NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, I can understand the Anti-abortion point of view, but what is it that's inherently wrong about contraception? This is mostly to the catholics in the audiance.

It encourages promiscuity.

I think the idea is that, if you're having sex, you should HAVE to have a chance of getting pregnant.

Appearantly they don't like the idea of fun without risk.

So, similarly, no going on rollar coaster with the seat belt on.

Some Pope somewhere back in recent history couldn't find a condom that would fit his tiny little pecker, so he sat on the Throne of Peter and said they were teh suck.

No ... not really ... but feel free to reason it out for yourself.

Read the Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)

However, and it should be noted, that upwards of 80% of Catholics do not observe the Encyclical's teachings.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is wanted,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is useful,
Every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine! And mine! And mine!

(http://www.spunk.org/library/humour/sp000714.txt)

You would think the anti-choice crowd would be in favor of passing out contraceptives like candy. I guess they are part of the folk who think sex should be punished in some way. I also find that rather misogynist since women bear the brunt of the "punishment."

Yes, sex is bad, and no one should be allowed to commit sins that were arbitrarily chosen by sheltered preists a thousand years ago.

I believe it comes from the idea that God views wasting sperm as a sin. Its from the Bible verse where the man pulled out of his brother's wife, because he knew any child of the union would not be his...or something along those lines. Its been a while since I've gone through my Catholic teachings. :p

Though, in the time the Bible was written, it was widely believe that only males carried the seed of life, and that females were just the carriers, they had nothing to do with the process. Furthermore, males were believed to only have a finite amount of sperm. Thus, acts that wasted sperm, such as birth control, were thought to destroy chances for men to have heirs.

It encourages promiscuity.
People are going to have sex whether there are condoms or not. Providing birth control just helps reduce disease/unwanted pregnancy.

I think the idea is that, if you're having sex, you should HAVE to have a chance of getting pregnant.

Appearantly they don't like the idea of fun without risk.

So, similarly, no going on rollar coaster with the seat belt on.

But... if you CAN have fun without risk, why not do so? Do you suggest that the only way to have fun is to have some horrible risk involved? Let's apply that reasoning to something else. We should put sharp edges on every 10th building block that we allow babies to play with so that, while it won't happen all that often, every once in a while the baby will cut their mouth up when they chew on it. Sound good? I sure don't think so.

Perhaps you suggest that you just shouldn't be having sex for fun in the first place? If that's the case, then the argument is already over. We'd never see eye to eye.

And what the hell is wrong with going on a roller coaster with a restraint? As far as I'm concerned you have balls of bronze if you're willing to get within 20 feet of one without a parachute.

Edit: I realize that's not your argument. I'm sort of hoping someone who does hold that belief will answer my question.

You would think the anti-choice crowd would be in favor of passing out contraceptives like candy.

Such a hasty generalization! I'm anti-murdering-babies and I'm all for contraceptives.

Seriously, I can understand the Anti-abortion point of view, but what is it that's inherently wrong about contraception? This is mostly to the catholics in the audiance.

Nothing, as far as I am concerned.

because if you use contraception you limit the population. While its mainly the catholic church that has this rule, it allows other people to have sex while protected, and the catholics have sex and have babies.

Those babies are then raised catholic, with some leaving, and they too follow the same concepts, and have more catholic babies. While the non-catholics slow down in population.

Well, you toss in this higher population growth amongst the catholics, with the fact of paying tithes and offerings, and you have the catholic church getting lots of money and power.

You would think the anti-choice crowd would be in favor of passing out contraceptives like candy.

I prefer to just pass out candy ... condoms are hard to chew. :D

I prefer to just pass out candy ... condoms are hard to chew. :D
and according to my wife, they don't taste right either. She says the bananna ones are pretty good though, and stay away from the mint ones.

Yes, sex is bad, and no one should be allowed to commit sins that were arbitrarily chosen by sheltered preists a thousand years ago.

Most of the venal sins were defined by Saint Augustine.

Augustine's professional ambitions pointed in the direction of an arranged marriage, and this in turn entailed a separation from his long-time companion and mother of his son. linky (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/)

Not exactly a cloistered monk, more an archetypal hypocrite.

But... if you CAN have fun without risk, why not do so? Do you suggest that the only way to have fun is to have some horrible risk involved? Let's apply that reasoning to something else. We should put sharp edges on every 10th building block that we allow babies to play with so that, while it won't happen all that often, every once in a while the baby will cut their mouth up when they chew on it. Sound good? I sure don't think so.

