The Loss of Freedoms

[Michele 1]

Quote

Sorry dude, but when you purposefully choose to engage in intercourse when you know fertility to be low, then you ARE doing something to avoid conception. You are taking steps to reduce the risk of pregnancy. Yes, there is a chance that you can still get pregnant, but it is the same with condoms. You are just using the bodies rhythms to decrease chances instead of a plastic barrier or a pill. But you are trying to decrease it nonetheless.

This, combined with Micro's comments about unity, actually generated a thought for me. (YAYAYAY!!! I can still think!!!). Again, please also be aware that I am not catholic, and may not have the teachings correctly (and especially on this one, as the thought just struck me and I am too lazy to research it).

The use of condoms physically separates a man and woman with a barrier. With the church's perspective that sexual intercourse, when done in a marriage, is unifying (and I believe that it is), and NFP is practiced, an understanding of the woman's body - by both her and her husband - is generated. A sincere desire to learn about a woman's body, and the actual learning of it in the manner, brings a couple closer together; there is responsibility on both sides to note changes and understand the biology that is occurring, and that has to bring a couple closer.

With the use of a condom, that knowledge, understanding and learning is obviated, and the closeness does not occur.

I dunno...just a thought.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[wmw999 2,461]

Then how does an IUD separate them, or foam, or the pill?

It's OK for them to say "the Pope said it's not right to mess with what God plans for you in the procreation department" but somehow for them to say "not making love when she's fertile" is less of an intrusion than a Depo shot seems to be splitting hairs. Different things are differently intrusive for people.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Michele 1]

hi, Wendy, I haven't an idea about that. I thought the discussion was about b/c in general, with condom usage (i.e. the AIDs issue in the last few pages) being the specific part. IUDs, pills, and foam don't protect against AIDs, right? So...that's what I was thinking when I made my blazingly brilliant leap of logic.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

***
I believe John has made you lose focus on the fact that I already wrote this point. And now it is time for me to go home.

It's too easy, really

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

If you think you can learn nothing from those who are religious just because they subscribe to something you have no FAITH in, I feel sorry for you.

You may not become a believer, but there is always something to learn in the process.

For instance, in this debate, I looked up alot of information about STDs, NFP, and birth control to supplement my knowledge.

Do I think I will change micro's mind? Not a chance, but the very act of debate flexes my mind and helped me learn more.

Agreed! There was much to be learned about the passive dishonesty of blindly following religious dogma.

Glad you could twist what I said.

Thanks for playing.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

hi, Wendy, I haven't an idea about that. I thought the discussion was about b/c in general, with condom usage (i.e. the AIDs issue in the last few pages) being the specific part. IUDs, pills, and foam don't protect against AIDs, right? So...that's what I was thinking when I made my blazingly brilliant leap of logic.

Ciels-
Michele

Actually that is quite astute and I believe is what micro was saying...for condoms. But I think Wendy has a very good point.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[wmw999 2,461]

Sorry -- I was using you as a springboard. I'm a generalizer; it's what I do to everything as a sanity check. If something can be generalized, in one way, it should be generalizable across several different properties. I was just trying one on for size.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Well, all I can say to this is 1) abstinance is NOT an ideal to many, many people who practice it EVERY SINGLE day successfully (which blows your statements out of the water)

Actually all it does is show you didn't understand my statement. Abstinence, when practised perfectly is effective. The teaching of abstinence is not and will never be.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Morning, Jakee

Pretty late in the day for me.

Quote

So do you think it's a cultural issue or a religious issue?

It is universal human nature, and highlights the danger of the churches idealistic attitudes.

Quote

If accurate info is provided, and a person doesn't adhere to it, then whose fault does that become?

The accurate info is out there. Problem is the Catholic church actively discredits it! Hypothetical, you live in Podunk town, Nowheresville - the (perhaps unstable) government comes round distributing information on condoms. Next sunday your local priest (who's known you since you were knee high to a grasshopper) gives a special sermon espousing the special findings of the Church that (shock horror) completely contradict what the government leaflets have just told you. Who are you going to trust?

