| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2009 01:11:45 PM · #826 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The problem the Catholic church has with birth control are moral:
Conjugal infidelity
The general lowering of morality
Loss of respect for women
What do you want, bad morals and population control? |
Tom, with the greatest respect, do you personally believe this?
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 01:21:51 PM · #827 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
Loss of respect for women: If anything, it is an increase of respect for women. Protected sex is a very big symptom of respect for one's partner. Also, I'm not sure that seeing women a little more than "baby factories" sometimes putting their live at stake (in case of young girls' rape or health complications)is very repectful. |
Can you explain to me how protected sex gives women respect?
With protected sex, I am telling my wife, hey baby, I'm horny. If it's my girlfriend, I'm saying, "I'm horny and I don't want to marry you. I can use a condom. That way, I can use you and I don't have to worry about making a child."
With unprotected sex, I am telling my wife that I am willing to give her all of myself without holding anything back. And through our love, maybe we'll bring a child into this world.
What about the assumption that arise due to the pill? It basically says a woman's body is broken. Here's a pill you can take once a month to fix your body. Also, if that doesn't work and you get pregnant, we operate on your body and fix it. To me, that is completely disrespectful of a woman and her body.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 01:54:19 PM · #828 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The problem the Catholic church has with birth control are moral:
Conjugal infidelity
The general lowering of morality
Loss of respect for women |
You must be joking. The Catholic church cannot possibly reconcile the infallibility of the pope with its claim as the arbiter of morality. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 02:09:43 PM · #829 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Can you explain to me how protected sex gives women respect?
With protected sex, I am telling my wife, hey baby, I'm horny. If it's my girlfriend, I'm saying, "I'm horny and I don't want to marry you. I can use a condom. That way, I can use you and I don't have to worry about making a child."
With unprotected sex, I am telling my wife that I am willing to give her all of myself without holding anything back. And through our love, maybe we'll bring a child into this world.
What about the assumption that arise due to the pill? It basically says a woman's body is broken. Here's a pill you can take once a month to fix your body. Also, if that doesn't work and you get pregnant, we operate on your body and fix it. To me, that is completely disrespectful of a woman and her body. |
Oh my goodness... this is sort of scary....
R. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 02:42:46 PM · #830 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
The problem the Catholic church has with birth control are moral:
Conjugal infidelity
The general lowering of morality
Loss of respect for women |
You must be joking. The Catholic church cannot possibly reconcile the infallibility of the pope with its claim as the arbiter of morality. |
The pope is not the church, he's a person who works for the church. If a pope is corrupt, it does nothing to ruin the integrity of the scriptures...that is what the church was founded on. If Christ says Love your neighbors and treat them as you would want to be treated, then it still holds true despite how many bad apples are WORKING for the church. Basically, you don't crumble the blueprint if the workers are not qualified. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 02:50:20 PM · #831 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
What about the assumption that arise due to the pill? It basically says a woman's body is broken. Here's a pill you can take once a month to fix your body. |
lol. Irony! Isn't this sort of like "original sin"? You are broken and require salvation, due to Original Sin. Here's a belief you can use to fix your Eternal Damnation!
Forgive my cynicism, but I strongly disagree with this premise...in both directions.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 02:56:47 PM · #832 |
| Well like with all medications, there are side effects. It's obvious that the church wished for a world without science, including medical science. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 03:01:43 PM · #833 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The pope is not the church, he's a person who works for the church. |
Not according to Catholic doctrine. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He has supreme and universal primacy, of both honor and jurisdiction, over the Catholic Church. He *is* the church. It's one of the things many people don't like about Catholicism, actually...
R. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 03:09:28 PM · #834 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The pope is not the church, he's a person who works for the church. |
Not according to Catholic doctrine. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He has supreme and universal primacy, of both honor and jurisdiction, over the Catholic Church. He *is* the church. It's one of the things many people don't like about Catholicism, actually...
R. |
Hmm...could be true. But why then do Judeo-Christians and Catholics still believe in the preaching of a return; a returning of the messiah? |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 03:17:35 PM · #835 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The pope is not the church, he's a person who works for the church. |
Not according to Catholic doctrine. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He has supreme and universal primacy, of both honor and jurisdiction, over the Catholic Church. He *is* the church. It's one of the things many people don't like about Catholicism, actually...
R. |
Hmm...could be true. But why then do Judeo-Christians and Catholics still believe in the preaching of a return; a returning of the messiah? |
It's the same thing, or the same concept, according to the Catholics: the Pope is acting on Christ's behalf, taking care of business, until He returns, basically :-) Sort of a substitute teacher deal, don'tcha know?
R.
