Protestant food for thought: Pro-life house divided

Xizors Palace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FX9Q_6gAPc

antiskeptic

By their fruits ye shall know them.

In this case a thinly veiled diatribe is revealed at 0.22 minutes in. It went downhill from there until 0.48 mins at which point I bailed out.

Ugh.


Is there any chance you could sum up the basic argument - and not include "Mother Church is the One True Church - QED" as a mode of argumentation?

PDN

Given the source, I thought it unlikely to be worth 5 minutes of my time.

georgieporgy

antiskeptic wrote: »

By their fruits ye shall know them.

In this case a thinly veiled diatribe is revealed at 0.22 minutes in. It went downhill from there until 0.48 mins at which point I bailed out.

Ugh.


Is there any chance you could sum up the basic argument - and not include "Mother Church is the One True Church - QED" as a mode of argumentation?

I think I can sympathise with you Antiskeptic. It's not nice being told "you're wrong I'm right" at the outset of a discussion (esp when you think it should be the other way round!) I think those vortex moments are meant for catholic audiences and the delivery style is quite american and doesn't appeal to everybody.
The gist of it though was that the pro life people are divided (and weakened) into two groups; 1 - anti abortion and anti artificial contraception; and 2 - anti abortion but pro artificial contraception.
Prior to 1930 (?) all christians were anti contraception. Since the growth of contraception we see a rise in abortion rates with it eventually being legalised in the sixties.

the speaker makes the connection between the acceptance of contraception (separating sex from pro creation) and the subsequent acceptance of abortion to deal with contraception failures. I think it's a notion that could be explored without getting into the other question (rc versus protestant)

Morbert

The argument is made that the failure rate of contraceptive measures is what leads to abortion rates rising. While I don't know how I feel about that claim, I don't understand why this argument is exclusive to artificial contraception. Natural contraceptive measures have a much much much higher failure rate.

antiskeptic

georgieporgy wrote: »

I think I can sympathise with you Antiskeptic. It's not nice being told "you're wrong I'm right" at the outset of a discussion (esp when you think it should be the other way round!) I think those vortex moments are meant for catholic audiences and the delivery style is quite american and doesn't appeal to everybody.

The delivery style is perjorative in the extreme. Calling people who have abortions or who supply abortion services "child-killers" is the kind of caricaturing worthy of the Fred Phelps of this world.

Fair enough if there's an audience of the converted ready to Amen that kind of thing. Xizor was attempting to communicate with 'Protestants' however.

The gist of it though was that the pro life people are divided (and weakened) into two groups; 1 - anti abortion and anti artificial contraception; and 2 - anti abortion but pro artificial contraception.

I don't see how two groups holding different views are "weakened". The fact that they coalesce on one issue (abortion) isn't any more significant than the fact they don't coalesce on another (contraception).

Prior to 1930 (?) all christians were anti contraception.

Rightly or wrongly.

Was that anti-artificial contraception or anti-any means of contraception? btw?

Since the growth of contraception we see a rise in abortion rates with it eventually being legalised in the sixties. The speaker makes the connection between the acceptance of contraception (separating sex from pro creation) and the subsequent acceptance of abortion to deal with contraception failures. I think it's a notion that could be explored without getting into the other question (rc versus protestant)

It appears that there are two questions:

- is there anything wrong (in God's eyes) with contraception per se (natural or artificial).

- can contraception be utilised to propagate sinful behaviour amongst the population at large (largely unbelieving)

The answer to the second question would appear to be a resounding "Yes!" Contraception and abortion are utilised as tools to ease the path to promiscuous, ungodly living. Indeed, the sexual revolution in the 60's was part-powered by the introduction of relatively safe, cheap and reliable contraceptives in the form of a pill. It isn't too big of a leap to see cause behind the contraception/abortion correlation. Get people used to doing what they want and they won't let very much stand in there way.

But that has no bearing on whether contraception is wrong. The fact that the ungodly turn everything to ungodly ends doesn't mean the thing itself is ungodly. Those correlations are exactly what you would expect the unbelieving world to do - indeed, it's proof positive that the world is behaving exactly as the Bible says it will behave.

Is the speaker surprised? Does he want Catholic morality to be imposed on the unbelieving world (although there are many branches of Protestantism which would like to do the same: impose Christiandom on the world)

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

Natural contraceptive measures have a much much much higher failure rate.

