Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

05/08/2012 02:32:09 AM · #1226

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Mmmm, I stand for unity of Christian brothers and sisters. I do disagree with the Catholic position regarding birth control, but that would be a private argument for Nullix and myself. I also believe it's rises to the level of personal conscience rather than doctrinal orthodoxy and so is not particularly critical. Finally, the language of the argument may be incomprehensible as it would be between two people with a common worldview (Nullix and me) versus two people with conflicting worldviews (Nullix and you).

Sorry. :)

So when are you going into politics? You're like a natural.

05/08/2012 10:24:02 AM · #1227

Ha. That's one of the worst insults I've been handed in all my years Richard. :)

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/08/2012 12:29:30 PM · #1228

Sigh.

It's frustrating that I go out of my way to explain myself and back up my statements by providing examples, and then have to repeat myself again and again because people can't distinguish between a request and an example of why I'm making that request located next to it. Do you think I just started talking about gay rights on a random whim? I explained it was an example. It was supposed to help you by drawing a parallel to a different, but similar situation.

I talked about gay rights to give an example of why, when moderates on one side or the other do not counteract the extreme, reductive positions of their more conservative or liberal peers, they get lumped in with the extremists. I thought that was pretty clear:

"Otherwise, it's likely your arguments are going to get lumped in with each other. That's pretty much how it works. To explain what I mean by that, here's an example..."

Example given. Then I even repeated my request:

"I'd love to see you dismantle his position by pointing out where you disagree, making your position more reasonable by way of comparison."

After your refusal I pointed out, specifically, two SIMPLE positions that Nullix has taken, having nothing to do with gay rights, positions I have already challenged Nullix over repeatedly to no avail, which is why I turned to you. How could you possibly miss this?

"To me it seems pretty darn clear that elective medical decisions aren't always about respecting your body or not, and that vasectomies/tubal ligations prevent deaths. This is a logical issue, not a matter of faith."

I was hoping that we could, like, identify a facet of the debate where you and us progressives could build some common ground (I pointed that out too), and gave you what I thought were EASY opportunities. I'd also hoped that Nullix hearing you disagree with him might help him think differently about these particular claims, since the refutation would be coming from a conservative, and a doctor to boot. Otherwise we go forward with what I assume to be an unacknowledged discrepancy between your positions, unless you actually believe that, logically, vasectomies are disrespectful and all about death.

But those were just specific examples I gave because you refused my general request. What I actually wanted was for you to read what Nullix has said over the last few days, and tell him where he's wrong. This is a debate. Debate him. You have been assigned a role, and you should be able to accomplish this. Otherwise I (and I am sure others) will assume you AGREE with what he is saying, since you're both arguing for the same side, and you're are letting him say these things unchallenged. My challenge is a way to mitigate that effect.

You'll notice that we progressives tend to call each other out frequently when we see each other saying things that are over the line or that we don't agree with. I can point you to example after example in this very thread if you like. That's a big reason Democrats have such a hard time legislating effectively compared to the monolithic "there's no I in team" mentality of the right, which you have ironically demonstrated yourself with crystal clarity.

If you can't freakin' figure it out at this point, I give up. I cannot explain myself any clearer.

But just to satisfy my curiosity, were other people confused by my request? Bear doesn't seem to be. Don't leave me hanging, unable to determine if it's my poor communication skills or DrAchoo's obtuseness. I'd like some validation, one way or the other. (Validation not in the pat-on-head sense, but in the "check if it's valid" sense.)

Because while I hate repeating myself, and would rather not get all meta with the textual analysis, I'll do it I the issue is a true lack of understanding, not just someone playing games.

Message edited by author 2012-05-08 12:33:08.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

05/08/2012 12:46:44 PM · #1229

I wasn't confused. Let's see the middle ground of the Christian right vs. the Christian left.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/08/2012 12:51:00 PM · #1230

Mousie, it was not a confusing request. You articulated your position and your request (as always) with remarkable precision and clarity. If some either cannot hear what you're saying or refuse to hear it, the fault does not lie in how you expressed yourself.

