NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I'm a Catholic and I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind the disapproval of artificial contraception. I can't see our priest for a week or so, therefore can someone tell me why it's considered wrong?

I know this will turn into the great online religious bicker crusade soon…

What is wrong is religious superstitions like that.

I'm pretty sure it's got to do with getting in the way of procreation.

But really, did you have to do this? This thread's gonna be a shithole...

The great religious bicker started earlier than I had anticipated… ;) I know there is some reasoning behind the decision by the Vatican to outlaw articificial contraception, but what is the reasoning given? Can someone find me a source or something?

It would be a disaster if virgings could have children...
I mean Christs everywhere jumping around :p



Sorry I'm tired and I find humour everywhere.

Okay, I'm a Catholic and I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind the disapproval of artificial contraception. I can't see our priest for a week or so, therefore can someone tell me why it's considered wrong?

I know this will turn into the great online religious bicker crusade soon…
Catholicism, like all religions and ideologies, is a mass of self-perpetuating memes. The meme "contraception is bad" works well for catholicism because it ensures plenty of new catholics will be born to carry and spread that particular cluster of memes.

Catholicism, like all religions and ideologies, is a mass of self-perpetuating memes. The meme "contraception is bad" works well for catholicism because it ensures plenty of new catholics will be born to carry and spread that particular cluster of memes. I considered that "conspiracy" option for a while, but I think there's some sort of moral reasoning - call it an excuse if it fits your hypothesis - and I'd like to know what it is.

Only god has the power to decide who's born and that gets in the way of his power. Or so my mom says. :rolleyes:

To Drunk Commies - No, cannot be true, because other - natural - methods of contraception are allowed. There is some sort of moral reasoning, and I'm interested in finding it out… I have debates with my friend in Maths lessons, you see…

Okay, I'm a Catholic and I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind the disapproval of artificial contraception. I can't see our priest for a week or so, therefore can someone tell me why it's considered wrong?

Not a catholic, but hazarding a guess:
1. it makes having sex outside marriage easier due to the reduced risk of pregnancy.
2. it reduces the number of Catholics born.

To Drunk Commies - No, cannot be true, because other - natural - methods of contraception are allowed. There is some sort of moral reasoning, and I'm interested in finding it out… I have debates with my friend in Maths lessons, you see…
"natural" methods?
What kind are those?
:confused:

I considered that "conspiracy" option for a while, but I think there's some sort of moral reasoning - call it an excuse if it fits your hypothesis - and I'd like to know what it is.
I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it's memetics. Memes are the mental equivalent of genes. Ideas that collonize new minds, evolve over time, and compete for resources. The resources they compete for are human minds. Catholicism's memes have developed a method to create this resource by encouraging their carriers to breed.

To Drunk Commies - No, cannot be true, because other - natural - methods of contraception are allowed. There is some sort of moral reasoning, and I'm interested in finding it out… I have debates with my friend in Maths lessons, you see…
Yeah, but those "natural" methods are pretty ineffective. The rythm method, for instance, requires very careful and accurate measurements of the woman's temperature and other physical conditions to time sex so that there is no egg in her uterus ready to be fertilized. Make a mistake, and risk pregnancy. Do everything right, and there's still a risk. Plus you can't screw whenever you want to.

Yeah, but those "natural" methods are pretty ineffective. The rythm method, for instance, requires very careful and accurate measurements of the woman's temperature and other physical conditions to time sex so that there is no egg in her uterus ready to be fertilized. Make a mistake, and risk pregnancy. Do everything right, and there's still a risk. Plus you can't screw whenever you want to. Do I become a monk, or do I have 5 kids? :confused: Oh, the moral dilemmas associated with religion… ;)

But what's the reasoning behind it?

Only god has the power to decide who's born and that gets in the way of his power. Or so my mom says. :rolleyes:


yeah but couldn't God almighty just make arftifial contraception go away??
I think it's more of a Church decicion than Gods opinion...

yeah but couldn't God almighty just make arftifial contraception go away??
I think it's more of a Church decicion than Gods opinion... Basically, the reason I want to know is so I can make up my own mind about the issue. To do that, I need to know what the argument against it is. :)

This might help:
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Originally posted by Niini
yeah but couldn't God almighty just make arftifial contraception go away??
I think it's more of a Church decicion than Gods opinion...