Perhaps you suggest that you just shouldn't be having sex for fun in the first place? If that's the case, then the argument is already over. We'd never see eye to eye.

And what the hell is wrong with going on a roller coaster with a restraint? As far as I'm concerned you have balls of bronze if you're willing to get within 20 feet of one without a parachute.



Such a hasty generalization! I'm anti-murdering-babies and I'm all for contraceptives.

I'm anti-murdering babies. But I'm pro-choice. And most of the anti-choice crowd is against sex ed and low cost or free contraception. Especially to teens. I didn't say all of them were.

I'm anti-murdering babies. But I'm pro-choice

You make it sound like the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I didn't say all of them were

I refer you to this quote.

"You would think the anti-choice crowd would be in favor of passing out contraceptives like candy. I guess they are part of the folk who think sex should be punished in some way."

'The anti-choice crowd' implies the entire crowd to me. Maybe I'm just harping on semantics, but that is exactly what I called it.

Ok let's set the record straight then.

Abortion, catholic version, is essentially viewed as killing under-developed human beings. Now contraception is essentially preventing sperms from fertilizing eggs. Thus contraception is preventing the first stage of development of under-developed human beings.

If you will, contraception is preventing life, that would otherwise be quite possibly existing. Think of it as really taking the commandment, Thou shalt not kill, to the extreme.

Now as for your arguments against Augustine, I am impressed that you posted a link to an authority. That's good it gives your argument some merit. However your accusation is still baseless. You say Augustine was a hypocrite for putting away his mistress. Now the reason you see this is because you interpret his motivation as being professional advancement. Now I don't blame you, that's what the article told you to think. Of course it is just as likely that his motivation was out of religious guilt. If he thought that having a mistress was wrong, and he put her away for it, well then that would make him a honest believer. However you say, with the article, what Augustine's motivation for putting his mistress away in fact is. However, like the article, you have no more access to the mind of Augustine then I have to the motivations that cause you to accuse a man of hypcorisy. Indeed isn't hypocrisy a question of motives? Now aren't motives internal thoughts and drives? Well since we don't have Augustine here to ask him what his motives are then I don't see how you can accuse him of hypocrisy.

Of course you are still free to write the phrase "Not exactly a cloistered monk, more an archetypal hypocrite." I won't deny you your free speech, I simply ask you to be a little more generous in your quick judgments of others.

Ok let's set the record straight then.

Abortion, catholic version, is essentially viewed as killing under-developed human beings. Now contraception is essentially preventing sperms from fertilizing eggs. Thus contraception is preventing the first stage of development of under-developed human beings.

Damn, that's sort of like not having sex in the first place, isn't it? Logically, the next part of the argument is that we must have as much sex as possible. Uh oh, the argument just collapsed on itself.

People are going to have sex whether there are condoms or not. Providing birth control just helps reduce disease/unwanted pregnancy.
I didn't say it was reasonable. Nonetheless, that's why.

Damnit man, what are you doing typing away at that computer when you could be having babies? YOU ARE PREVENTING LIFE FROM BEING CREATED!

being against contraceptives because they promote sex is like being against the designated driver program because it promotes drinking.

You make it sound like the two aren't mutually exclusive.They are not. You see, some people don't think that it is a baby until it could survive on its own, or we can keep it alive & growing outside of the womb.

I refer you to this quote.

"You would think the anti-choice crowd would be in favor of passing out contraceptives like candy. I guess they are part of the folk who think sex should be punished in some way."
'The anti-choice crowd' implies the entire crowd to me. Maybe I'm just harping on semantics, but that is exactly what I called it. First off, how does anti-choice crowd imply the whole crowd? Second, you dodged the question.

Damn, that's sort of like not having sex in the first place, isn't it? Logically, the next part of the argument is that we must have as much sex as possible. Uh oh, the argument just collapsed on itself.
Are you serious mate?

Actually, if you are anti-choice, you should want BC so there will be less abortions.

You make it sound like the two aren't mutually exclusive.



I refer you to this quote.

"You would think the anti-choice crowd would be in favor of passing out contraceptives like candy. I guess they are part of the folk who think sex should be punished in some way."

'The anti-choice crowd' implies the entire crowd to me. Maybe I'm just harping on semantics, but that is exactly what I called it.