In any case, the Doc understood your request well enough when he said this:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's clear enough; he's willing to debate, even to the point of acrimony, the atheists among us but he's not willing to engage in debate with fellow Christians in this forum. Frankly, I don't really blame him for that because there's a LOT of downside to that and very little upside, from his point of view.

R.

05/08/2012 12:54:22 PM · #1231

I wasn't playing games. I was just making sure I wasn't confused. My answer to your challenge, in the end, was with the proper understanding in mind.

There is a difference between not debating and debating in the proper venue. I've been here long enough to know that an apparent schism between two faithful will be exploited (not necessarily by you) rather than used as a bridge building opportunity. However, debating among Christians is an important thing. I have a meeting on Mondays at lunch where 4-6 of us get together and discuss issues (that probably only matter to us). Yesterday's topic was the inerrancy of the Bible and this led to discussions about the historicity of the life of Jesus, infant vs. adult baptism, and the role of women in the church. Not everybody agreed on everything. But it was not done in a venue where people who do not even believe God exists are there to lean in and smile at the disagreement of their opposition.

To be fair to Nullix, I'm not even sure I understand his whole position. Are the principles that apply to abortion, sterilization, the pill, and condoms the same? It strikes me that they cannot be lumped into a single category. There, that ought to give you something to chew on as far as how I would address the issue.

05/08/2012 01:06:39 PM · #1232

Here. Ross Douthat does a good job of summing up a juxtaposition of our positions. He doesn't seem to think prohibitions against contraception are helpful, but he also understands the underlying motives and agrees with those. So, you see, in specific ways I disagree with Nullix, but in important ways I agree with him.

Bad Religion: The world that contraception has made

05/08/2012 01:07:27 PM · #1233

Call me naive, but I see a lot of upside.

If he cares at all about continuing to be seen as moderate, he should present a moderate stance and challenge extreme stances. If he wants people to listen, truly listen, to the points he's making, I'd hope he'd want them to be seen as not a tactic, but as sincere. Otherwise it's just gamesmanship.

Frankly, over the last year or so my respect for his arguments have dropped off a cliff. That's basically why I've been so absent in general... the 'last man standing' is, in my opinion, not exactly debatable anymore. What's the point in talking over each other? I get so fed up with people dancing around and parsing their words to not risk a downside or undermine themselves. I try to speak from a place of reason about things that come from my heart, even if that could weaken my own position. There's more to it than winning a particular battle. I have long term goals. And I've been actively risking them by showing up to carp and snipe, because there's not much else left for me to do. The sympathetic homo is a good thing, the bitter, jaded homo isn't winning any friends.

I just wish other people would be willing to risk short term points to build common ground and make this a true forum for communication, not just a battlefield of posturing and reenforcing one's own worldview.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/08/2012 01:23:12 PM · #1234

DrAchoo,

Okay, I lied, here I am explaining myself again. I am not asking you to disagree with his faith. I'm asking you to dismantle the chain of logic he has used here to define his position in this debate. To point out how he pivots and goes off on irrelevant tangents, in a pattern that leads him to an untenable position: An implicit claim that he should not have to pay takes for tubal ligations of others because he does not support 'death' or 'disrespect'. I'm not asking you to challenge his belief that contraception itself is wrong... for that is a stance I won't begrudge him. He is more than welcome to not use it, or believe that it's wrong. I'm asking you to debate his tactics and presentation.

He is NOT, in my opinion, legitimately able to make a chain of statements that are logically inconsistent, then chalk it up to 'not being eloquent' and claim that others are saying what he means more eruditely. Others are not saying what he means. But he's basically claiming that YOU are. He's lumping you in with his position, to create the appearance of support. He is actively tarnishing yours, and those of moderate conservatives.

This happened here. The appropriate place to address it is here.