I agree with you. That's why I did this :rolleyes: . God has a divine plan and everything that happens is in this divine plan so that would make birth control apart of it, too.

I agree with you. That's why I did this :rolleyes: . God has a divine plan and everything that happens is in this divine plan so that would make birth control apart of it, too.


But have you considered the possibility that God is testing us...
Those who obey the catholic church (or what ever is the 'correct' one)
will have a place in heaven and rest of us... well that's that. ;)

I have to agree with Drunk Commies on the memetics thing here.

I considered that "conspiracy" option for a while, but I think there's some sort of moral reasoning - call it an excuse if it fits your hypothesis - and I'd like to know what it is.
What he is describing is memetics, a theory that is kind of a parallel to genetics in the mind. I think that memetics is being taken a little too far here, however. Granted, I would say that "contraception is bad" is indeed a meme that is primarily taken up by Catholicism, but I would not use it to the extent that Drunk commies is taking it.

Okay, I'm a Catholic and I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind the disapproval of artificial contraception. I can't see our priest for a week or so, therefore can someone tell me why it's considered wrong?

I know this will turn into the great online religious bicker crusade soon…

If you mean using anything but the rhythm method to prevent pregnancy, go ask your priest. My method of contraception was to get a vasectomy. According to the Catholic Church that was wrong and that was one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. Each of my sisters had six kids (not including miscarriages and a still birth) and they never ever received a check from the church to help raise those kids. Go figure, they want you to have them but won't help pay for them. :mad:

Because
1) Used condoms are not recyclable/edible/biodegradable/reusable and only increase the waste production. And people waste enough as it is.
2) Condoms also take away some of the physical pleasures involved with sex. Basically you're just having sex with the condom and not so much the person. Sure you can lick and grope your partner or partners all you want but it's just not the same.
3) Well um that's it for condoms for now. I'm too lazy to do the other forms of contraception. Can somebody else take it from there.

Artificial contraception is one of those 'sins' that plenty of modern Catholics commit every day. I should think the greater sin would be to bring unwanted children -- or children you cannot afford to keep -- into this world.

Before anyone makes this into morality, there are PLENTY of married couples who cannot and should not have kids, and who practice birth control of various sorts.

Because
1) Used condoms are not recyclable/edible/biodegradable/reusable and only increase the waste production. And people waste enough as it is.
2) Condoms also take away some of the physical pleasures involved with sex. Basically you're just having sex with the condom and not so much the person. Sure you can lick and grope your partner or partners all you want but it's just not the same.
3) Well um that's it for condoms for now. I'm too lazy to do the other forms of contraception. Can somebody else take it from there.
Somehow I doubt that's why the Church opposes contraception...

Hello I'm Catholic as well and I'm very against contraception. Here is why-

An abortifacient is an agent (as a drug) that induces or causes abortion. These abortion-causing chemicals and devices kill babies in the first few days of their lives. The Pill, the Mini-Pill, Depo-Provera, Norplant, the "morning after pill" (emergency contraception) and the IUD are publicized as simply preventing ovulation (releasing an egg from the woman's ovary) and conception. The truth is that these drugs also alter the lining of the womb so that the newly conceived child cannot attach himself or herself to the wall of the uterus or womb. If a baby cannot implant in the lining of the womb to receive nourishment, he or she dies. Other abortifacients, RU-486 and methotrexate break down and destroy the baby's surroundings after he or she has implanted in the mother's womb, taking away the baby's nourishment and the hormone (progesterone) that the baby requires for growth and development. Once the little boy or girl is dead, a second chemical causes contractions and the dead baby is pushed out of the mother's womb.

That is why pills are evil. Condoms are bad simoly because sex is for procreation, and a condom stops that.

To Drunk Commies - No, cannot be true, because other - natural - methods of contraception are allowed. There is some sort of moral reasoning, and I'm interested in finding it out… I have debates with my friend in Maths lessons, you see…

Ok. The real reason is the Church believes the sole reason to have sex is for procreation. All other reasons, fun, recreation, etc. is a sin. If the only reason for having sex is procreation and contraception prevents procreation then all methods of contraception that are not natural is sin.