They aren't. There is a difference between a fetus and a baby.
Baby=human
Fetus=potential human

"I guess they are part of the folk who think sex should be punished in some way."
Should have been phrased "the ones who aren't in favor of passing out contraceptives are part of the folk who think sex should be punished in some way."
Sorry.

I told you people, its all about the money. its not about sin and such. The catholic church wants money and power. they do this be making anything that keeps the catholic population from growing as a sin.

there is not strong catholic arguement because no one wants to recognize that organized religion is out for promotion of number one. If it wasn't the case then there wouldn't be arguements about what path is better.

I told you people, its all about the money. its not about sin and such. The catholic church wants money and power. they do this be making anything that keeps the catholic population from growing as a sin.

there is not strong catholic arguement because no one wants to recognize that organized religion is out for promotion of number one. If it wasn't the case then there wouldn't be arguements about what path is better.
:( unfortunatly, this is true

Every sperm is sacred,
...*snip*...
Mine! And mine! And mine!

(http://www.spunk.org/library/humour/sp000714.txt)

If that's the case, you'd think they'd be for artificial insemination because no sperm is wasted, as opposed to the millions that "die" during every ejaculation. And wet dreams, do they hold a cup over their penis at night to catch the little guys?

Shouldn't we also be screwing with as many embryos as possible so people will have triplets more often?

If that's the case, you'd think they'd be for artificial insemination because no sperm is wasted, as opposed to the millions that "die" during every ejaculation. And wet dreams, do they hold a cup over their penis at night to catch the little guys?

and living in the desert, since extreme heat is known to kill the little guys, and then there is living in the cold. jeesh, if the catholics are right, we are all fooked.

They aren't. There is a difference between a fetus and a baby.
Baby=human
Fetus=potential human

"I guess they are part of the folk who think sex should be punished in some way."
Should have been phrased "the ones who aren't in favor of passing out contraceptives are part of the folk who think sex should be punished in some way."
Sorry.

What if the fetus is going to be born in three days? Is it still not a baby? It certainly looks like one and could survive outside the womb if taken out three days early (I'm assuming that it's not premature). Sounds fishy.

And apology accepted.

First off, how does anti-choice crowd imply the whole crowd? Second, you dodged the question.

The whole crowd and the anti-choice crowd are one and the same. The crowd in question was the anti-choice crowd.

And what question? Maybe I missed it. I'd be happy to answer.

Are you serious mate?

Actually, if you are anti-choice, you should want BC so there will be less abortions.

I'm very serious. It was suggested that "...contraception is essentially preventing sperms from fertilizing eggs.". This is true. Not having sex in the first place also prevents sperms from fertilizing eggs. Indeed, abstinence is often referred to in a serious manner as the most effective form of contraception.

It could be argued that the sperm only had the intent to fertilize the eggs after ejaculation, but it could also be argued that they have the same intent before hand.

Now I have that Monty Python song from 'The Meaning of Life' going through my head. If you've heard it you know which one I mean. Edit: I see someone posted the lyrics to it earlier.

I believe it comes from the idea that God views wasting sperm as a sin.

That's kinda contradictive to nature then. The typical ejaculation wastes 300,000,000 sperm just for one to make it to become a baby. That's worse than a Russian charge against German machine gun nests. Wow, God made us naturally wasteful. I guess were all super sinners

That's kinda contradictive to nature then. The typical ejaculation wastes 300,000,000 sperm just for one to make it to become a baby. That's worse than a Russian charge against German machine gun nests. Wow, God made us naturally wasteful. I guess were all super sinners

hey, you just stumbled across one of the teachings of Christ. we are all sinners, and all equal in deserving death.

What if the fetus is going to be born in three days? Is it still not a baby? It certainly looks like one and could survive outside the womb if taken out three days early (I'm assuming that it's not premature). Sounds fishy.

If it can survive on its own, its a baby. If it can't survive, it isn't a baby.

I'm very serious. It was suggested that "...contraception is essentially preventing sperms from fertilizing eggs.". This is true. Not having sex in the first place also prevents sperms from fertilizing eggs. Indeed, abstinence is often referred to in a serious manner as the most effective form of contraception.
Sorry, but there is no way that you can sucessfully prevent people from not having sex, and that leaves you with two options - Birth Control and Abortion. Take your pick.

hey, you just stumbled across one of the teachings of Christ. we are all sinners, and all equal in deserving death.