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 15:17:46. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 03:29:59 PM · #836 |
Right, makes sense. Still just substituting though. I could only take into account that Jesus did have that potential for evil; a point well made in the film "Last temptation of Christ" If you know the bible, then you know that he was constantly confronted by satanic forces. A very powerful and symbolic opening scene in "The Passion" when he crushed the snake, all while satan was convincing him to turn to the darkside.
 What made Jesus special was that he was strong enough to shun away his dark side constantly. All beings have capacity for good and bad and I cant help bringing up more of my science fiction gaga, but in Star Wars, you had Jedi and Sith lords. Both factions were equal in strength, except that the difference of the two depended on whether or not they used their powers for selfless or selfish reasons. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 04:51:15 PM · #837 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
What about the assumption that arise due to the pill? It basically says a woman's body is broken. Here's a pill you can take once a month to fix your body. Also, if that doesn't work and you get pregnant, we operate on your body and fix it. To me, that is completely disrespectful of a woman and her body. |
Hmm...
My 14 year old daughter is on the pill.
So far, after two years of trying to regulate a haywire endocrine system, this is the only thing that has worked to bring her hormones anywhere near a semblance of normalcy.
Her body *is* broken, and the pill fixed it.
The idea her being on the pill doesn't necessarily thrill me, but I trust her judgement, and she is no longer made dangerously anemic by her cycle.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 05:03:17 PM · #838 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
With protected sex, I am telling my wife, hey baby, I'm horny. If it's my girlfriend, I'm saying, "I'm horny and I don't want to marry you. I can use a condom. That way, I can use you and I don't have to worry about making a child." |
If that your idea of seduction... Maybe next time try with a little massage, or some smooth music
Protected sex of not, I'll never say to my girlfriend "I'm horny let's f!@%k!" I use condoms only until we both get our AIDS and STDs test results. Because we are in a commited and trustful relationship, we both trust that each one is faithfull. She takes the pill because we feel that we do not have the finacial ressources nor the time (she is still a full time student) to raise a kid properly.
You really feel that to have sex without wanting to have a baby (for that precise sexual intercourse) is to "use" a woman? We probably differ on that, but I see a sexual relationship a bonding experience, where each one is more interested in his or her partner's satisfaction than his or her own. Eachone forgets himself in favor of the other. The use of birth control is just a way to ensure that our love will not result in a kid being rasied in a poor familly that don't have the means to support him, to feed him healthly or that he will spend most of his time at his grand-parent's beacause mommy and daddy don't have the means to take a parental break from work.
She'll finish school, I'll pay my student debt, and then, we'll be ready to have a baby.
and I'm already seeing you coming with the "wait till marriage" argument. Maybe I am married, maybe not, that doesn't change my situation. I already commited to my girlfriend, I may or may not pass the rest of my life with her but I'll sure do everything I can to keep the "flame" burning 'till our deaths. Wedding is not an argument.
Kids never choose to come to this world, we force them too. You can bet I'll do everything to make sure mine will have nice welcome and will be born in a caring familly that have the means to take care of him or her. I'm not talking filthy rich, I'm taking a nice steady jobs with the means to send him to a nice school and be able to pratice the sport he wants with all his friends. Monney don't buy happiness, but it sure is a heck of a speedbump.
Don't think I don't want any kids. I've been wanting a kid since everyone around me started to build famillies, I'd say for the past 3 years. But I know it would be the most stupid and selfish thing to do. A kid is not like a dog that you can return to the petshop if you feel you can't have it anymore. It's a full time 32h/day) responsability for at least the next 16 years, and then you still have a great responsibility.
Edited because I write too fast and don't take time to re-read
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 17:05:44. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 05:13:52 PM · #839 |
This may be a little off topic considering where the thread has gone, but just felt it may be good to balance the conversation, as it has taken a decidedly anti-catholic tone.
Here is something to consider. The catholic church doesnt have a police force, and doesnt enforce its 'laws' as a traditional policing force would. The church doesnt say what must be, rather it outlines what ought to be.
Now, lets play a thought experiment. What if everyone on the planet followed the churches teaching of what ought to be:
No sex until marriage:
There would be a virtual end to sexually transmitted infections.
There would be less jealousy in relationships as people will not question the sexual activities of their spouses past partners.
There would be no pregnancies out of wedlock, and therefore, much fewer unplanned pregnancies.
No abortions:
With no abortions, many people who would otherwise have died in utero would have a chance at life. Perhaps the next Einstein, Ghandi, or M.L. King Jr.
As an idealist, these are some ideals that would make the world a much better place. As a realist, I could argue that it would be virtually impossible to get everyone on board with these ideals. But, just because 'the ideal' is almost impossible to attain, doesnt mean it should be abandoned.
Anyhow.... no back to our rant.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 05:42:35 PM · #840 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
The catholic church doesnt have a police force, and doesnt enforce its 'laws' as a traditional policing force would. |
The Swiss Guard serves as the de facto military of the Vatican, which has also raised vast armies to enforce its "teachings" over the years.