Perhaps. Although this doesn't look encouraging:

The typical use pregnancy rate among COCP users varies depending on the population being studied, ranging from 2-8% per year.

Let's assume the average failure rate with typical use is 5%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Effectiveness

[FONT=arial,helvetica]A woman's menstruation cycle is generally 28 days long, but could last anywhere between 25 to 35 days (or even longer). The cycle begins from the first day of menstruation and ends on the first day of the next menstruation. Roughly 14 days before the beginning of the next period, the woman's body releases an egg. This egg generally lasts for 24-48 hours, known as the ovulating phase. If the egg is not fertilized (combined with a sperm) during this period, it is discarded by the body during menstruation. [/FONT]

http://www.indiaparenting.com/preconception/111_61/ovulation-and-fertilization.html


A woman is fertile on average 1.5 days per 30 days. Which is about 5% of the time.

That doesn't seem like a good deal. Take a drug to limit the chance of getting pregnant to 5% when your chances of getting pregnant are naturally limited to 5%





ps: The rightfull maligned Rhythm Method - which supposed women automatons who all had a 28 day cycle and who all ovulated at day 14 is the natural method you're probably thinking of. There are far more advanced ways (Fertility Awareness Method) of naturally determining when ovulation is taking place - which can be used both for contraception and getting pregnant.

MrPudding

Morbert wrote: »

The argument is made that the failure rate of contraceptive measures is what leads to abortion rates rising. While I don't know how I feel about that claim, I don't understand why this argument is exclusive to artificial contraception. Natural contraceptive measures have a much much much higher failure rate.

Yes, it does seem like a somewhat poor argument. If I have it correctly then it is trying to tie unwanted pregnancy to increased abortions rates, I know that sounds a little obvious but hang in there I think I might have a point somewhere… I would theorise that nowadays we arguably have less unwanted pregnancies. My reasoning behind this is that back in the bad old days, prior to 1930 for example, contraception would have been poor and probably quite hard to get a hold of, so there would have been a lot of pregnancies. I think that in those times it would have been difficult, culturally, for a woman or a couple to describe a pregnancy as unwanted. You had sex, you got pregnant you had a baby, assuming all went well. There wasn’t really a choice.

Over the years since then other things have changed besides the availability of contraception, and I personally think that these changes are more likely to be responsible for the increase in abortion rates. This might be little comfort to a pro-lifer, but I think it is important to recognise the real reasons for something happening. For example, society has changde to the extent that it is ok for a woman or indeed a couple to say a pregnancy is unwanted. Good medical care and advice is more available. People are now less likely to go to the clergy to discuss this type of issue. And then, quite simply, abortion is more accessible.

I would not think the availability of contraception necessarily increases the incidence of abortion; it is something the use of which also happens to have increased in that period. I think the real reason for its increase is society’s acceptance, in general, of a person’s right to have an abortion if they think they need one. This should be pretty obvious; but it is clearly the case that modern contraception is better than old contraception and is most definitely better than no contraception, if contraception was to have any effect on abortion rates surely it would be to lower it? I am also pretty sure that there are many people who use contraception that would never consider having an abortion. And I would expect that trying to manufacture a link between the use of contraception and a willingness to “murder the unborn” would be quite upsetting for many. And let’s not forget, there are a lot more people having sex. Obviously, there are section of society that don’t accept it, and they are both religious and non-religious, but those in favour happen to be the ones making the decisions. -

MrP

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

I would not think the availability of contraception necessarily increases the incidence of abortion; it is something the use of which also happens to have increased in that period. I think the real reason for its increase is society’s acceptance, in general, of a person’s right to have an abortion if they think they need one.

The argument would be that because society has first accepted anyone can shag anyone they like at anytime without having to bear the consequences of having a baby (contraception) then it's not a great leap to suppose society will next accept that should those consequences arise, then they can be dealt with by the second line of defence (abortion).

In other words: once you champon inconsequential sex (contraception) then it's not a big step to defend inconsequential sex (abortion)

neuro-praxis

(NB I didn't watch the stupid video)

I'm a married Presby and despite using contraception myself have a certain uneasiness about it. It is without doubt a barrier between a couple (literally in some cases) and a barrier to new life. In my experience in reformed circles contraception is taken as a given "good" and there is no debate whatsoever about it (which is unusual - we like to debate).