Women can however take birth control pill to regulate their periods. If you did a study of Catholic women, you would probably find a disproportionate number of them have irregular periods. :)

Masturbation is also a sin. Something about the bible saying, “it is better to cast your seed into the womb or a whore than to spill it on the ground.” I guess that means that having sex with a whore is less of a sin than jerking off.

Somehow I doubt that's why the Church opposes contraception...
It is in my church :p

Masturbation is also a sin. Something about the bible saying, “it is better to cast your seed into the womb or a whore than to spill it on the ground.” I guess that means that having sex with a whore is less of a sin than jerking off.
Having sex with a whore is a sin :confused:

Artificial contraception is one of those 'sins' that plenty of modern Catholics commit every day. I should think the greater sin would be to bring unwanted children -- or children you cannot afford to keep -- into this world.

Before anyone makes this into morality, there are PLENTY of married couples who cannot and should not have kids, and who practice birth control of various sorts.

AMEN!

It is not a sin.

But in an biological sense it's stupid. If someone is infertile, then it means that their genes are probably not good enough to be transmitted no?

Having sex with a whore is a sin :confused:

Yes, but less of a sin than self-manipulation. So no more of that under the sheet stuff. :D

Commando3']Hello I'm Catholic as well and I'm very against contraception. Here is why-

An abortifacient is an agent (as a drug) that induces or causes abortion. These abortion-causing chemicals and devices kill babies in the first few days of their lives. The Pill, the Mini-Pill, Depo-Provera, Norplant, the "morning after pill" (emergency contraception) and the IUD are publicized as simply preventing ovulation (releasing an egg from the woman's ovary) and conception. The truth is that these drugs also alter the lining of the womb so that the newly conceived child cannot attach himself or herself to the wall of the uterus or womb. If a baby cannot implant in the lining of the womb to receive nourishment, he or she dies. Other abortifacients, RU-486 and methotrexate break down and destroy the baby's surroundings after he or she has implanted in the mother's womb, taking away the baby's nourishment and the hormone (progesterone) that the baby requires for growth and development. Once the little boy or girl is dead, a second chemical causes contractions and the dead baby is pushed out of the mother's womb.

That is why pills are evil. Condoms are bad simoly because sex is for procreation, and a condom stops that.
I don't get how people can consider a mass of cells with no organs, and no blood to be a baby. I just don't get it.

All the reverends are going to hell.

Having sex with a whore is a sin :confused:
Not if you marry the whore first.

what you have to realise that many religious policies if thats a good word to describe them arose from the the culture in which the religion originated.

For example muslim women wear headscarves, now this may well be me being a cynical atheist here but would Allah (praise be to him) really be that bothered about whether or not people wore head scarves surely as an all powerful deity he would have less anal things to worry about. I suggest that the wearing of headscarves came about because Islam grew up in hot desert coutries such as modern day Saudi Arabia and actually headscarves can keep you out of the harsh sun.

I suggest that the wearing of headscarves came about because Islam grew up in hot desert coutries such as modern day Saudi Arabia and actually headscarves can keep you out of the harsh sun.

I believe it also had something to do with considering someones hair to be one of the main attractive physical attributes of women - just like e.g. breasts - which are also covered in most western cultures. No need to make it any harder on men to stay away from "sinful thoughts" after all.
Of course, the truth will probably never be revealed..

I don't get how people can consider a mass of cells with no organs, and no blood to be a baby. I just don't get it.
Neither do I.

Okay, I'm a Catholic and I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind the disapproval of artificial contraception. I can't see our priest for a week or so, therefore can someone tell me why it's considered wrong?

I know this will turn into the great online religious bicker crusade soon…
Catholics are supposed to believe that sex is only for procreation. Thus any attempt to stop procreation during sex is defeating the purpose of sex.

In other words, according to your religion, you're not allowed to enjoy an fun aspect of a healthy relationship without wanting a kid.

