the modern methods of nfp are much more reliable than this. E.g. the Billings method.

It certainly seems better than other natural methods, though it is still on par with artificial methods and would also, by the logic of the polemic in the original post, also result in increased abortion rates.

Though in previous posts you have said the Church is also against natural contraception. If this is true then, while I don't agree with the argument, it is at least consistent.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Your position is modernism. What was true then isn't necessarily true now. What was good then may not be good now. The early Christians believed that homosexuality, contraception, fornication etc... were immoral. Some people now say, ''Yes homosexuality was viewed as wrong, but we now know that homosexuality is perfectly good and harmless.'' There is no difference between yourself and the 'Christian' pro-homosexual lobby. Both positions necessarily must disassociate themselves from the constant teaching Tradition of the Catholic Church, but not only the Catholic Church, but the separated ecclesial communities until 1930.

You seem to forget that foolish Galatians and corrupted Corinthians made up the body "early Christians". How do we know whether the views early Christians held were the truth?

There is little difference between contracepted sexual acts between married couples and homosexuals. Both are closed to life and both contravene the moral and natural law.

Sermons attract scorn :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

georgieporgy wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I was trying to be brief!

Write in haste, repent at leisure.

sex is an act of creation, we are using the procreative faculties.

Does my using respiratory faculties mean smelling a rose is sinful? You need to tie sex AND act of creation AND intended so by God ... together somewhere along the line.

God telling man to procreate isn't sufficient.

It doesn't mean every act results in pregnancy. But we mustn't render pregnancy impossible. ie we must be 'open to life' in each and every act of intercourse. God doesn't force us to have kids though so we can avoid sex at the fertile time if we wish (for good reasons etc etc)

You've gone on on the assumption the above sex-for-creation argument is made. Perhaps you could first establish that then what follows will follow.

Xizor seems to think avoiding procreation in sex using rhythm methods is sinful.

The teachers I used myself were all canonized saints. I picked one or two from each century and read their books. I may have missed the odd century but I thought it was a great way to see if they all believed the same thing.(they did of course). I've done a fair bit of travel and research too.

Granted I was born and raised catholic so I already accepted the notion of canonized saints. Others may not feel ok with that approach.

Most adult ex catholics haven't a clue about their faith and sadly outsiders judge the rest of us by their behaviour.

Okay. We're back to a difference in source (which is inevitable). You read their books. I read the Bible.

Which is not to disparage - I'm simply not up to believing the opinion of man alone.

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to forget that foolish Galatians and corrupted Corinthians made up the body "early Christians". How do we know whether the views early Christians held were the truth?

Sermons attract scorn :rolleyes:

The Church leaders discerned what was true and what was false. Christ gave this authority to the Apostles, with primacy given to Peter. Only the Catholic Church has taught the true faith amidst so many heresies and falsehoods.

(I noticed you conveniently skipped over the central point of my post.)


If homosexuality and contraception were wrong then, how come you now accept contraception as holy and pure now, against the massive weight of Apostolic Tradition and the constant belief of all Christians, even those who fell away from the Church during the revolt of Luther? If you like, 'mere Christianity' held both sodomy and contraception to be immoral until 1930. Is homosexuality now to be considered holy and pure? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That was then; this is now. You have some explaining to do!!

Morbert

georgieporgy wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I was trying to be brief!

sex is an act of creation, we are using the procreative faculties. It doesn't mean every act results in pregnancy. But we mustn't render pregnancy impossible. ie we must be 'open to life' in each and every act of intercourse. God doesn't force us to have kids though so we can avoid sex at the fertile time if we wish (for good reasons etc etc).

I don't think it's consistent to be only against artificial contraception. The distinction is largely arbitrary, as even the "natural" methods exploit biological mechanisms to flout natural reproduction. And since no method is perfect, we are always "open to life".

I have a feeling God would be much more concerned with how we treat the act of sex, rather than the specific means we use to manipulate the consequences.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

I don't think it's consistent to be only against artificial contraception. The distinction is largely arbitrary, as even the "natural" methods exploit biological mechanisms to flout natural reproduction. And since no method is perfect, we are always "open to life".

+1

I have a feeling God would be much more concerned with how we treat the act of sex, rather than the specific means we use to manipulate the consequences.

And where did you get that feeling, pray tell.

zoomtard

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I don't know about you Xizor's Palace, but I have sex with my husband because I love him...not to numb my pain! Yikes. You have some mixed up thinking.

And cos he's a flippin' Lothario.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The Church leaders discerned what was true and what was false. Christ gave this authority to the Apostles, with primacy given to Peter. Only the Catholic Church has taught the true faith amidst so many heresies and falsehoods.

The Bible records churches (and logically, their leaders also) going astray in a myriad of ways. Reconcile with the above please.