There is a flip side to every "ideal"...
Originally posted by VitaminB:
No sex until marriage |
Similar to your abortion point below, you'd eliminate people like Alexander Hamilton, Leonardo da Vinci, Frederick Douglass, Marilyn Monroe, Richard Wagner and Pope Clement VII— all born out of wedlock— and, with a much lower birth rate, perhaps the entire human race as a smaller, closer population would be more vulnerable to diseases like plague.
Originally posted by VitaminB:
With no abortions, many people who would otherwise have died in utero would have a chance at life. Perhaps the next Einstein, Ghandi, or M.L. King Jr. |
Perhaps the next Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, or Osama bin Laden. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 05:57:45 PM · #841 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
The catholic church doesnt have a police force, and doesnt enforce its 'laws' as a traditional policing force would. |
The Swiss Guard serves as the de facto military of the Vatican, which has also raised vast armies to enforce its "teachings" over the years.
There is a flip side to every "ideal"... |
What I meant by it is that the church has never sent anyone to my house to enforce any of its teachings. I am left to my own morals, and can make my own decisions. History aside, I am speaking of current ideals... and have you seen the swiss guard? Not much of a menacing army with those uniforms :P
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
No sex until marriage |
Similar to your abortion point below, you'd eliminate people like Alexander Hamilton, Leonardo da Vinci, Frederick Douglass, Marilyn Monroe, Richard Wagner and Pope Clement VII— all born out of wedlock— and, with a much lower birth rate, perhaps the entire human race as a smaller, closer population would be more vulnerable to diseases like plague. |
Also, I am not advocating that anyone born out of wedlock should not have been born at all, so it wouldn't eliminate any of those great people. I also dont think birth rates would suffer, because without birth control, there will be plenty of babies. Also, its not necessarily small populations that are susceptible to diseases... large populations can spread diseases a lot faster.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
With no abortions, many people who would otherwise have died in utero would have a chance at life. Perhaps the next Einstein, Ghandi, or M.L. King Jr. |
Perhaps the next Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, or Osama bin Laden. |
I figured someone would bring up the argument that abortion could have spared us the experience of evil people just as much as it could have provided us with inspirational people. I think it is a really bad argument to suggest that potentially saving the world from bad people is an argument for abortion. I cant imagine pro-choice lobbyists saying... "your child as a 0.0001% chance of being a bad person, consider abortion"
ETA: My own personal views on sex before marriage, birth control, female priests, abortion, etc. do not necessarily match that of churches teachings.... I am just participating in the debate.
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 18:03:24. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:01:52 PM · #842 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
No sex until marriage: |
"Marriage" is a social construct. It's different in many cultures, even right here in Canada (see the Mormons in the B.C. interior). It also ignores the fact that the reproductive urge is biological in nature...unless you could guarantee a partner for everyone, I think this idea would lead to some different societal problems.
Originally posted by VitaminB:
No abortions: |
Does this include cases where the mother's life is in danger? In cases of rape or incest? Does the ban on abortion coincide with an opposition to birth control (as in the case of the Catholic Church)?
No, my ideal would include everyone having access to health care and education, to learn to make decisions for themselves. I would hope we've evolved to a point where we don't need relgious instruction to continue building our society.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:09:33 PM · #843 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
No sex until marriage: |
"Marriage" is a social construct. It's different in many cultures, even right here in Canada (see the Mormons in the B.C. interior). It also ignores the fact that the reproductive urge is biological in nature...unless you could guarantee a partner for everyone, I think this idea would lead to some different societal problems.
Originally posted by VitaminB:
No abortions: |
Does this include cases where the mother's life is in danger? In cases of rape or incest? Does the ban on abortion coincide with an opposition to birth control (as in the case of the Catholic Church)?
No, my ideal would include everyone having access to health care and education, to learn to make decisions for themselves. I would hope we've evolved to a point where we don't need relgious instruction to continue building our society. |
Health care and education im all for, just as I am for making decisions for myself. Religion serves as a moral guidance for many, and while there are many people that can live perfectly moral lives without religion, there are many that learn a great deal of morality from their religion.
What everyone needs to do much better, from all sides of the argument, is show greater tolerance towards each other. We must recognize that there are many ways to go about living. If some choose to do it religiously, let them. If some choose to go about their lives without organized religion, let them. But blasting atheism as wrong, or blasting Catholicism as wrong only divides people.
ETA. Missed the part on abortions in which the mothers life is in danger. The Catholic Church does allow for such a case.
Abortion and the Mothers Life
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 18:16:31. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 06:54:31 PM · #844 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
What I meant by it is that the church has never sent anyone to my house to enforce any of its teachings. ...and have you seen the swiss guard? Not much of a menacing army with those uniforms :P |
History aside, you can make just about ANY claim. There is a long and very real history of the church going door to door to enforce its teachings (Charlemagne, the Inquisition, the conversion of native Americans...). Yes, I've taken photos of the Swiss Guard at the Vatican. They look more like court jesters than guards.