For example muslim women wear headscarves, now this may well be me being a cynical atheist here but would Allah (praise be to him) really be that bothered about whether or not people wore head scarves surely as an all powerful deity he would have less anal things to worry about. I suggest that the wearing of headscarves came about because Islam grew up in hot desert coutries such as modern day Saudi Arabia and actually headscarves can keep you out of the harsh sun.
That's probably about right.

One girl I went to school with never wore a headscarf, nor did her mother and her family was muslim. The thing was, they were from Czechoslovakia, not an arabic kind of nation.

I also find it funny how the bible advocates having women cover their hair as well... It was a tradition honoured in the middle ages, I would assume this could have something to do with hygene standards and the like... but the only christian women I can think of who constantly wear hair coverings are nuns.

Commando3']Hello I'm Catholic as well and I'm very against contraception. Here is why-

An abortifacient is an agent (as a drug) that induces or causes abortion. These abortion-causing chemicals and devices kill babies in the first few days of their lives. The Pill, the Mini-Pill, Depo-Provera, Norplant, the "morning after pill" (emergency contraception) and the IUD are publicized as simply preventing ovulation (releasing an egg from the woman's ovary) and conception. The truth is that these drugs also alter the lining of the womb so that the newly conceived child cannot attach himself or herself to the wall of the uterus or womb. If a baby cannot implant in the lining of the womb to receive nourishment, he or she dies. Other abortifacients, RU-486 and methotrexate break down and destroy the baby's surroundings after he or she has implanted in the mother's womb, taking away the baby's nourishment and the hormone (progesterone) that the baby requires for growth and development. Once the little boy or girl is dead, a second chemical causes contractions and the dead baby is pushed out of the mother's womb.

That is why pills are evil. Condoms are bad simoly because sex is for procreation, and a condom stops that.

YOu are obviously completely unaware of what an abortion is.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

A pregnancy does not occur until implantation.

Thus, if something prevents a zygote from implanting, it is not causing an abortion.

Furthermore, more than 50% of all fertilized ovum are naturally passed out of a woman's body without implantation.

Furthermore, more than 50% of all fertilized ovum are naturally passed out of a woman's body without implantation.
Meaning that it's obviously wrong and you should do all you can to stop it!!!
:D

Okay, I'm a Catholic and I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind the disapproval of artificial contraception. I can't see our priest for a week or so, therefore can someone tell me why it's considered wrong?

I know this will turn into the great online religious bicker crusade soon…
I'd imagine it'd be in the catechism of the Catholic Church, which you can probably find at [www.vatican.va].

I believe it also had something to do with considering someones hair to be one of the main attractive physical attributes of women - just like e.g. breasts - which are also covered in most western cultures. No need to make it any harder on men to stay away from "sinful thoughts" after all.
Of course, the truth will probably never be revealed..

This is probably the truth -- Very Orthodox Jewish women, once they marry, wear wigs outside the house -- the idea is that only your husband should see your hair, probably for the same reason as listed above.

But in an biological sense it's stupid. If someone is infertile, then it means that their genes are probably not good enough to be transmitted no?
Not necessarily.

They could have contracted a bacterial infection, undergone chemotherapy, have had some strange hormones inutero... I'm not sure about all the reasons for infertility, but there are a lot of non-genetic ones. Poor diet would do it too for women at least...

Meaning that it's obviously wrong and you should do all you can to stop it!!!
:D
One method that works well is to insert a cork immediately after sex.

I don't get how people can consider a mass of cells with no organs, and no blood to be a baby. I just don't get it.

Because there are those people in the world that believe that human life, with a human soul, are created at conception.

Not if you marry the whore first.

ROFL :D :D

... but the only christian women I can think of who constantly wear hair coverings are nuns.

Before Vatican II all women who entered a Catholic Church were expected to cover their heads. Men on the other hand were never to cover their heads in church, except for the priest.

Not necessarily.

They could have contracted a bacterial infection, undergone chemotherapy, have had some strange hormones inutero... I'm not sure about all the reasons for infertility, but there are a lot of non-genetic ones. Poor diet would do it too for women at least...

Yes, of course, I only meant when it's caused by genes. But all the reasons you mentioned are genetic related: resistance to bacteria, resistance to dna alteration, normal hormone function. Accidents however, are an excuse.