(I noticed you conveniently skipped over the central point of my post.)

Dealt with below. Hopefully you'll have re-dealt with my central point above.

If homosexuality and contraception were wrong then, how come you now accept contraception as holy and pure now, against the massive weight of Apostolic Tradition and the constant belief of all Christians, even those who fell away from the Church during the revolt of Luther?

Deconstructing these "massive" forces:

1) The trouble with apostolic tradition is that it stemmed from the apostles themselves - in word or writing. The notion of apostolic succession (if that is what lies behind this point) isn't an argument point - it's sermonising to those who've already evaluated and rejected RC view on such things.

Massive weight? Only if you believe RC. Which is circular.

2) Constant belief of all Christians. You keep on saying this but you haven't actually provided information about same. Its a big time span you're casting an umbrella over and it's not a topic I imagine dominated the minds of folk o'er the centuries?

Care to begin on supporting it - bearing in mind that you cannot rely on a monolithic "X-person-speaks-for-a-substantial-number approach"£?


Massive. Constant. All.

Over to you.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Slav

Spring's in the air you think?

antiskeptic

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is a thread topic in itself. Thus 6th.

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is a thread topic in itself. Thus 6th.

that makes no sense. there is no topic on the specific topic of sexual morality.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

that makes no sense. there is no topic on the specific topic of sexual morality.

He didn't say the threads were "specific", he said they "involved".

PDN

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Some people are just obsessed with sex.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Some people are just obsessed with sex.

Meticulously Obsessed Rhetorical Orators, Nattering about Sex.

Hmm, I wonder if there is an acronym I could use for such people..............

Xizors Palace

There are two primary instincts in man I suppose: one is to eat, the other to reproduce. These drives are vital for the continuation and survival of the human race.

If I want to eat food but I don't want to deal with the consequences, I could vomit the food up after I'd eaten it. Some people do that. But we don't regard such behaviour as normal and healthy; on the contrary, we regard it as indicative of some mental disturbance.

Similarly, if I desire sexual pleasure, but have no stomach for consequences, I contracept. Sex as ordained by God, is of its nature procreative and unitative - to deliberately separate these two aspects so we can enjoy one and reject completely the other, is by its nature, morally disordered.

Sex that is unitative but not procreative is immoral (as far as Christians are concerned). Examples would include masturbation, homosexuality and contracepted sex. Reproductive technologies which separate procreation from uniative aspect are also immoral for Christians, e.g. IVF. Incidentally, these technologies also involve the death of innocent human life.

So anyway, I am interested in the non-Catholic response to this argument against contraception, and also, an answer to the question of by whose authority do couples presume to divide what God has united: the procreative and unitative aspects of sex in the plan for man and woman in marriage?

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

There are two primary instincts in man I suppose: one is to eat, the other to reproduce. These drives are vital for the continuation and survival of the human race.


If I want to eat food but I don't want to deal with the consequences, I could vomit the food up after I'd eaten it. Some people do that. But we don't regard such behaviour as normal and healthy; on the contrary, we regard it as indicative of some mental disturbance.

True. But you've underlined a basic fact. We are masters of our instincts. That's what separates us from the animals.

Similarly, if I desire sexual pleasure, but have no stomach for consequences, I contracept.

Similarily in the sense of my exercising choice, yes.

Other than try to draw a clumsy comparision between choice arising from mental unhealth and choice not arising from mental unhealth, there is no argumentation here.

Sex as ordained by God, is of its nature procreative and unitative - to deliberately separate these two aspects so we can enjoy one and reject completely the other, is by its nature, morally disordered.

You say this but can't actually back it up other than by assuming it to be the case. That's sermonising.

Sex that is unitative but not procreative is immoral (as far as Christians are concerned). Examples would include masturbation,

I'm a Christian and don't see masturbation as necessarily immoral. Perhaps you mean as far as Catholics are concerned?

Reproductive technologies which separate procreation from uniative aspect are also immoral for Christians, e.g. IVF. Incidentally, these technologies also involve the death of innocent human life.

Ditto the above.

So anyway, I am interested in the non-Catholic response to this argument against contraception, and also, an answer to the question of by whose authority do couples presume to divide what God has united: the procreative and unitative aspects of sex in the plan for man and woman in marriage?

You've presented no argument against contraception - other than to restate Catholic dogma (and assembled the clunkiest of comparisons up top).

The non-Catholic position isn't swayed by mere repetition of Catholic dogma on this or a wide variety of other issues.

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

True. But you've underlined a basic fact. We are masters of our instincts. That's what separates us from the animals.

Similarily in the sense of my exercising choice, yes.

Other than try to draw a clumsy comparision between choice arising from mental unhealth and choice not arising from mental unhealth, there is no argumentation here.