So in my discomfort I had a good look into the Catholic theology of the body and sex and was quite horrified by what I found. To name just one example, every single sex act for Catholic married couples must end with the man ejaculating inside the woman. So, while they are not using contraception and further, must not have a "contraceptive mindset" (whereby the Rhythm Method or similar is being "abused" by the hope that a child will not result from the lovemaking) they can't even just have fun in other ways during times of ovulation. Their sex must culminate in the man's ejaculation inside his wife. This is absurd and unbiblical on so many levels.

To cut an extremely long story short, my cognitive dissonance on the subject is appeased by my firm position is that I am open to life. I am not intending to start a family right now, as I am attempting to put in place some things that will greatly help me to be a good parent (emotionally, mentally, spiritually, materially) who provides well. However if I find myself pregnant at any time I will be thrilled and will welcome the child into our lives with open arms. I have made an informed decision on the topic in the context of simply not living in an ideal world.

Also, there are many children out there without families. Surely their adoption shouldn't be the remit of purely those who can't have their own biological children? The choice not to reproduce but rather to adopt is surely a beautiful one that in fact mirrors God's relationship to us.

antiskeptic

neuro-praxis wrote: »

So in my discomfort I had a good look into the Catholic theology of the body and sex and was quite horrified by what I found. To name just one example, every single sex act for Catholic married couples must end with the man ejaculating inside the woman. So, while they are not using contraception and further, must not have a "contraceptive mindset" (whereby the Rhythm Method or similar is being "abused" by the hope that a child will not result from the lovemaking) they can't even just have fun in other ways during times of ovulation. Their sex must culminate in the man's ejaculation inside his wife. This is absurd and unbiblical on so many levels.

You'd have to be extracting your view of God from the Bible in order to agree with this. Catholicism doesn't.

The choice not to reproduce but rather to adopt is surely a beautiful one that in fact mirrors God's relationship to us.

I wouldn't agree. The relationship between God and his children isn't limited to the legalistic realm of adoption (which covers but one aspect of the relationship). Rather, we become partakers of the divine nature. No longer I, but Christ in me.

As intimate as intimate can be.

neuro-praxis

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'd have to be extracting your view of God from the Bible in order to agree with this. Catholicism doesn't.

I'm not following you exactly.

You'd have to be extracting your view of God from the bible in order to agree with the Catholic stance quoted, and yet Catholicism doesn't?

That's not making sense to me.

neuro-praxis

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. The relationship between God and his children isn't limited to the legalistic realm of adoption (which covers but one aspect of the relationship).

Wow, what a distorted perception. We'll just abandon the orphans so!

Xizors Palace

I think the video speaks for itself, and there isn't really any arguing with it.

What I am interested in is this: before 1930, all Protestant denominations held contraception to be immoral, but once the CoE synod decided it would be OK for married couples, the floodgates opened and it became OK. So why was this? How come it was held to be immoral before 1930, but then after 1930, it wasn't?

PDN

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I think the video speaks for itself, and there isn't really any arguing with it.

What I am interested in is this: before 1930, all Protestant denominations held contraception to be immoral, but once the CoE synod decided it would be OK for married couples, the floodgates opened and it became OK. So why was this? How come it was held to be immoral before 1930, but then after 1930, it wasn't?

Actually that's not true. Most Protestant churches held no official position on contraception and left it up to their individual members' consciences. Tbh, they had more important things to worry about like preaching the Gospel and obeying biblical commands.

antiskeptic

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I'm not following you exactly.

Let me put it another way. You said:

This is absurd and unbiblical on so many levels.

If your view of God is informed by so much that is extra-biblical then the Catholic view of sex isn't either:

- absurd (why couldn't God perscribe sex to be as the Catholics say it is to be)

- unbiblical (because what's biblical is whatever Catholics say it is - whether or not one can find it in the Bible)

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument would be that because society has first accepted anyone can shag anyone they like at anytime without having to bear the consequences of having a baby (contraception) then it's not a great leap to suppose society will next accept that should those consequences arise, then they can be dealt with by the second line of defence (abortion).

In other words: once you champon inconsequential sex (contraception) then it's not a big step to defend inconsequential sex (abortion)

I suppose this is a good indicator of how fundamental the difference is viewpoint can be between people. I see it as people getting the freedom to do something they wish to do, having sex with people, which on the face of it harms no one and isn’t really anyone’s business beyond the parties involved. I would think that before contraception and abortion were available on a widespread basis there were probably plenty of woman who found themselves pregnant but really didn’t want to be.