But it's the survival of the fittest. Fertility treatments are just a way to fool nature. It also stops us from evolving and make the gene pool of a population less fit, probably (in terms of the current selective pressures - sometimes when one does not seem fit in one situation it is the best when things change - like mammals and the extinction of dinosaurs)

One method that works well is to insert a cork immediately after sex.

No, no. All that does is prevent the sperm from draining out and increases the chances of pregnancy. :D :D :fluffle:

But it's the survival of the fittest. Fertility treatments are just a way to fool nature. It also stops us from evolving and make the gene pool of a population less fit, probably (in terms of the current selective pressures - sometimes when one does not seem fit in one situation it is the best when things change - like mammals and the extinction of dinosaurs)
Technically, there is no real direction for evolution. It is about the survival of whoever can outreproduce their peers. If I have two kids and a lady in a trailer park who married her uncle has 14 (assuming they all survive) her genes will outdo mine. Regardless if she has many "bad" genes. As long as all subsequent generations can reach puberty and get laid before dying or becoming infertile, the genes live on.

I believe it also had something to do with considering someones hair to be one of the main attractive physical attributes of women - just like e.g. breasts - which are also covered in most western cultures. No need to make it any harder on men to stay away from "sinful thoughts" after all.
Of course, the truth will probably never be revealed..

But the only reason that that ever became an issue was that the environment demanded that they cover up. For years after the British, with their very mild summers and cold winters, moved to what is now the North East US, with it's extreme temperature variations, they still did not switch to skimpier more comfortable clothing in the summer because they also brought their cultural baggage.

So really, the two issues aren't really seperate. People get used to one kind of clothing for one reason, and then their culture starts to explain it as a moral issue.

YOu are obviously completely unaware of what an abortion is.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

A pregnancy does not occur until implantation.

Thus, if something prevents a zygote from implanting, it is not causing an abortion.

Furthermore, more than 50% of all fertilized ovum are naturally passed out of a woman's body without implantation.

Where did you get your fact that pregnancy does not occur until implantation? Pregancy occurs upon fertilization. Implantation has nothing to do with it. And when a pregnancy is dated, it is dated from the first day of the woman's previous menstrual period, which is when the egg starts to mature, even before its release.

More than 50% of zygotes are naturally passed out of the body because they have genetic abnormalities that are incompatible with further development. It has nothing to do with whether or not the woman is officially "pregnant."

The Catholic Church has two objections to contraception, both of which have been admirably described here previously. 1. Sex is for procreation, and if you are preventing the procreation then you are going against the reason God created sex in the first place. 2. Many forms of contraception are abortifacents. They don't prevent fertilization, they simply prevent implantation. That is all.

Yes, of course, I only meant when it's caused by genes. But all the reasons you mentioned are genetic related: resistance to bacteria, resistance to dna alteration, normal hormone function. Accidents however, are an excuse.

But it's the survival of the fittest. Fertility treatments are just a way to fool nature. It also stops us from evolving and make the gene pool of a population less fit, probably (in terms of the current selective pressures - sometimes when one does not seem fit in one situation it is the best when things change - like mammals and the extinction of dinosaurs)

On the other hand, it may be selecting for other traits. It costs a fortune to fund fertility treatments. A person who can afford such things has whatever collection of traits allowed him to earn a lot of money. If the potential parent in question just the degenerate offspring of someone with real talent, well then the money will get sucked out of the family pretty quickly leaving the next generation poor and infertile, thus removed from the genepool.

Plus judgement calls on genes are a bit iffy anyway.

Take a look at those wasps who inject their eggs into a spider. Are they breeding themselves for lazy offspring who can't hunt right out of the egg? Maybe, but it's a good survival strategy. Same deal with medicine. Those who understand finance well enough to afford it will survive long enough and well enough to provide for their children.

And there's moral relativism too. There is a reason why things are the way they are. There is a reason for altruism. Doing what's best for society instead of just doing what's best for yourself might not allow you to reproduce so well but we are social animals. The betterment of society means that your children have better chances of survival.

Capitalism is destroying society. Sure, it might be good for those that make lots of money and such but is it really? Our planet is turning into a "barren and inhospitable landscape" and money will do no one good when there is no water and food.