I'm sad that you're so reticent to distance your position from his.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

05/08/2012 01:23:52 PM · #1235

Originally posted by Mousie:

Tell me why paying for vasectomies is equivalent to paying for death, or admit you're just spouting off irrelevancies for no good reason.

Well, I thought I could explain this in a straight forward way, but it's a stretch.

The best I can show is:

1. Marital act produces life
2. Disruption of the marital act doesn't produce life.

But, in order for you to accept that, you need to share my beliefs.

So, I don't think I can make a good connection. You are right I am spouting off irrelevancies. I'm sorry I've disrespected you and your family.

I've been own3d.

05/08/2012 01:46:19 PM · #1236

Originally posted by Mousie:

I'm not asking you to challenge his belief that contraception itself is wrong... for that is a stance I won't begrudge him. He is more than welcome to not use it, or believe that it's wrong. I'm asking you to debate his tactics and presentation.

OK, let's do this, but in the end we'll give him a stronger argument (so maybe you'll not be happy in the end).

We've talked about four differet things in this conversation: abortion, sterilization, the pill, and other contraception (like condoms).

I would define a "human life" as any point after conception. If this is part of the issue, I find it difficult to consider an egg or a sperm as a "life" and not considering other cells to be life as well (let's say a cancer cell).

Our goal seems to be preventing the loss of life.

Abortion clearly ends a life. This is a no-brainer. Being against abortion clearly falls within our goals.

The pill MAY work, in uncommon cases, by preventing a zygote from implanting. Being against the pill could then, conservatively, fall within our goals as well. IUDs probably do this more as their main means of being effective and would also fall in this category.

Sterilization and other forms of birth control like condoms would work at a point before conception and so fall into a different category. Preventing a possible life is, in my view, quite different than disposing a realized one. If this argument is used against these forms of birth control then we are faced with consequences that cause our position to be compromised. What about nocturnal emissions? What about NOT having sex? etc. etc.

Ross Douthat has a stronger argument to support Nullix's position. Although things like vasectomies and condoms are, in themselves, not morally good or evil (ie. they are amoral tools), their application in our society has led to immoral activity. Some of the obvious consequences of casual sex (eg. having babies) have been contained, but the insidious consequences (and the real reasons we have moral guidelines governing sexuality) remain. If the Catholic church feels the tools have been so commandeered for misuse that it is easier (and overall better) to avoid any aiding and abetting then I think they are taking a defensible position.

05/08/2012 01:47:58 PM · #1237

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Tell me why paying for vasectomies is equivalent to paying for death, or admit you're just spouting off irrelevancies for no good reason.

Well, I thought I could explain this in a straight forward way, but it's a stretch.

The best I can show is:

1. Marital act produces life
2. Disruption of the marital act doesn't produce life.

But, in order for you to accept that, you need to share my beliefs.

So, I don't think I can make a good connection. You are right I am spouting off irrelevancies. I'm sorry I've disrespected you and your family.

I've been own3d.

Apology accepted, and I appreciate the admission.

However, I still feel that 'not producing life' is entirely different from 'ending a life' AKA death. For a culture so picky about the precise definition of particular words, I'd think you could see the distinction. Failing that:

Life now begins before the sex act itself. Each sperm and egg is a potential life, and stopping them from meeting is death. We know that an individual act of love itself is not the spark of life, since it often produces no babies, or many babies, predicated entirely on how many sperm successfully pair with eggs. And for every baby born, you've just murdered millions of potential babies, one for every sperm that never completes it's journey.

Logically, we should whack it into a cup once, pick out individual sperm, harvest individual eggs, pair them, then save the rest for later just in case, then ever have actual sex, to minimize the 'death of potential'. And no jerking off any more, either. At least this way we save as many sperm as possible for later fertilization, setting aside attrition. Taken further, to prevent the ending of even more more potential lives, chopping off your balls to stop them from producing more sperm once you've been harvested at the beginning of puberty is probably the safest best.