You say this but can't actually back it up other than by assuming it to be the case. That's sermonising.

I'm a Christian and don't see masturbation as necessarily immoral. Perhaps you mean as far as Catholics are concerned?

Ditto the above.

You've presented no argument against contraception - other than to restate Catholic dogma (and assembled the clunkiest of comparisons up top).

The non-Catholic position isn't swayed by mere repetition of Catholic dogma on this or a wide variety of other issues.

So, let's just summarise: you are a Christian who doesn't necessarily view masturbation, contraceptive, or abortive reproductive technologies such as IVF as immoral? Right. I will pray for you.

For anyone looking on, what is being promoted here is ''diversity'' (a modern PC-friendly term, which in our context means h*****, from the Greek word hairetikos which means “able to choose.” This is not actually a judgement but a simple fact based on the hard evidence provided. Thus a h****** is someone who chooses some aspects of the Faith and rejects other aspects of it. Essentially, there is no absolute truth, and there is no way a Christian can know with any meaningful certainty, whether or not any of the 3 above mentioned practises are immoral, despite the fact that Christ told us that He would send the Holy Spirit Who will guide us to all truth, and we need the truth about sin if we are to avoid it and be saved. All truth, not most, and not a rough approximation either which we can all more-or-less agree with, a lowest common denominator, if you like. [I put asterisks around the 'offending' word because it is likely that this post wouldn't be tolerated otherwise, and it's touch and go as it is. But that only goes to prove that what I am saying is true. In fact, we see that a dictatorship of relativism leads in turn to a crushing intolerance of truth itself and that is precisely the point Pope Benedict made in his book, Light of the World.]

But this way of thinking does not lead to the unity of charity and truth which Christ desires and which He gave to His Church as He promised. This one-ness with Christ comes through our sharing in the one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine. If we are not in His Church then we will be seduced by the Prince of this World and we will be merrily led into condoning and enjoying a whole plethora of sins which will lead to our own spiritual ruin. We can end up in the paradoxical situation of claiming to be Christians - followers of this Christ - while at the same time, we commit and condone sins which offend and wound His Sacred Heart and re-crucify Him again in our own heart.

The diversity at the heart of Protestantism is, as I have hinted at before, nothing more than an attempt to deny the reality about sin and about God so that we can carry on with our lives as before. If we were to acknowledge the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, then we would have to really and profoundly change our lives. We'd have to repent of our sins and amend our life, putting to death the old man.

We hide sin by denying the truth. By denying the truth we fall into moral relativity, whereby one can say, ''Well yes, it may be a sin for a Catholic, but for me, well, I am free in Christ and I can do these things no problem.'' Truth itself is now relative and practically irrelevant. Christ is made out to be a liar at worst, or at best, somebody who cannot keep promises (c.f. Lk. 10:16, Jn. 14:26, Jn. 16:13, Mt. 16:18 etc...). With truth becoming diversity, we have schism and protest. Belief collapses into a heap of relativism, and there is no faith.

“But when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8).

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

So, let's just summarise: you are a Christian who doesn't necessarily view masturbation, contraceptive, or abortive reproductive technologies such as IVF as immoral? Right. I will pray for you.

Is IVF necessarily abortive?

For anyone looking on, what is being promoted here is ''diversity'' (a modern PC-friendly term, which in our context means h*****, from the Greek word hairetikos which means “able to choose.” This is not actually a judgement but a simple fact based on the hard evidence provided.

What hard evidence provided (assuming it's gotten through to you by now that "Rome says so" isn't admissable evidence).

Thus a h****** is someone who chooses some aspects of the Faith and rejects other aspects of it. Essentially, there is no absolute truth, and there is no way a Christian can know with any meaningful certainty, whether or not any of the 3 above mentioned practises are immoral,

Er.. I'm pretty certain the above 3 pratices aren't necessarily immoral. There is a way to know this. It comes from knowing God.

.. despite the fact that Christ told us that He would send the Holy Spirit Who will guide us to all truth, and we need the truth about sin if we are to avoid it and be saved.

I'm already saved. The above is Roman Catholic works dogma.

It would appear that substantive argumentation isn't going to make an appearance in this post - there's little point in me reading on.

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

of course if is a possible consequence but it need not be a nessecary consequence.

...and when contraception fails? Is it ok because we should have abortion to fall back on. Hooray, we have removed all consequences, aren't we fantastic.

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course there is no guarantee, nit o am sure you will agree that contraception is better at preventing pregnancy than no contraception..

..and abstaining works even better that contraception. Oh wait, that's a stupid thing to say. Imagine, abstaining....what a ridiculous notion.