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am not advocating that anyone born out of wedlock should not have been born at all, so it wouldn't eliminate any of those great people... I think it is a really bad argument to suggest that potentially saving the world from bad people is an argument for abortion. |
I agree, and I think it's an equally bad argument to claim abortions would eliminate only great people. Besides the obvious absurdity of that argument, it also suggests that humans override God's ability to create. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 07:36:35 PM · #845 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
What I meant by it is that the church has never sent anyone to my house to enforce any of its teachings. ...and have you seen the swiss guard? Not much of a menacing army with those uniforms :P |
Yes, I've taken photos of the Swiss Guard at the Vatican. They look more like court jesters than guards. |
They may look ridiculous in their medieval mufti, but to a man they are highly-trained, thoroughly modern soldiers. And there's a lot more to the Swiss Guards than what we see. They have a very well-respected anti-terrorism task force, for example. The "costumed" guards are no more a reflection of the Vatican's self-defense capabilities than are the Beefeaters in London, and their Changing of the Guard, of Britain's resources for protection of the Crown...
R. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 08:43:57 PM · #846 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am not advocating that anyone born out of wedlock should not have been born at all, so it wouldn't eliminate any of those great people... I think it is a really bad argument to suggest that potentially saving the world from bad people is an argument for abortion. |
I agree, and I think it's an equally bad argument to claim abortions would eliminate only great people. Besides the obvious absurdity of that argument, it also suggests that humans override God's ability to create. ;-) |
I would respectfully disagree. While my intention was not to say that all aborted people would be great, the fact is it only takes one great person to make a huge difference.
Take a look at this article:
Abortion rates as a percentage of pregnancies
These stats are 10 years old mind you, but in Sweden, almost 70% of conceptions ended in abortion. France 50%, Canada 46%, G. Britain 40%, US 35%.
ETA: I just noticed that these stats are for 15-19 year olds. Numbers for older adults would undoubtedly be much lower.
Here are some stats for all ages in the states:
Proportion of Abortions to Live Births
Overall average is over 20%.
We are not talking about a small number of people. These numbers represent a lot of people that never lived because of abortions. While some of them may be the result of tragic events like the health of the mother, or the result of crime, the vast majority of abortions are unplanned pregnancies where the parents decided to use abortion as a late means of birth control.
If we want to assume that most people are good, and very few people are bad, we can say that a lot of good people have been taken from us because of abortion.
But, I am also unclear how this argument overrides God's ability to create? :)
For anyone following this thread, I apologize for turning it into an abortion debate!! :)
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 20:48:05. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 08:50:26 PM · #847 |
| Since those zygotes or whatever never turned into actual human beings, the point is rather moot, isn't it? |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 08:54:48 PM · #848 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Since those zygotes or whatever never turned into actual human beings, the point is rather moot, isn't it? |
All depends on when you say life begins. I would argue that conception is a very easily definable moment which can be used as that definition. What is the alternative? Does a person become a person at birth? At 3 months gestation? When a nervous system develops?
Those zygotes are very human. They are not apes, or cats, or bacteria, or any other living thing. They are alive, and they are human.
ETA: This quote, from someone much more eloquent than me:
"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 20:57:08. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 08:59:05 PM · #849 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While my intention was not to say that all aborted people would be great, the fact is it only takes one great person to make a huge difference. |
And it only takes one Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot to murder millions, so it's the same argument either way.
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am also unclear how this argument overrides God's ability to create? :) |
From a religious standpoint, if God wanted to create a great person, then humans should not be able to stop it (witness Moses). The only way abortion could prevent the birth of great people is if human intervention trumped God's ability to create. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:09:47 PM · #850 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While my intention was not to say that all aborted people would be great, the fact is it only takes one great person to make a huge difference. |
And it only takes one Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot to murder millions, so it's the same argument either way.
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am also unclear how this argument overrides God's ability to create? :) |
From a religious standpoint, if God wanted to create a great person, then humans should not be able to stop it (witness Moses). The only way abortion could prevent the birth of great people is if human intervention trumped God's ability to create. |
Back to that argument, assuming that all the worlds people lived by catholic ideals, we wouldnt have people like Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot. I know its an absurd argument, but it would be an interesting thought experiment.
Your argument that if God wanted to create a great person could not be stopped would suggest that all abortions are bad or evil people. I find that very hard to believe. I do not believe that God directly manages everything that happens.... if God did, then it would be impossible to explain why "God lets bad things happen to good people". I believe that we are in control of our own lives, to make our own decisions. Religion guides some to make moral decisions, while others rely on different sources for morality and guidance.
|
|