So, since civilization is probably going to hell, children that are products of fertility treatments and are sterile won't reproduce, since there'll be no one else to treat them.

this maybe so pointless...
I didn't read all the textes so I might just be repeating...
But who actually cares...

Artificial Contraception is wrong 'cause sex without trying to
make a child is against gods wishes.
this is because all pleasure before heaven is not for anyone.

That's why very catholic croups like Irish in the 1800's made more childer
than is humanly possible :p

Where did you get your fact that pregnancy does not occur until implantation? Pregancy occurs upon fertilization. Implantation has nothing to do with it. And when a pregnancy is dated, it is dated from the first day of the woman's previous menstrual period, which is when the egg starts to mature, even before its release.

to my knowledge (and as a 16 year old who's had sex ed. courses in 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 11th grades, thats a lot), the sperm and the egg unite while the egg is implanted in the uteral lining.

i think.

oh, and for the record, survival of the fittest is more relavent to physical and mental fitness; the smartest survive while the less so tend to be picked off, just as the fastest and the best-armed animals do.

all of you guys talking about infertility in darwin-ish terms are kinda pushing the boundaries, i think.

Okay, I'm a Catholic and I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind the disapproval of artificial contraception. I can't see our priest for a week or so, therefore can someone tell me why it's considered wrong?

I know this will turn into the great online religious bicker crusade soon…

Thing is centuries ago, when this rule was made- almost no children made it to adulthood. People would have families of 7, 8, 9 children, and maybe one would grow up to be able to have kids of their own.

Now if you had people not having as many children as they can, then there was a large chance that people could actually have died out- so they needed people to reproduce.

Now- it doesn't matter at this point if these were direct instructions from a God, or a person... at that time, people needed as many children as possible. To be able to help work the land, to just work for money, and to survive and bring the next generation.

Times have changed. We're in a world of over population- and soon many more people will be starving to death. But since God hasn't come down with revisions, people will still see it as a sin until it's their children who aren't making it past the age of 5 from starvation/diseases.

But from what I know from the religious catholics is that if God wants them to have a child, God will allow the woman to get pregnant. If God doesn't want them to have a child, she wouldn't. The people I've talked to seem to believe in an God-based birth control, and who are they to try to go against God's will?

But the whole thing started with high child mortality rates.

actually, no. (im on your side, but that's incorrect) the sperm and egg unite while the egg is going down the fallopian tube.

Still, does it really make a difference if the contraceptive stops fertilization or implantation? Either way, you get an identical outcome: no pregnancy. The only reason someone would be against the latter form is if they believed that whole conception=soul business.

Where did you get your fact that pregnancy does not occur until implantation? Pregancy occurs upon fertilization. Implantation has nothing to do with it. And when a pregnancy is dated, it is dated from the first day of the woman's previous menstrual period, which is when the egg starts to mature, even before its release.

Which is where a lot of the confusion lies. The timeline arbitrarily assigned to pregnancy starts weeks before the actual pregnancy.

Pregnancy actually starts at implantation. One is not actually pregnant before conception, it's just that the simplest way of saying how many weeks a person is along is starting when they last knew they weren't pregnant, i.e. the last menstration.

More than 50% of zygotes are naturally passed out of the body because they have genetic abnormalities that are incompatible with further development. It has nothing to do with whether or not the woman is officially "pregnant."
No, 50% of all zygotes are passed out of a woman's system for a variety of reasons, not usually genetic at this point, that's why early miscarriages happen though. The unimplanted ovum are usually not implanted because of the lifestyle of the woman.

2. Many forms of contraception are abortifacents. They don't prevent fertilization, they simply prevent implantation. That is all.
Which doesn't make it an abortioficient.

I'll find a proper medical source with a definition of pregnancy, give me a minute.

Peopel flood google with medical definitions of abortions... this is all i could find http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm

oh, and for the record, survival of the fittest is more relavent to physical and mental fitness; the smartest survive while the less so tend to be picked off, just as the fastest and the best-armed animals do.

all of you guys talking about infertility in darwin-ish terms are kinda pushing the boundaries, i think.
No survival of the fittest is the survival of he who produces the most viable offspring.