MrPudding wrote: »

Please remember that until fairly recently a man pretty much was entitled to sex off his wife when he wanted. This was part of the marriage contract and was protected in law by the marital rape exemption. It would not matter how well a woman tracked her cycle, whether or not to have sex was not something she really had control over, on a lot of cases.*
You really have to ask why an organisation would, on the one hand say that contraception is wrong, and on the other that the man was entitled to sex when he wanted. It is almost as if they want the women on a near constant state of pregnancy.

Can a woman be convicted of raping a man in Ireland? This is now, in 2010 by the way? It is almost as if they want etc etc...

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

...and when contraception fails? Is it ok because we should have abortion to fall back on. Hooray, we have removed all consequences, aren't we fantastic.

It might not be to your taste, but if that is how someone decides to deal with it then they should be allowed to do so.

prinz wrote: »

..and abstaining works even better that contraception. Oh wait, that's a stupid thing to say. Imagine, abstaining....what a ridiculous notion.

No, it is not a ridiculous notion, if you feel that abstaining is a good thing and something your religion thinks you should do, again, your opinion. Just because you think abstention is a good thing does not mean it suits everyone, nor does it mean that people who don’t have the same religious belief as should have to abstain. That said, as far as I can recall, the figures for success rates of abstention are pretty poor; obviously not because abstention work, but because people find it hard to abstain. My understanding, from these programmes in America is that in areas where they taught only abstention the rate of unwanted pregnancies increased. People want ot have sex and they have sex, if you have not taught them how to have sex safely then you get unwanted pregnancy.

If you and other catholic want to practice birth control by abstention then, please, knock yourself out. But do not try to force your dogmatically driven, not practical in the real world views on the rest of the world that do not share your dogma.

prinz wrote: »

Can a woman be convicted of raping a man in Ireland? This is now, in 2010 by the way? It is almost as if they want etc etc...

Not sure, if it is the same as the UK then no, unless she has a penis, but then that is a whole other thread I would think. I am afraid I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, having a bit of a slow day so far.

MrP

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

It might not be to your taste, but if that is how someone decides to deal with it then they should be allowed to do so.

..and that might be to your taste......

MrPudding wrote: »

No, it is not a ridiculous notion, if you feel that abstaining is a good thing and something your religion thinks you should do, again, your opinion. Just because you think abstention is a good thing does not mean it suits everyone, nor does it mean that people who don’t have the same religious belief as should have to abstain..

Great. I don't recall anyone forcing people into abstaining.

MrPudding wrote: »

That said, as far as I can recall, the figures for success rates of abstention are pretty poor; obviously not because abstention work, but because people find it hard to abstain. My understanding, from these programmes in America is that in areas where they taught only abstention the rate of unwanted pregnancies increased. People want ot have sex and they have sex, if you have not taught them how to have sex safely then you get unwanted pregnancy...

One of the major downfalls of the US programmes is the part I highlighted in bold.

MrPudding wrote: »

If you and other catholic want to practice birth control by abstention then, please, knock yourself out. But do not try to force your dogmatically driven, not practical in the real world views on the rest of the world that do not share your dogma.

Where have I tried to force anything onto anyone? Don't be hysterical. Ironic though after you attempt a very similar thing earlier.

MrPudding wrote: »

Not sure, if it is the same as the UK then no, unless she has a penis, but then that is a whole other thread I would think. I am afraid I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, having a bit of a slow day so far.

Very simple Mr P. It's a pointless exercise to try and read your own interpretations into a law, especially when in your case 2+2=5. Does the fact that a woman cannot be convicted of rape here mean the State and the RCC are conspiring to have as many pregnancies as possible? No, that would be nonsense. Does the marital rape exemption mean the State and RCC were conspiring to force women into a life-time of pregnancies. No, that would be an absurd conclusion given the almost world-wide existence of similar marital rape exemptions in law in countries with a religious culture not-confined to Roman Catholicism, or even Christianity for that matter.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

..and that might be to your taste......

No it isn’t really. I don’t really find abortion to my taste, and I doubt there are very many people that do. Thankfully I do have the ability to realise that just because I don’t particularly like something is not justification for removing the option for other people, should they choose to avail of it. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

prinz wrote: »

Great. I don't recall anyone forcing people into abstaining.

Then why mention it as an alternative? What is the point is saying it is better than contraception if you don’t think people should do it? Are you not of the opinion that contraception is wrong?

prinz wrote: »

One of the major downfalls of the US programmes is the part I highlighted in bold.

Yes, I would agree, but if you are dogmatically opposed to contraception then you are only going to teach abstinence. This is the issue when following, or indeed trying to impose, your religious dogma or doctrine onto others.

prinz wrote: »

Where have I tried to force anything onto anyone? Don't be hysterical. Ironic though after you attempt a very similar thing earlier.