I don’t like the argument that if you don’t want to be pregnant then you shouldn’t have sex. Thankfully most governments and plenty of the religious agree.

That said, I can see your point.

[QUOTE=neuro-praxis;70333764
So in my discomfort I had a good look into the Catholic theology of the body and sex and was quite horrified by what I found. To name just one example, every single sex act for Catholic married couples must end with the man ejaculating inside the woman. So, while they are not using contraception and further, must not have a "contraceptive mindset" (whereby the Rhythm Method or similar is being "abused" by the hope that a child will not result from the lovemaking) they can't even just have fun in other ways during times of ovulation. Their sex must culminate in the man's ejaculation inside his wife. This is absurd and unbiblical on so many levels.
QUOTE]Many would agree and also have an issue with this on the basis that it is extremely detrimental to women.

MrP

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I think the video speaks for itself

True. Its off putting enough to prevent your target audience watching it

..and there isn't really any arguing with it.

It has been argued with above - assuming gp's synopsis of it's message is accurate.

What I am interested in is this: before 1930, all Protestant denominations held...

My money's on PDN for this one.

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

I suppose this is a good indicator of how fundamental the difference is viewpoint can be between people. I see it as people getting the freedom to do something they wish to do, having sex with people..

..without the usual negative consequences attaching. That's were the freedom came from: the pill freed people from the negative consequences attaching to sex with anyone anytime.

It doesn't take a genius to suppose what happens when you take negative consequences away from something that might otherwise seem desirable.

I don’t like the argument that if you don’t want to be pregnant then you shouldn’t have sex. Thankfully most governments and plenty of the religious agree.

That's not my argument. I've no problem with contraception in principle (I do wonder why it's the woman who has to run all the risks associated with artificial methods. Intra-penile-device any of ye men?)

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

..without the usual negative consequences attaching. That's were the freedom came from: the pill freed people from the negative consequences attaching to sex with anyone anytime.

It doesn't take a genius to suppose what happens when you take negative consequences away from something that might otherwise seem desirable.

Yes, I understand that. My point was you see this new found (then) freedom as a bad thing, whereas I see it as positive. People gaining the freedom to have sex.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's not my argument. I've no problem with contraception in principle (I do wonder why it's the woman who has to run all the risks associated with artificial methods. Intra-penile-device any of ye men?)

I know that if I was a woman I would not trust a man, necessarily, to look after the contraception. I have to deal with the consequences so I will look after the protection.

MrP

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, I understand that. My point was you see this new found (then) freedom as a bad thing, whereas I see it as positive. People gaining the freedom to have sex.

My argument wasn't commenting on whether it was good or bad. It merely made the point that one thing leads understandably to the next.

Contraception = enables freedom for what I want sexually - without the consequences naturally associated with that.

Abortion = enables freedom for what I want sexually in the event of the natural consequences occuring by accident.

I know that if I was a woman I would not trust a man, necessarily, to look after the contraception. I have to deal with the consequences so I will look after the protection. MrP

Not even if the intra-penile-device could be assured to give the same safety as the pill?

Xizors Palace

PDN wrote: »

Actually that's not true. Most Protestant churches held no official position on contraception and left it up to their individual members' consciences. Tbh, they had more important things to worry about like preaching the Gospel and obeying biblical commands.

That's not true. The founding fathers of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin etc...) all held contraception to be a vile thing. This attitude prevailed right up to 1930. There was't the widespread access to contraception either. The fact is, it was universally held to be immoral but then in 1930 it was OK.

Antiskeptic: You don't even understand the Catholic teaching on the meaning and purpose of human sexuality, so you aren't in any position to be discrediting it.

The sad thing is that most people who call themselves Christian (and this applies equally as much in the RCC) have sex as an idol. I know because I once thought just as they do before my (re-)conversion, the process of which began about 6 years ago. When sex is your idol, you can't imagine being denied your 'candy' and so this is why people are so attached to contraception, which makes of sex recreation and 'candy' and can't imagine life without it. Sex is our all. That is why we cannot follow the will of God in this matter: our intellects are darkened and our wills weakened. We crave the sex and we cannot for one moment imagine what it would be like to follow God's laws, desiring a pure heart and clean hands. Blessed are the pure in heart; they shall see God.