Are you saying that Jesus had no sperm?

Sorry, but there is no way that you can sucessfully prevent people from not having sex, and that leaves you with two options - Birth Control and Abortion. Take your pick.

As I said before I'm all for contraceptives. Maybe the problem is that we're both trying to argue the same time of the argument.

What I was trying to say was that the church's reason for being against birth control, when checked against itself, easily falls apart.

Edit: guess I should answer your other point.

If it can survive on its own, its a baby. If it can't survive, it isn't a baby.

If it has any combination of X and Y chromosomes it is, for my intents and purposes, a human. A fetus is a name slapped on a human at a certain stage of development, much like the words 'child', 'teen', and 'adult'. Like the others, the word fetus does not intend to make you any more or less human. It only serves to describe the general age of the human. Man, it's great to be right.

If it can survive on its own, its a baby. If it can't survive, it isn't a baby.


its all a matter of opinion. The bible says that a person that kills an unborn on purpose is to pay a sum of money to the parents. Not murder, but not the best of things to do either.


Sorry, but there is no way that you can sucessfully prevent people from not having sex, and that leaves you with two options - Birth Control and Abortion. Take your pick.

best thing to keep people from having sex, cut it all off/out. end of sex.

However, and it should be noted, that upwards of 80% of Catholics do not observe the Encyclical's teachings.

Then why is there a disgustingly large number of them? 1 billion people is too man people already, let alone for a group of brainwashed and colonized imbeciles.

Are you saying that Jesus had no sperm?
if that were true, then DaVinci wouldn't have been born.

lol, just kidding, I don't know, I didn't ask the guy if he had sperm, sounds kinda too personal for me.

Are you saying that Jesus had no sperm?

The Rabbi slipped with the knife...

It encourages promiscuity.
Well, yeah, sure. But it also prevents pregnancy for married, monogamous couples who have decided not to have any more children because there are already too may people on the planet.
Oh yeah, and it often, though not ALWAYS, prevents ABORTION.
because if you use contraception you limit the population. While its mainly the catholic church that has this rule, it allows other people to have sex while protected, and the catholics have sex and have babies.

Those babies are then raised catholic, with some leaving, and they too follow the same concepts, and have more catholic babies. While the non-catholics slow down in population.

Well, you toss in this higher population growth amongst the catholics, with the fact of paying tithes and offerings, and you have the catholic church getting lots of money and power.
I'm not Catholic, anymore, but it should be noted that this anti-contraception crusade is being promulgated by fundamentalist Christians equally, if not moreso that Catholics. And these are the people who tell Catholics that THEY are going to hell. So take that to heart.

Now as for your arguments against Augustine, I am impressed that you posted a link to an authority. That's good it gives your argument some merit. However your accusation is still baseless. You say Augustine was a hypocrite for putting away his mistress. Now the reason you see this is because you interpret his motivation as being professional advancement. Now I don't blame you, that's what the article told you to think. Of course it is just as likely that his motivation was out of religious guilt. If he thought that having a mistress was wrong, and he put her away for it, well then that would make him a honest believer. However you say, with the article, what Augustine's motivation for putting his mistress away in fact is. However, like the article, you have no more access to the mind of Augustine then I have to the motivations that cause you to accuse a man of hypcorisy. Indeed isn't hypocrisy a question of motives? Now aren't motives internal thoughts and drives? Well since we don't have Augustine here to ask him what his motives are then I don't see how you can accuse him of hypocrisy.

Of course you are still free to write the phrase "Not exactly a cloistered monk, more an archetypal hypocrite." I won't deny you your free speech, I simply ask you to be a little more generous in your quick judgments of others.

Whilst I can appreciate your attempted defence of Augustine against the charge of hypocrisy. The defence simply does not hold water. The historical facts are that Augustine put aside his mistress to gain political advancement. There was no religious contrition in his decision to do this.

After a time at Madaura, the youth's talents made Carthage inevitable. There he seems to have gone at about the age of seventeen. Not long after, his father died and his mother was left with modest resources and nothing to tie her to Tagaste. Augustine himself quickly set up housekeeping with a young woman he met in Carthage, by whom a son was born not long after. This woman would stay with Augustine for over a decade and, though we do not know her name, he would say that when he had to give her up to make a society marriage in Milan "his heart ran blood" with grief as she went off to Africa--perhaps to enter a convent. The son, Adeodatus, stayed with Augustine until premature death took him in late adolescence.
Source (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine.html)


This is a view drawn from his confessions, an autobiographical work. So in some sense we do have the saint here to ask,as he wrote it down for us.