Quote

IOW, if one adheres to the church's basic position - faithful to the spouse once married (on both sides), and abstinence until marriage - the chances of an unwanted pregancy prior to marriage is nil. So is the chance of an STD, prior to and consequent to marriage, if one follows the teaching of the church.

Faithful on both sides. No one has a crystal ball. If your life depends on your spouse staying faithful you are relying on chance. It is a situation you ave no control over - hell, I'd say that gives you worse odds than Russian roulette.

Quote

Blaming a church for teaching what they believe in is simply wrong. Maybe it's naive, but that's the way I see things.

There are two large problems with this statement. First, a belief being founded in religion gives it zero special protection, I surely do not need to start a list of sick crimes and atrocities carried out in accordance with religious beliefs.
Second, now listen carefully 'cos I've said this already, The Church is spreading deliberate lies dressed up as science in order to prevent their moral beliefs losing credibility. Do you seriously think that is ok 'as long as its in support of their belief?'

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

I understand your position, but the fallacy lays is insisting that the church teaches anything other than faith. It doesn't.

Are you serious? Really, are you actually trying to assert that as truth?

The church actively distributes what can at best be called minority scientific views in order to validate ts teaching. Your statement is false.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Michele 1]

Vercetti said

Quote

Actually that is quite astute and I believe is what micro was saying...for condoms. But I think Wendy has a very good point.

I think it's a good point, as well. Thanks for the compliment...made me smile.

Quote

Sorry -- I was using you as a springboard. I'm a generalizer; it's what I do to everything as a sanity check. If something can be generalized, in one way, it should be generalizable across several different properties. I was just trying one on for size.

Geesh, there's the scientist in you coming out. See if it applies everywhere! I have no idea if this specific example can be generalized, so try it on for size and lemme know if it fits.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Michele 1]

Quote

Glad you could twist what I said.

Thanks for playing.

It's what some posters do; rather than actually think and debate, they just play Speaker's Corner Twister (tm). It's easier, I think, then actually debating, discussing, and learning something, like you said in your post, even if it's simply to bolster your own argument.

But hey, that's all right. Once identified, it's easy to ignore those who play the game, and avoid them. LOL! Cuts down on the reading and typing!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Michele 1]

Quote

Are you serious? Really, are you actually trying to assert that as truth?

Nope; I'm asserting my opinion, which may in fact not be one you share. That's what I think. And I already am aware of what you think. You're welcome to your opinion, as well...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

***
I believe John has made you lose focus on the fact that I already wrote this point. And now it is time for me to go home.

It's too easy, really

Ah once again, he adds such erudition to the debate...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Then how does an IUD separate them, or foam, or the pill?

same thing as the condom really. you're still putting a barrier b/t you and your partner.

in the catholic view, when the couple unites in intercourse what they in essence are saying with their bodies is, "I love you with everything that I am, my body, my soul, even my generative capacity, if that be a possibility." this is true EVEN when a couple is using NFP as well b/c they are not doing anything to DELIBERATLY frustrate the bodies capabilities to procreate of fully unite.

in contraceptive sex, i.e. w/ a condom, a diaphram, foam, the pill, etc., what the "language" of that act says instead is, "I love you and want to give myself to you, but, mmmmm.. not THIS part.... you can't have this part of me. You can't have my egg. You can't have my sperm. You can't have access to my egg or whathaveyou."

Does that make more sense?

Maybe not. In our culture, that has been so super-saturated in the artificial birth control and safe sex mentality for so long, it's hard to parse out the difference here, and there is a difference, in spite of what certain posters are asserting.

I'm trying my best to explain it. I really am. It took me a long time and an awful lot of reading to get this.

This link below is to a transcription of a talk given by Janet Smith, PhD, a philopher who has written extensively on this topic. This talk was given to a largely lay, non-professional audience, hence the tone of the article. If you're interested, give it a read.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[jenfly00 0]

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Nope; I'm asserting my opinion, which may in fact not be one you share.

It was not an opinion statement (ie. I think this or that moral is good) that I quoted, it was a fact statement (ie. these people did that thing). Do you believe it was correct?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Michele 1]

Jakee, I'm not intentionally being obtuse, I promise.

If you mean that I think that the church (whichever one it might be) teaches their doctrine and that is fine, then yes, I think that. That's what a church does. It's their doctrine, after all.