I know and understand how you think because I was once like you. Sex was once my precious idol too until God set me free.

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

I don’t like the argument that if you don’t want to be pregnant then you shouldn’t have sex. Thankfully most governments and plenty of the religious agree.

That argument isn't really used across the board however. If you are not prepared in any way to deal with the consequences then yes you shouldn't be having sex. If you don't want to get shot in the head you shouldn't play Russian roulette.

As has been pointed out earlier on the thread the time period for actual concepting is fairly limited in the grand scheme of things. Apparently abstaining from sex for just a few days a month is too much for some people. Telling people to abstain, and educating about when knowing when to abstain in particular is a valid argument.

Many would agree and also have an issue with this on the basis that it is extremely detrimental to women.

Could you expand on why exactly it is extremely detrimental to women for say her husband to ejactulate inside of her?

JimiTime

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The sad thing is that most people who call themselves Christian (and this applies equally as much in the RCC) have sex as an idol.

Some do.

I know because I once thought just as they do before my (re-)conversion, the process of which began about 6 years ago. When sex is your idol, you can't imagine being denied your 'candy' and so this is why people are so attached to contraception, which makes of sex recreation and 'candy' and can't imagine life without it. Sex is our all. That is why we cannot follow the will of God in this matter: our intellects are darkened and our wills weakened. We crave the sex and we cannot for one moment imagine what it would be like to follow God's laws.

Just because Sexual lust enslaved YOU, does not mean it enslaves everyone. As Paul says in Corinthians, we should not deny our partners their sexual needs. Sex is not some evil joke God plays on us. He gifted it to us, and gave us the context to enjoy it in I.E. In a marriage. It is not sinful to enjoy it, and it is not sinful to have sex with your wife/husband solely for the joy it brings. Sex is not just about procreation, and the fact that God has created woman with such a small window of fertility per month would evidence that.

No, your view is the view of Rome, not of God. If you feel your sexual appetite dominated you, then indeed, it was YOUR idol. It does not follow on that it is intrinsically an idol. I'm glad that you do not feel enslaved by your lust any more, but you should acknowledge that not everyones sexual behaviour is such a sordid dominating force. I love to have sex with my wife, but it doesn't dominate our relationship. All the Roman rules on sex is extrabiblical, and thus can easily be discredited as Romanistic nonsense.

I know and understand how you think because I was once like you. Sex was once my precious idol too until God set me free.

All you display is how perverse you think sex is. You are FAR from free. You fear it, for it seems that at one point in your life, it dominated you. I'm glad it doesn't dominate you anymore, but don't think that because you were once a slave to your lust that everyone else is.

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not even if the intra-penile-device could be assured to give the same safety as the pill?

It is a bit like the bikers that think that bike training is pointless and car drivers should be made to improve. I like to “own” my own safety.

prinz wrote: »

That argument isn't really used across the board however. If you are not prepared in any way to deal with the consequences then yes you shouldn't be having sex.

Contraception mitigate the risk, and therefore means pregnancy is less likely to be a consequence. The availability of abortion means unwanted pregnancy does not have to be a consequence.

prinz wrote: »

As has been pointed out earlier on the thread the time period for actual concepting is fairly limited in the grand scheme of things. Apparently abstaining from sex for just a few days a month is too much for some people. Telling people to abstain, and educating about when knowing when to abstain in particular is a valid argument.

Why should people have to abstain?

prinz wrote: »

Could you expand on why exactly it is extremely detrimental to women for say her husband to ejactulate inside of her?

Constantly getting pregnant and squeezing out kids for your entire fertile life is pretty detrimental.

MrP

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Sex is not just about procreation, and the fact that God has created woman with such a small window of fertility per month would evidence that. No, your view is the view of Rome, not of God..

Rome doesn't teach that sex is just about procreation either, or else they would have instructed Catholics to only engage in intercourse during the small window of fertility and not outside of it. AFAIK they make no such instruction, quite the opposite, agreeing with exactly everything else you have written, re the benefits of and positives attached to sex in a marriage, and encouraging Catholic couples who do not wish to conceive to engage in sex outside of the small window of fertility to enjoy the sex without conception.

Xizors Palace

JimiTime wrote: »

Some do.