Or perhaps we should harvest ALL the eggs and sperm, then make sure they ALL get a chance to pair, or at least as many as possible, given a discrepancy in the total count. Whack it into a cup every day, and save it all on ice for future pairing when more eggs become available.

Reductio ad absurdum.

05/08/2012 02:00:41 PM · #1238

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Mousie:
I'm not asking you to challenge his belief that contraception itself is wrong... for that is a stance I won't begrudge him. He is more than welcome to not use it, or believe that it's wrong. I'm asking you to debate his tactics and presentation.

Ross Douthat has a stronger argument to support Nullix's position. Although things like vasectomies and condoms are, in themselves, not morally good or evil (ie. they are amoral tools), their application in our society has led to immoral activity. Some of the obvious consequences of casual sex (eg. having babies) have been contained, but the insidious consequences (and the real reasons we have moral guidelines governing sexuality) remain. If the Catholic church feels the tools have been so commandeered for misuse that it is easier (and overall better) to avoid any aiding and abetting then I think they are taking a defensible position.

Now THAT is a reasoned, if arguable, position.

Unfortunately I was hoping you'd take him to task for lumping you in, by explaining to HIM how his logic is different from yours, showing how his suggestion that he shares your position is simply untrue. Just telling him how he could properly support his position doesn't do this, but I'll take what I can get. I officially retract my request.

To switch to Douthat...

I hope you realize how completely infuriating it is to use that argument towards of someone who constantly hears about how we need to prevent gay marriage so we don't slide down the slippery slope to men marrying dogs. I am not responsible for the actions of others, and contraception is not responsible for sexual immorality. Fight the immorality, not the contraception, for contraception, as you noted yourself, has legitimate uses. Bongs are legal, smoking weed is not. As I said, it's arguable.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/08/2012 02:48:55 PM · #1239

Originally posted by Mousie:

I hope you realize how completely infuriating it is to use that argument towards of someone who constantly hears about how we need to prevent gay marriage so we don't slide down the slippery slope to men marrying dogs. I am not responsible for the actions of others, and contraception is not responsible for sexual immorality. Fight the immorality, not the contraception, for contraception, as you noted yourself, has legitimate uses. Bongs are legal, smoking weed is not. As I said, it's arguable.

I may disagree on some counts. You could be responsible for the sexual actions of others. If you hook your friend up with a hot partner "ready for action", then you are at least partially responsible (though we can agree they are making the final call and bear their own responsiblity). Contraception can work in that manner. People view sex in a different manner as some of the more obvious repercussions of sex are mitigated. We know this is the case as it was no accident the availability of the pill and the sexual revolution of the late sixties coincided with each other. So we can safely declare that contraception bears some of the responsibility for what religion would term "sexual immorality".

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

05/08/2012 03:57:35 PM · #1240

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Tell me why paying for vasectomies is equivalent to paying for death, or admit you're just spouting off irrelevancies for no good reason.

Well, I thought I could explain this in a straight forward way, but it's a stretch.

The best I can show is:

1. Marital act produces life
2. Disruption of the marital act doesn't produce life.

But, in order for you to accept that, you need to share my beliefs.

So, I don't think I can make a good connection. You are right I am spouting off irrelevancies. I'm sorry I've disrespected you and your family.

I've been own3d.

Apology accepted, and I appreciate the admission.

However, I still feel that 'not producing life' is entirely different from 'ending a life' AKA death. For a culture so picky about the precise definition of particular words, I'd think you could see the distinction. Failing that:

Life now begins before the sex act itself. Each sperm and egg is a potential life, and stopping them from meeting is death. We know that an individual act of love itself is not the spark of life, since it often produces no babies, or many babies, predicated entirely on how many sperm successfully pair with eggs. And for every baby born, you've just murdered millions of potential babies, one for every sperm that never completes it's journey.