I am not necessarily talking about you personally. Are you say the rcc does not try to do this?

prinz wrote: »

Very simple Mr P. It's a pointless exercise to try and read your own interpretations into a law, especially when in your case 2+2=5. Does the fact that a woman cannot be convicted of rape here mean the State and the RCC are conspiring to have as many pregnancies as possible?

It might not be rape, but there will be another chargeable offence.

prinz wrote: »

No, that would be nonsense. Does the marital rape exemption mean the State and RCC were conspiring to force women into a life-time of pregnancies. No, that would be an absurd conclusion given the almost world-wide existence of similar marital rape exemptions in law in countries with a religious culture not-confined to Roman Catholicism, or even Christianity for that matter.

When you have a religion that does not allow contraception, even within marriage, then you are going to increase the number of pregnancies occurring in followers of that religion, assuming of course the follows obey the rules, that should be fairly obvious. Having a marital rape exemption, which many consider to be religious in origin, does not help matters. I am not saying there is a conspiracy per se, but in an environment where woman are not free to use contraception, or are they free to refuse sex, the consequence is going to be pregnancies which are not necessarily wanted.

MrP

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

No it isn’t really.

Yes it is. It is not to my taste to live in a society which facilitates the killing off of unborn members for no legitimate reason. It is your taste to do so.

MrPudding wrote: »

Then why mention it as an alternative?

Why not? Is mentioning condoms forcing people into using condoms?

MrPudding wrote: »

What is the point is saying it is better than contraception if you don’t think people should do it?

The old 2+2=5 strikes again. Have I said that I don't think people should abstain?

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you not of the opinion that contraception is wrong??

Not completely.

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, I would agree, but if you are dogmatically opposed to contraception then you are only going to teach abstinence. This is the issue when following, or indeed trying to impose, your religious dogma or doctrine onto others.

I would say that people dogmatically opposed to contraception shouldn't really be teaching sex education to begin with as far as schools go. On the other hand, having been through a comprehensive sex education in school not so long ago abstinence was mentioned once, in the 'you should wait'....lolz....schoolkid giggles...well that's not going to happen. It should be taught properly and given an equal weighting and respect. It bothers me that the concept of abstinence until marriage/an older age/more serious secure relationship is a comical idea to some that is disregarded as an anachronistic irrelevance.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not necessarily talking about you personally. Are you say the rcc does not try to do this?

The Catholic Church - I know this might come as a major shock - tries to teach and lead Catholics. The Catholic Church no more forces x person to do or refrain from doing something they don't want to than the Zoroastrians are.

MrPudding wrote: »

It might not be rape, but there will be another chargeable offence.

Which ignores the point.

MrPudding wrote: »

When you have a religion that does not allow contraception, even within marriage, then you are going to increase the number of pregnancies occurring in followers of that religion, assuming of course the follows obey the rules, that should be fairly obvious.

That religion argues against artificial contraception.

MrPudding wrote: »

Having a marital rape exemption, which many consider to be religious in origin, does not help matters..

Which religion? Or is it them all? The origin of marital rape exemption is actually a legal matter, the origins of which came from a Chief Justice in England in the 17th Century reading what he thought into the marital contract. So no, the legal marital rape exemption did not come from a religion at least in our common law legal world. The originator was a Puritan witch-hunter but there was never a specified agreement that consent was part of the marriage ceremony.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not saying there is a conspiracy per se, but in an environment where woman are not free to use contraception, or are they free to refuse sex, the consequence is going to be pregnancies which are not necessarily wanted.

Your tense is present, but your argument is past.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

...and when contraception fails? Is it ok because we should have abortion to fall back on. Hooray, we have removed all consequences, aren't we fantastic.

Isn't having an abortion a consequence?

prinz wrote: »

..and abstaining works even better that contraception. Oh wait, that's a stupid thing to say. Imagine, abstaining....what a ridiculous notion.

Depends on what you mean by works better. Theoretically it does, but since no one holds to it it is some what irrelevant.

Its like saying the way to tackle car accidents is to get everyone to stop driving cars. While that would work, it is too impractical to have any significance in actually tackling car accidents, and focusing purely on it would mean nothing is actually done that would stop car accidents. Far better to focus on seat belts, speed limits, better education about how to drive safer.

Same with focusing on astainance to prevent unwanted pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted disease. It is too impractical to have any significance, and focusing solely on it as a lot of religious groups do, distracts from actual measure that do actually work in reducing these problems.

While I'm not that interested in the theological debate between Catholic and Protestant, from a purely factual point of view a lot of what that guy said in the video was simply wrong. For example increased exposure to contraception tends to lower sexual activity, not increase it.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't having an abortion a consequence?

Not a natural one, but a consequence of sorts usually looked at as a much preferred alternative to the 'consequence' of an actual pregnancy to term.

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by works better. Theoretically it does, but since no one holds to it it is some what irrelevant.