To then, later in life decree that sex outside of matrimony is sinful, that it is something that should not be done, is hypocritical. This is not open to dispute unless you deny his autobiography or his declaration of sex outside of matrimony as sinful. It was not a quick judgement, it was a carefully considered opinion.

For this space of nine years (from my nineteenth year to my eight--
and-twentieth) we lived seduced and seducing, deceived and deceiving,
in divers lusts; openly, by sciences which they call liberal; secretly,
with a false-named religion; here proud, there superstitious, every
where vain. Here, hunting after the emptiness of popular praise, down
even to theatrical applauses, and poetic prizes, and strifes for grassy
garlands, and the follies of shows, and the intemperance of desires.
There, desiring to be cleansed from these defilements, by carrying
food to those who were called "elect" and "holy," out of which, in
the workhouse of their stomachs, they should forge for us Angels and
Gods, by whom we might be cleansed. These things did I follow, and
practise with my friends, deceived by me, and with me.
source (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/Pusey/book04)

This is a part of the autobiography of the man that defined venal sin?

hey, you just stumbled across one of the teachings of Christ. we are all sinners, and all equal in deserving death.

Yes, the gods and goddesses are all sick fucks that have nothing better to do than to play games with humans and test their faith and will power while plotting their instincts against them, whilst, all the while knowing the outcome do to their omnipotence. The gods and goddesses committed suicide a long, long time ago due to boredom, which is why all your prayers aren't answered.

Then again, Jesus certainly was into S and M, as The Passion of Christ tells us.

....

I'm not Catholic, anymore, but it should be noted that this anti-contraception crusade is being promulgated by fundamentalist Christians equally, if not moreso that Catholics. And these are the people who tell Catholics that THEY are going to hell. So take that to heart.

as I have stated in many previous points, all this man-made laws that are taught as holy doctrine are a direct insult to true Christianity. Jesus warned that such people would come, and that they would honor him with lip service, and be no good to him because they would follow such things and claim them holy.

Its all a power play, they want numbers, and they are all trying to find ways of getting those numbers. Power is the true corruption, most people taste it and they like it, so they strive for more and more.

All organized religion is a farse in my opinion. They organize and grow in power, and as the power greatens then the resistance to that power lessens.

Take it to heart, it is faith that is more important than all else.

The Rabbi slipped with the knife...

That would explain so much...

Again, I have to ask that you stop harping on the Catholics. Fundamentalist Christians are equally to blame. Wasn't it Bill Frist, a House Republican and Medical Doctor who said that the Bush Administration will only teach abstinence as a means of birth control because he doesn't believe that condoms protect people against AIDS?
For the record, both of my children were conceived with the use of condoms, so they alone are not a very reliable means of birth conrtol.

People are going to have sex whether there are condoms or not. Providing birth control just helps reduce disease/unwanted pregnancy.

This advent is only recent... now sex has become part of the "cool" factor, in that you havn't joined the main stream unless you have had multiple partners.

I agree.. controception although indirectly does in fact encourage permiscuity. Because it takes out the idea of risk from an act which is filled with risk (no controceptive devise other then abstence is 100% effective). And, while conroception is useful to hault the spread of disease, if taught, or presented to the public (especially the youth) in an improper manner, it actually accredits the act. So while teenaged pregancy has droped... teenaged sexsual activity has skyrocketed.. and is delving ever deeper into the minds of our youth, as they now engage in this activity younger and younger.

True.

Catholics are actually some of the more laid back groups. Their rulers are a bit deranged, but on average, Catholics are fine and dandy. Catholic School girls are also effing horny, in my experience. Ever had someone try to convince you in to having a fetish over those outfits? Funny and cute.

Right now its the Episca-whatchamas I have an issue with. The local Hellfire preacher on campus is one, and the bugger makes things up, disses EDUCATION an a UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, and acts like he's on drugs (Still. Like most 'Born Agains' I run in to, he has drugs in his past. Gee, I wonder.)

I'll be much more happy to hang out with someone who salutes the Pope than someone who makes naughty over fire and brimstone. I mean, the fire is fine, but brimstone is just stanky.