Yup, that's true. Natural selection. makes sense. Lots of it. Viable offspring. Lost of em. Most advantage. Two-word sentences.

I'll shut up now.

Meaning that it's obviously wrong and you should do all you can to stop it!!!
Nah Neo, all that proves is that God is an abortionist! :D

Or if you're right, force all those abnormal zygotes to implant! Then miscarry like an honourable servant of God. :rolleyes:

Or if you're right, force all those abnormal zygotes to implant! Then miscarry like an honourable servant of God. :rolleyes:
:D
That was funny.

Here is the reason the Catholic Church is against birth control, esp "the pill."

The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception. The pill makes it impossible for a fertilized egg, aka a human being to remain implanted in the mothers womb. When the monthly cycle of the woman ends and she stops taking the pill for a week it causes the lining of the uterus to come off creating the woman's period and destroying the fertilized egg. This pill cycle therefore kills a human life. THAT is why the Catholic Church is against the method. Also when you see the side effects the pill causes in women, cancer, heart attack, stokes taking the pill isn't doing the woman any favors.

There is a natural method called Natural Family Planning. It is not the rhythm method and it IS very effective. I do not argue about this issue I am just merely explaining what the church teaches.

Also when you see the side effects the pill causes in women, cancer, heart attack, stokes taking the pill isn't doing the woman any favors.
Heart attack and stroke only happen to women who smoke or have a family history of blood clots. They'll advise you not to take the pill if this is the case.
The incidence of cancer related to taking the pill is minimal and has decresed with the newer pills as opposed to the ones in the 60s.

Furthermore, there are other side effects, such as lighter, shorter periods that you can set your watch to that involve fewer cramps. This is especially good for women who have highly irregular menstrual cycles (I knew a girl who would go three months without one, and then have another one two weeks later) or debilitating cramps, or women who tend to be anemic.

There is a natural method called Natural Family Planning. It is not the rhythm method and it IS very effective. I do not argue about this issue I am just merely explaining what the church teaches.
Is it by chance: "only have sex when you want kids"?

There is a natural method called Natural Family Planning. It is not the rhythm method and it IS very effective. I do not argue about this issue I am just merely explaining what the church teaches.

Yeah, but it's only effective if you monitor your temperature and cervical mucous every single day. You have to be VERY strict and disciplined about it. Also you have to abstain at certain times of the month.

So all in all, it is quite effective when done perfectly (still not as good as artificial methods, and hard to do) and very ineffective when done incorrectly.

Edit:
Heart attack and stroke only happen to women who smoke or have a family history of blood clots. They'll advise you not to take the pill if this is the case.
The incidence of cancer related to taking the pill is minimal and has decresed with the newer pills as opposed to the ones in the 60s.

Furthermore, there are other side effects, such as lighter, shorter periods that you can set your watch to that involve fewer cramps. This is especially good for women who have highly irregular menstrual cycles (I knew a girl who would go three months without one, and then have another one two weeks later) or debilitating cramps, or women who tend to be anemic.
Exactly, they've lowered the dose such that the side effects are minimal. Plus fewer pimples!

Also you do check your blood pressure and other side effects whenever you go for a repeat prescription.

Just posting this for posteritys sake:

The Catholic Churchs teaching on artificial contraceptives deals with a couple things... I'll try to explain them as concisely as possible here, and if you have any questions, or want further discussion, feel free to respond.

The primary purpose of sex is the procreation of children; although the bonding between mates and the physical pleasure involved is quite strong, these are secondary. Otherwise our sexual organs would not have been made the way they are... In fact, it can be said that sex merely for pleasure or bonding is a perversion: its a use of the sexual organs than for what they were truly intended. It can also be said that the widespread use of artifical contraceptives saw a drop in morality worldwide; the purpose of sex switched from procreation (its true intention) to simply physical pleasure, which demeans the act and consequently the value of human life. It also objectifies members of the opposite sex (although this can be said to focus mainly on women), which is horrid enough, and promotes sex between unmarried couples as it removes the natural consequences of the action (this also leads to a deemphasis and devaluation of marriage).