Logically, we should whack it into a cup once, pick out individual sperm, harvest individual eggs, pair them, then save the rest for later just in case, then ever have actual sex, to minimize the 'death of potential'. And no jerking off any more, either. At least this way we save as many sperm as possible for later fertilization, setting aside attrition. Taken further, to prevent the ending of even more more potential lives, chopping off your balls to stop them from producing more sperm once you've been harvested at the beginning of puberty is probably the safest best.

Or perhaps we should harvest ALL the eggs and sperm, then make sure they ALL get a chance to pair, or at least as many as possible, given a discrepancy in the total count. Whack it into a cup every day, and save it all on ice for future pairing when more eggs become available.

Reductio ad absurdum.

I like your arguments. :-)

I'm waiting for DrAchoo and Nullix to take issue with your logic and tell us why "jerking off" is perfectly okay.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/08/2012 05:28:28 PM · #1241

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I'm waiting for DrAchoo and Nullix to take issue with your logic and tell us why "jerking off" is perfectly okay.

I answered that above. From this perspective, I have no problem with it.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

05/08/2012 05:46:43 PM · #1242

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'm waiting for DrAchoo and Nullix to take issue with your logic and tell us why "jerking off" is perfectly okay.

I answered that above. From this perspective, I have no problem with it.

And from another perspective? ;D

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

05/08/2012 06:27:16 PM · #1243

I have a question. Let's just say for sake of discussion birth control becomes outlawed.

From you believers, what's the plan for the population explosion that will use up the entire resources of the planet in the not so distant future?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

05/08/2012 06:32:29 PM · #1244

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Ah, we're already doing that (consuming all the resources). What's cutting 20 or 50 years off the process? (I kid.)

Ross brings up the little thought of counter argument. The brith rates of first world countries cannot sustain a current population and many countries will experience a population collapse. What do we do about that in the not so distant future?

I'm mainly tongue-in-cheek here because I don't think birth control is likely to be outlawed any time soon so I don't think we need to spend time thinking about it. The population collapse, though, could very well happen.

Message edited by author 2012-05-08 18:32:52.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

05/08/2012 06:42:15 PM · #1245

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Somehow I knew you'd be the first one to come up with the "We're already doing it." saw, but that doesn't answer my question. Forget birth control.....let's just talk where Christians are headed with the rest of us humans.

What do you believe is going to happen to the human race?

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/08/2012 06:46:50 PM · #1246

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have a question. Let's just say for sake of discussion birth control becomes outlawed.

From you believers, what's the plan for the population explosion that will use up the entire resources of the planet in the not so distant future?

Ah, we're already doing that (consuming all the resources). What's cutting 20 or 50 years off the process? (I kid.)

Ross brings up the little thought of counter argument. The brith rates of first world countries cannot sustain a current population and many countries will experience a population collapse. What do we do about that in the not so distant future?

I'm mainly tongue-in-cheek here because I don't think birth control is likely to be outlawed any time soon so I don't think we need to spend time thinking about it. The population collapse, though, could very well happen.

Well, then there would be plenty of housing to go around, not to mention jobs. ;D

the great collapse

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/08/2012 06:48:49 PM · #1247

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What do you believe is going to happen to the human race?

Act II is bad. Act III brings resolution and redemption.

I don't have a crystal ball and generally poo-poo people who think they can get more specific than that.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

05/08/2012 11:54:08 PM · #1248

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

First, we're not saying outlaw birth control, just don't force us to act against our conscience (which, this is a first time where there wasn't a conscience clause).

Second, I don't buy the population explosion. In fact, in a few decades, there will be a population implosion with the death rates beating the birth rates with all current birth control happening in Europe and Russia. In fact, the government is trying to pay people to have kids. I also remember reading reports that the food supplies would run out in the 80s.

I'll have to get some real numbers, but I don't buy into the population explosion fears.

Edit:
European Birth Rates
China grapples with legacy of its 'missing girls'
Ratio is 120 boys for 100 girls. This is scary; just think, there will be plenty of men in 20 years without wives. In history, this is a recipe for rebellion and war.

Message edited by author 2012-05-09 10:15:21.