To get to the heart of the matter, the reason that both Fundamentalist Christians and the Catholic Church don't believe in contraceptives is this:
The only reason people should be having sex is for the procreation of more souls for God. You are not supposed to enjoy sex. You are supposed to make babies. THAT'S IT!
If you are having sex for any other reason than to make more souls for God, you are a sinner and you're going to hell. Because the use of contraceptives, in most cases, will prevent conception, then it is sin.
Hope this clears things up for everyone.

I agree.. controception although indirectly does in fact encourage permiscuity.

Illogical. It would encourage lots of sex, perhaps, but not sex with multiple partners.

Besides, some of us don't use it and still have no risk in private activities. When one is too cheap to pay for rubber, one simply finds... alternatives. Nummy.

as I have stated in many previous points, all this man-made laws that are taught as holy doctrine are a direct insult to true Christianity. Jesus warned that such people would come, and that they would honor him with lip service, and be no good to him because they would follow such things and claim them holy.

Its all a power play, they want numbers, and they are all trying to find ways of getting those numbers. Power is the true corruption, most people taste it and they like it, so they strive for more and more.

All organized religion is a farse in my opinion. They organize and grow in power, and as the power greatens then the resistance to that power lessens.

Take it to heart, it is faith that is more important than all else.
I'm totally with you on this. I just want to make it very clear that this is not exclusively a "Catholic" issue. People need to read this thread and understand it's not just Catholics that hold this belief. It's um, MOSTLY due, at the present time anyway, to the actions of our current Presidential Administration, as least here in the States.

Well, sex is bad. People should only have sex once a year - for procreation, not recreation. And when the wife is past the menopause, they should stop having sex, as the purpose can't be procreation.

It encourages promiscuity.
actually, no it doesn't. ample evidence on the subject showed that children who are taught comprehensive sex ed and are given access to contraception are no more likely to have premarital sex than their "abstinance-only" peers, and in a few studies they were even LESS LIKELY to do so. additionally, when the well-educated kids do have sex, they are far less likely to get STDs or get pregnant out of wedlock.

but hey, don't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of propaganda.

This advent is only recent... now sex has become part of the "cool" factor, in that you havn't joined the main stream unless you have had multiple partners.

I agree.. controception although indirectly does in fact encourage permiscuity. Because it takes out the idea of risk from an act which is filled with risk (no controceptive devise other then abstence is 100% effective). And, while conroception is useful to hault the spread of disease, if taught, or presented to the public (especially the youth) in an improper manner, it actually accredits the act. So while teenaged pregancy has droped... teenaged sexsual activity has skyrocketed.. and is delving ever deeper into the minds of our youth, as they now engage in this activity younger and younger.

Actually, I remember seeing a report that teen sexual intercourse was dropping. Although *other* teen sexual practices were on the rise.

But really, the idea that teens should be scared or guilted out of having sex is harmful in itself. Sex is a dirty, sinful, dangerous act that you should save for the person you marry? Please.

Catholics are actually some of the more laid back groups
That is true. By and large Catholics don't give a fuck anymore what their church says about condoms. It's those firebreathing evangelicals down South that scare the shit out of me.

This advent is only recent... now sex has become part of the "cool" factor, in that you havn't joined the main stream unless you have had multiple partners.

lol, you don't read much, do you? the attidute of sex for status is not new in any way, and actually things used to be much worse; it used to be societally acceptable for a married man to opennly visit prostitutes, keep mistresses for status, and to be incredibly promiscuous throughout his life. now we have curbed a little of the "boys will be boys" mentality that allowed that kind of behavior to continue after wedding vows.


I agree.. controception although indirectly does in fact encourage permiscuity. Because it takes out the idea of risk from an act which is filled with risk (no controceptive devise other then abstence is 100% effective).

cite proof, please. all the studies i have seen indicate that you are incorrect, but if you have any that support your claims i would love to see them.


And, while conroception is useful to hault the spread of disease, if taught, or presented to the public (especially the youth) in an improper manner, it actually accredits the act.

all the more reason to ensure contraception is taught correctly.

So while teenaged pregancy has droped... teenaged sexsual activity has skyrocketed..

since when? two hundred years ago, pretty much every single 17 year old girl was sexually active, because they were all married off by then. even 100 years ago, it was more common for a girl to be married before 20 than not. and the boys...well, i've already covered that.

additionally, you are making the classic mistake that most moralists do when speaking about "the good ol days," by forgetting that you are only able to speak about REPORTED sexual activity. indeed, historical research suggests that teen sex rates weren't much lower 50 years ago than they are today, but rather that kids were less likely to talk about it opennly. sort of like how rates of domestic abuse and rape have gone up radically, but most experts agree that this is largely due to increases in reporting rather than purely due to increases in those crimes.

and is delving ever deeper into the minds of our youth, as they now engage in this activity younger and younger.
the mean age of first sexual activity in America has actually gone UP from where it was 100 years ago.