That said, practically every major Christian religion had barred the use of contraceptives until about the 1930s (when sex became less and less 'taboo) - when they changed teachings; that is, except for the Catholic Church (and I believe, the Orthodox faiths).

Exactly, they've lowered the dose such that the side effects are minimal. Plus fewer pimples!

Also you do check your blood pressure and other side effects whenever you go for a repeat prescription.
Not only that, I probably wouldnt' even bother to get my physical examination (i.e. gynecological exam) if I wasn't on the pill. It's not that I hate getting it done, I probably wouldn't think of it unless I was running out of pills.

Okay, I'm a Catholic and I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind the disapproval of artificial contraception. I can't see our priest for a week or so, therefore can someone tell me why it's considered wrong?

I know this will turn into the great online religious bicker crusade soon…

Simple reason: because sex "is only for reproduction" and therefore trying to prevent that isn't "right".

I used to be Catholic.

And to the second (?) poster, it isn't a myth, it's in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

The primary purpose of sex is the procreation of children; although the bonding between mates and the physical pleasure involved is quite strong, these are secondary. Otherwise our sexual organs would not have been made the way they are... In fact, it can be said that sex merely for pleasure or bonding is a perversion: its a use of the sexual organs than for what they were truly intended. It can also be said that the widespread use of artifical contraceptives saw a drop in morality worldwide; the purpose of sex switched from procreation (its true intention) to simply physical pleasure, which demeans the act and consequently the value of human life. It also objectifies members of the opposite sex (although this can be said to focus mainly on women), which is horrid enough, and promotes sex between unmarried couples as it removes the natural consequences of the action (this also leads to a deemphasis and devaluation of marriage).
You have got to love how people who advocate that sex outside marriage is evil seem to place more emphasis on sex than those who just do it.

Sex isn't some big, important thing like you people make it out to be. Getting your freak on does not cause the downfall of society, or marriage or anything. It just means that you get off with your partner and you have a good time. Sex can be more meaningful when the parties involved are in love.

If anything devalues marriage, it is your emphasis on sex being the be all end end all of it. Marriage is more than just sex. Marriage is about loving someone and wanting to commit yourself to a lifetime together. It is love that's important, not sex.

Of course, how stupid of me making sex out to be something important. It's just like eating, or drinking. Duh.

Not only that, I probably wouldnt' even bother to get my physical examination (i.e. gynecological exam) if I wasn't on the pill. It's not that I hate getting it done, I probably wouldn't think of it unless I was running out of pills.
My doctor has little computer reminders that popup whenever I see him. "You're due for a pap smear." "How's things going with your family?" etc... There's no escaping!!! :p

It would be a disaster if virgings could have children...
I mean Christs everywhere jumping around :p



Sorry I'm tired and I find humour everywhere.


I'd enjoy an infestation of little jumping christs.

I still have to say that being against contraception because it promotes fornacation is like being against the designated driver program because it promotes drunkenness.

and commando, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that this (http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/zygoye.jpg) is a human being. Because that's all it is before it implants. It's a cell with some genetic information.

Wow, this has grown since I made it!

Surely if you shouldn't interfere with the conception and the sperms' chances, even walking could upset them and perhaps drive them away from the egg - in fact, anything could? It seems to require a bit of fast talking…

At the moment we're learning the catholic view on abortion, which is that it's wrong to kill something that is like god, only god has the authority to take away the gift of life etc. Maybe it's the same for contraception too? If they view foetuses as people, maybe sperm are too?

Sorry if anyone else has said this my pc's far too slow for me to be reading all of this :rolleyes:

At the moment we're learning the catholic view on abortion, which is that it's wrong to kill something that is like god, only god has the authority to take away the gift of life etc. Maybe it's the same for contraception too? If they view foetuses as people, maybe sperm are too?

Sorry if anyone else has said this my pc's far too slow for me to be reading all of this :rolleyes:


I don't find your attempt at humor very amusing. No, a sperm is not a human life. A sperm can never divide and become a human. A sperm is a single cell that will always be a single cell. That's part of the miracle of life this single cell sperm and the single cell egg both cannot do anything by themselves, but when joined they are endowed with a soul and have all the genetics needed for its full life as a human being.