No one abstains? That's odd I would swear I have heard that some do. What you are doing of course is exactly the kind of undermining that usually accompanies the concept. Self-fulfilling prophecy much.

Wicknight wrote: »

Its like saying the way to tackle car accidents is to get everyone to stop driving cars..

What about under-age drinking and drugs. Should we throw our hands in the air and give up on telling kids not to do it, and just focus on hospital beds and extra buying checks and hangover cures?

Wicknight wrote: »

Same with focusing on astainance to prevent unwanted pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted disease. It is too impractical to have any significance, and focusing solely on it as a lot of religious groups do, distracts from actual measure that do actually work in reducing these problems..

Again self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are telling people that nobody abstains for any significant period so it's an irrelevant choice to inform people of you are basically kicking a hole in the hull of the concept of abstinence before it has even set sail.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example increased exposure to contraception tends to lower sexual activity, not increase it.

Contraception without accompanying behavioural changes is akin to shovelling snow while it's still snowing.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

but a consequence of sorts usually looked at as a much preferred alternative to the 'consequence' of an actual pregnancy to term.

So it isn't consequence free.

prinz wrote: »

No one abstains?

"No one" in the general sense of that phrase. Even with kids who take things like Christian abstinent pledges, the vast majority break that pledge before they get married.

prinz wrote: »

That's odd I would swear I have heard that some do. What you are doing of course is exactly the kind of undermining that usually accompanies the concept. Self-fulfilling prophecy much.

I'm simply not assuming reality and Christian doctrine are going to align up. Because they don't. Christianity may teach that sex before marriage is bad and unnatural, but the reality is that vast vast majority of people do it, and don't think it is. Assuming they do just because you do is naive.

prinz wrote: »

What about under-age drinking and drugs. Should we throw our hands in the air and give up on telling kids not to do it, and just focus on hospital beds and extra buying checks and hangover cures?

Again you are assuming Christian doctrine (sex == bad) is what most people also think. It isn't, even most Christians.

Look at how successful Prohibition was in the 1930s in America. If your history isn't that good, the answer would be not very good at all.

That was because most people in America didn't think drinking in of itself was that big a deal. No group now would think you tackle the problems of alcohol abuse with a universal prohibition.

That doesn't mean there are no problems with alcohol abuse, but equally it is pointless to pretend that people think alcohol is a terrible evil thing that must be completely removed from society, as the Prohibition campaigners thought in the 1930s America.

The same principle holds with sexual fornication. Most people think that the Christian notion of absolutely no sex before marriage is as outdated and illogical as banning all alcohol.

So if you want to tackle problems like STDs and pregnancy you ain't going to do it by suggesting that everyone just stop having sex.

prinz wrote: »

If you are telling people that nobody abstains for any significant period so it's an irrelevant choice to inform people of you are basically kicking a hole in the hull of the concept of abstinence before it has even set sail.

Before it has set sail? Prinz abstinence has been taught for thousand of years. That ship has sailed. People have never followed it.

Trying something, finding out it doesn't work, and then telling people it doesn't work is not undermining the idea because the idea has never worked in the first place.

prinz wrote: »

Contraception without accompanying behavioural changes is akin to shovelling snow while it's still snowing.

Depends on what you goal is. If it is decrease risky sexual behavior, then no it isn't.

If you goal is to make everyone find upstanding Christians who only want to have sex within a Christian marriage, well then was never going to happen in the first place, so it is like closing your eyes and saying "It ain't snowing" despite being covered in snow.

Anyone who supports teaching kids abstinence has to ask themselves do they want to actually help teenagers and young adults avoid problems associated with sex such as unwanted pregnancy and STDs or do they just want to feel better about their delusion that if you don't talk about it they ain't doing it.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

So it isn't consequence free..

What isn't consequence free? You'll have to go back a page or two to the origins of the 'consequences' thing. It was MrP who began that line of reasoning that via contraception/abortion no one should have to face the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy. If you two want to discuss whether an abortion is a consequence or not be my guest.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm simply not assuming reality and Christian doctrine are going to align up. Because they don't. Christianity may teach that sex before marriage is bad and unnatural, but the reality is that vast vast majority of people do it, and don't think it is. Assuming they do just because you do is naive...

Promoting abstinence (like I said even until an older age/more secure relationship not solely confined to waiting until marriage) as a viable alternative has nothing to do with what Christianity teaches or Christian doctrine. YOu can be an atheist and still appreciate the benefits of waiting until you are mature enough and have all the neccessary capacities to make that decision. Again what you are doing is under-mining the concept before it can even get off the ground. No wonder it doesn't work.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again you are assuming Christian doctrine (sex == bad) is what most people also think. It isn't, even most Christians...

I made no such assumption. Where have I said "sex==bad"?