That is true. By and large Catholics don't give a fuck anymore what their church says about condoms. It's those firebreathing evangelicals down South that scare the shit out of me.
i'm still scared of the Catholics, since they are supporting a Church that is deliberately murdering millions of people by perpetuating lies about condoms.

how anybody can support the Catholic Church is beyond me; they are telling people that HIV passes through latex condoms (it doesn't), that condoms cause AIDS (they don't), and that Planned Parenthood and other groups actually put AIDS onto the condoms they distributed because they want to kill people (quite obviously, they don't). the Vatican has been confronted with the actual facts, and the WHO and other organizations have sent frantic pleas to stop the misinformation, but the Vatican has expressly ordered its missionaries to continue spreading lies.

as a result, men infected with HIV don't use condoms with their wives, and the wives then are infected and give birth to HIV positive babies. folk remedies, like having sex with a virgin to cure AIDS, have become increasingly popular because the Church has taken away the option of contraception. an epidemic that could be easily slowed, or even halted, is racing out of control because the Church has decided that its view of God is more important than the lives and freedoms of human beings.

just remember: every time you send money to the Catholic Church you are supporting the deliberate murder of men, women, and children in third world nations. i would strongly suggest that any Catholic who has an ounce of honor refuse to send any donations until the Church recinds these policies.

i'm still scared of the Catholics, since they are supporting a Church that is deliberately murdering millions of people by perpetuating lies about condoms.

<snip>
Source?

I never particularly liked the Church, though I do find that individual Catholics are among the most reasonable Christians around (yes, Catholics are Christians!)

As for the Church's policies in Africa...it is all too sad.

Source?
*repasted from a past post of my own:


"Relying on condoms is like betting on your own death," said Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican's spokesperson on family affairs. "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom," he says. Catholic Bishops and Cardinals are, at this very moment, repeating this idea across four continents, at the express direction of the Vatican. Some priests even state that condoms are laced with AIDS, according to AIDS activists and other missionaries in Kenya. Nairobi Archbishop Raphael Ndingi Nzeki says "AIDS... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms." The Vatican has issued statements refusing to disagree or correct this statement.

A recent BBC program, "Sex and the Holy City," even shows footage of a Catholic nun telling her HIV-positive choir master not to use latex condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through." Far from denying this footage, the Vatican has reissued its support for such statements.

The National Institutes of Health constructed a panel to examine the effectiveness of condoms in preventing disease, and included anti-condom advocates on that panel. According to its report from 2001, latex condoms are impermiable to even the smallest pathogens, and HIV is actually one of the STDs that condoms are most effective against. Scientific research by groups such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health has found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable" to HIV, and that "condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission" of HIV. The World Health Organization reacted with horror to the Vatican's claims, immediately denouncing such misinformation and saying it was especially deadly to perpetuate such ideas when the world is facing a global pandemic that has already killed 20 million people.

The Vatican's Trujillo responded to these points: "They are wrong about [the effectiveness of condoms at preventing HIV transmition]... this is an easily recognizable fact."

The Church has often cited "studies" of its own, claiming they have evidence that condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS. However, they will not make these studies public, nor will they make the research available to scientific community to be tested and confirmed.

I never particularly liked the Church, though I do find that individual Catholics are among the most reasonable Christians around (yes, Catholics are Christians!)

As for the Church's policies in Africa...it is all too sad.
individual Catholics might be otherwise decent people, but i have no respect for them if they continue sending money to the Catholic Church. their beliefs are their own business, but when they financially support an organization causing the deaths of millions of people under the guise of bringing aid...well, call me a bigot, but i just can't be okay with that.

Are you saying that Jesus had no sperm?

Of course not ... Jesus was born of Mary and the Great and Powerful Oz (or God to some, Allah to others) ... hence, no possibility of a Y chromosome.

Jesus had no sperm. Jesus was a woman.

It encourages promiscuity.

Contraception encourages promiscuity in the same way airbags encourage reckless driving.