Is that what you're meaning and/or looking for? And since I've stated here (and elsewhere in this thread) that I think it's fine that a church teaches it's doctrine, then it's my opinion that it's fine. You may have a different opinion, and that's fine, as well.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Jakee, I'm not intentionally being obtuse, I promise.

If you mean that I think that the church (whichever one it might be) teaches their doctrine and that is fine, then yes, I think that. That's what a church does. It's their doctrine, after all.

Is that what you're meaning and/or looking for? And since I've stated here (and elsewhere in this thread) that I think it's fine that a church teaches it's doctrine, then it's my opinion that it's fine. You may have a different opinion, and that's fine, as well.

Ciels-
Michele

Is it fine for a church to attempt to gets its doctrine legislated, and therefore imposed on non-members.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Is it fine for a church to attempt to gets its doctrine legislated, and therefore imposed on non-members

you mean like in Iran?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Jakee, I'm not intentionally being obtuse, I promise.

If you mean that I think that the church (whichever one it might be) teaches their doctrine and that is fine, then yes, I think that. That's what a church does. It's their doctrine, after all.

Is that what you're meaning and/or looking for? And since I've stated here (and elsewhere in this thread) that I think it's fine that a church teaches it's doctrine, then it's my opinion that it's fine. You may have a different opinion, and that's fine, as well.

Ciels-
Michele

Is it fine for a church to attempt to gets its doctrine legislated, and therefore imposed on non-members.

What if it can prove that its doctrine are beneficial to mankind and the "doctrines" or social disciplines that the churches opposes are harmful to mankind? Should those then be legislated?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Quote

Is it fine for a church to attempt to gets its doctrine legislated, and therefore imposed on non-members

you mean like in Iran?

Ciels-
Michele

I mean like anywhere that a religion gets or attempts to get legislation passed in line with its doctrine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jakee, I'm not intentionally being obtuse, I promise.

If you mean that I think that the church (whichever one it might be) teaches their doctrine and that is fine, then yes, I think that. That's what a church does. It's their doctrine, after all.

Is that what you're meaning and/or looking for? And since I've stated here (and elsewhere in this thread) that I think it's fine that a church teaches it's doctrine, then it's my opinion that it's fine. You may have a different opinion, and that's fine, as well.

Ciels-
Michele

Is it fine for a church to attempt to gets its doctrine legislated, and therefore imposed on non-members.

What if it can prove that its doctrine are beneficial to mankind and the "doctrines" or social disciplines that the churches opposes are harmful to mankind? Should those then be legislated?

Do you believe in the nanny state?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

What if it can prove that its doctrine are beneficial to mankind and the "doctrines" or social disciplines that the churches opposes are harmful to mankind? Should those then be legislated?

If wishes were horses all beggers would ride....lol.

But even "if" there were some proof, then the answer would still be no.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jakee, I'm not intentionally being obtuse, I promise.

If you mean that I think that the church (whichever one it might be) teaches their doctrine and that is fine, then yes, I think that. That's what a church does. It's their doctrine, after all.

Is that what you're meaning and/or looking for? And since I've stated here (and elsewhere in this thread) that I think it's fine that a church teaches it's doctrine, then it's my opinion that it's fine. You may have a different opinion, and that's fine, as well.

Ciels-
Michele

Is it fine for a church to attempt to gets its doctrine legislated, and therefore imposed on non-members.

What if it can prove that its doctrine are beneficial to mankind and the "doctrines" or social disciplines that the churches opposes are harmful to mankind? Should those then be legislated?

Do you believe in the nanny state?

Do you believe in answering questions with questions?

Do you believe we shouldn't have any prohibitions regarding the use of illicit drugs? Access to pornography, even for children or about children? Legal drinking and smoking ages? After all, if a nanny state is about protecting the masses from things that hurt them, let's just get it all out on the table then.

For the record, it's ALWAYS best for people to decide (IMO, of course ) what is best for them internally, w/o an external locus of control. However, this does not mean I'm advocating all of a sudden a shift to subjectivism and relativist ethics, which so plagues the minds and hearts of people in this land.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...