Wicknight wrote: »

Look at how successful Prohibition was in the 1930s in America. If your history isn't that good, the answer would be not very good at all.That was because most people in America didn't think drinking in of itself was that big a deal. No group now would think you tackle the problems of alcohol abuse with a universal prohibition. That doesn't mean there are no problems with alcohol abuse, but equally it is pointless to pretend that people think alcohol is a terrible evil thing that must be completely removed from society, as the Prohibition campaigners thought in the 1930s America.
...

That's great, did I mention anything about make sex against the law? Or a universal prohibition? Or that sex is a terrible evil thing that must be eradicated?

Wicknight wrote: »

The same principle holds with sexual fornication. Most people think that the Christian notion of absolutely no sex before marriage is as outdated and illogical as banning all alcohol....

Abstinence doesn't always have to relate to sex before marriage.

Wicknight wrote: »

So if you want to tackle problems like STDs and pregnancy you ain't going to do it by suggesting that everyone just stop having sex. Trying something, finding out it doesn't work, and then telling people it doesn't work is not undermining the idea because the idea has never worked in the first place....

We don't really have to go down this route again, but simple put the most effective sexual education programmes in AIDS stricken areas incorporate behavioural changes into sex ed, and don't focus solely on contraception. Apparently it does work.

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you goal is. If it is decrease risky sexual behavior, then no it isn't....

IMO it is. I recently watched a show on I think it was Channel4 but that could be wrong entitled "The Joy of Teen Sex", bizarrely titled to begin with, but that's besides the point. The premise of this show was to discuss sex with teens, a bit of sexual education etc. The was one particular young girl, IIRC she was 15, on the show. She had already had one abortion, multiple sexual partners, 10+ instances of unprotected sex, IIRC she also admitted to drinking up to a bottle of sambuca at least frequently... not once in the talk she had with the show's resident doctor/presenter did anyone ask her why she was engaging in what she knew was risky behaviour, not once did they ask her to reconsider her lifestyle choices, not once did anyone recommend counselling for what was obviously a teen in distress IMO, not once did they ask her if she considered herself mature enough for sexual relationships, NONE of that. What they did do was go through contraception options ( ALL of which she dismissed in a childish way) until she finally agreed to a contraceptive injection and the girl was out the door. This was a show which had the opportunity to actually encourage a mature approach to sexual health and education. Instead it revolved mostly around sex acts and fashions such as "vagazzling" or whatever it is. Utterly, utterly futile. Yes the injection might stop another pregnancy/abortion for this girl, but it went no further than that. An absolute waste of time when it comes to properly preparing this girl for the outside world. The doctor had the same tired, resigned attitude...'well they're going to have sex anyway, that's the best we could do for her'.........pathetic cop out.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you goal is to make everyone find upstanding Christians who only want to have sex within a Christian marriage, well then was never going to happen in the first place, so it is like closing your eyes and saying "It ain't snowing" despite being covered in snow..

It isn't, and I have already said as much. Then again it's much easier to argue against a shadow.

Wicknight wrote: »

Anyone who supports teaching kids abstinence has to ask themselves do they want to actually help teenagers and young adults avoid problems associated with sex such as unwanted pregnancy and STDs or do they just want to feel better about their delusion that if you don't talk about it they ain't doing it.

Quite the opposite. However it seems that even considering that notion is beyond you.

Festus

Contraception benefits men more than it does women.
Abortion benefits men more that it does women.
Pregnancy benefits women more than it does men.

Contraception is designed to allow men ejaculate into a women with a reduced fear of the consequence of pregnancy.
Contraception encourages more women to make themselves more available to men who want to ejaculate into them.
What are the defenses for women against peer pressure when whatever contraceptive you want is available? They don; tput warning labels on condoms or pill packets they way they do on tobacco products - mores the pity.
If the woman you're with won't put out there are plenty more around who will because contraceptives are available.

It also works the other way around. There are more women willing to allow a man ejaculate into them because contraceptives are available but given the strike rate for orgasms the men are still better off.

Abortion removes the responsibility from the man who has impregnated a woman. All that is required from him is to convince her abortion is the better option and then pay for it.

As for women who get pregnant so they can have abortions? Not many but there are probably some who get their kicks telling men they have aborted his child.
That said there are more than enough women around who get their kicks by getting pregnant then telling the father he can't have access to his child but he has to pay for them.

Because most men assume a woman who puts out is on the pill or using some other class of preventative measure they never think twice that maybe they are about to be raped, and risk penury while their child is stolen.

And in keeping with the OP for on track purposes. Does the Protestant attitude to contraceptives and abortion mean that Protestant girls\women are easier? In my experience in the UK, yes.

Festus

Festus wrote: »

Contraception benefits men more than it does women.
Abortion benefits men more that it does women.
Pregnancy benefits women more than it does men.

No, no, and no

The rest of your post is completely "wtf".

Festus

bluewolf wrote: »

No, no, and no

The rest of your post is completely "wtf".

I guess you just can't handle the truth.

wtf does wft mean?

georgieporgy

As has been pointed out in an earlier post the whole point being made by the OP is that once the notion of artificial contraception is accepted as being ok and good, it follows pretty soon that the notion of abortion (to remedy contraception failures) becomes accepted and good.

History has proven it, and the recent musings of Mr Pudding and Wicknight prove it.

The OP merely states that this acceptance is quite recent in the western world (1930s)

Festus

Festus wrote: »

I guess you just can't handle the truth.

Making things up and labelling them as "truth" makes them about as true as yelling "fact" after random statements :rolleyes:
They are not true, simple as that.

wtf does wft mean?

I don't know. Ask in the riddles forum?

Festus

georgieporgy wrote: »

As has been pointed out in an earlier post the whole point being made by the OP is that once the notion of artificial contraception is accepted as being ok and good, it follows pretty soon that the notion of abortion (to remedy contraception failures) becomes accepted and good.

also the notion that men are nothing more than sperm factories.

Festus

bluewolf wrote: »

Making things up and labelling them as "truth" makes them about as true as yelling "fact" after random statements :rolleyes:
They are not true, simple as that.

The concept of a discussion forum is to present an opinion. If there is something you think is not true then argue the case rather than running around with your fingers in your ears chanting "No, no, no".

Contraceptives were and are designed so men can get their rocks off without having to worry about babies or scabies.
Abortion is designed to deal with contraceptive failure, including the failure to use contraceptives.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

The concept of a discussion forum is to present an opinion. If there is something you think is not true then argue the case rather than running around with your fingers in your ears chanting "No, no, no".

But you haven't argued the case that contraception benefits men more than women. You've simply said it does in a "yes it does, yes it does, yes it does" fashion.

Shouldn't the response be of like-quality?

antiskeptic

georgieporgy wrote: »

As has been pointed out in an earlier post the whole point being made by the OP is that once the notion of artificial contraception is accepted as being ok and good, it follows pretty soon that the notion of abortion (to remedy contraception failures) becomes accepted and good.

But abortion was considered okay and good by those who wanted to practice it - long before modern contraception. Abortion becomes more acceptable when the chances of surviving it increase.

History has proven it

No it hasn't. Correlation isn't the same as cause.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

But you haven't argued the case that contraception benefits men more than women. You've simply said it does in a "yes it does, yes it does, yes it does" fashion.

Shouldn't the response be of like-quality?

If my post stopped at three lines with no following qualification for my initial statement you would be correct in your assessment.

As my post extends beyond three lines you are incorrect in your assessment.

Festus

Festus wrote: »

If my post stopped at three lines with no following qualification for my initial statement you would be correct in your assessment.

As my post extends beyond three lines you are incorrect in your assessment.

"Protestant women are easier" and "I guess you don't like the truth" are not arguments for your case

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

But abortion was considered okay and good by those who wanted to practice it - long before modern contraception. Abortion becomes more acceptable when the chances of surviving it increase.

Hippocrates did not endorse it. Was that because infanticide was more survivable?

Festus

bluewolf wrote: »

"Protestant women are easier" and "I guess you don't like the truth" are not arguments for your case

In my experience the former is a fact and as such a truth. In the case of the latter that you don't like me saying it is your problem.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

If my post stopped at three lines with no following qualification for my initial statement you would be correct in your assessment.

As my post extends beyond three lines you are incorrect in your assessment.

Your post merely repeats the "oh yes it is" approach. Consider that..

Contraception is designed to allow men ejaculate into a women with a reduced fear of the consequence of pregnancy.

...is countered with "oh no it isn't"

Contraception is designed to allow women who want men to ejaculate into them to reduce their fears of contraception.


What's the point of filling a page with such statements?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Hippocrates did not endorse it. Was that because infanticide was more survivable?

Maybe - but a darn sight harder to keep from those who might cast you into jail for murder.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Maybe - but a darn sight harder to keep from those who might cast you into jail for murder.

I would only kill those the courts say we can legally execute. That's not murder.
I also prefer to give them a 10 minute head start from 300yds off. If they're not bagged after a day they're free.

antiskeptic

Perhaps both the OP and Festus could remind themselves of the thread title. Food = nourishment. And in the context of a discussion forum that means substance.

There is a name for food devoid of nutrition.


(and it's not Protestantism and it's not Atheism)

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

I would only kill those the courts say we can legally execute. That's not murder.
I also prefer to give them a 10 minute head start from 300yds off. If they're not bagged after a day they're free.

I can see you're operating outside the Matrix today.