Just because Sexual lust enslaved YOU, does not mean it enslaves everyone. As Paul says in Corinthians, we should not deny our partners their sexual needs. Sex is not some evil joke God plays on us. He gifted it to us, and gave us the context to enjoy it in I.E. In a marriage. It is not sinful to enjoy it, and it is not sinful to have sex with your wife/husband solely for the joy it brings. Sex is not just about procreation, and the fact that God has created woman with such a small window of fertility per month would evidence that.

No, your view is the view of Rome, not of God. If you feel your sexual appetite dominated you, then indeed, it was YOUR idol. It does not follow on that it is intrinsically an idol. I'm glad that you do not feel enslaved by your lust any more, but you should acknowledge that not everyones sexual behaviour is such a sordid dominating force. I love to have sex with my wife, but it doesn't dominate our relationship. All the Roman rules on sex is extrabiblical, and thus can easily be discredited as Romanistic nonsense.

All you display is how perverse you think sex is. You are FAR from free. You fear it, for it seems that at one point in your life, it dominated you. I'm glad it doesn't dominate you anymore, but don't think that because you were once a slave to your lust that everyone else is.

If a married couple is contracepting, then sex is already an idol for them, and they are already enslaved by lust (disordered sexual desire), because they have put their 'candy' ahead of the will of God for their sexuality. Sex isn't meant to be a recreational thing (in essence, mutual masturbation) - sex is meant to be procreative and unitative. If we separate these two aspects, we distort the meaning of sex and we commit sin.

That's the thing about sin. When you're inside it, consumed by it, you can't see the divine light. You can't see that there is anything wrong with what you are doing.

Xizors Palace

prinz wrote: »

Rome doesn't teach that sex is just about procreation either, or else they would have instructed Catholics to only engage in intercourse during the small window of fertility and not outside of it. AFAIK they make no such instruction, quite the opposite, agreeing with exactly everything else you have written, re the benefits of and positives attached to sex in a marriage, and encouraging Catholic couples who do not wish to conceive to engage in sex outside of the small window of fertility to enjoy the sex without conception.

Such an allowance can be abused. The Church teaches that NFP or similar natural means of regulating births are only to be used for grave reasons. Unfortunately, due to the popular approaches adopted in Catholic circles in recent years, NFP has been received and acclaimed as a moral form of Catholic contraception. This is a grave error and is not what the CHurch teaches.

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

Why should people have to abstain?

You don't have to abstain. You also don't have to play Russian roulette. You don't have to jay-walk, or eat fatty foods etc., or drink to excess. There are plenty of things we would like to do, but they have a consequence. Sex is one of the only areas I can think of where people put such an effort into denying the consequences and sticking their heads in the sand. If you want to have sex......great...there's a possibility you could get pregnant. If you want to eat McDonald's everyday...great... there's a possibility you could end up over-weight. Actions have consequences.

MrPudding wrote: »

Constantly getting pregnant and squeezing out kids for your entire fertile life is pretty detrimental. MrP

:pac: Right. What about when the couple keep a proper track of fertility and avoiding sex during the fertile period......is it still extremely detrimental to the lady to ejaculate inside her during her infertile time? Unprotected sex in a marriage does not automatically lead to "squeezing out kids your entire fertile life".

neuro-praxis

prinz wrote: »

Could you expand on why exactly it is extremely detrimental to women for say her husband to ejactulate inside of her?

Don't be an idiot. Nobody is saying that it is extremely detrimental to women for their husbands to ejaculate inside of them. What is being said as you well know is that this kind of rule being enforced, i.e., "All sexual encounters between husband and wife must culminate in the ejaculation of the male inside the female" mean that due to religious duty a woman becomes suddenly vulnerable when entering into any intimate activity with her husband. I don't care what any priest or theologian thinks: if I don't want to have penetrative sex I'm not having it. No woman should have to. My husband would be horrified if things were any other way - he doesn't want to have sex with a sore/tired/bleeding/emotional woman any more than I do sometimes. That doesn't mean we wouldn't want intimacy.

This is the kind of specific rule made by celibates, based on nothing (certainly not on scripture), that creeps the hell out of me. If our sole purpose is baby making you might as well rule that any activity between husband and wife should end with the male's ejaculation.

And quite apart from anything else, it is a misogynistic decree concerned with the man's pleasure. Are you married prinz?

prinz

Xizors Palace wrote: »

grave reasons..

Grave reasons such as what? Not being in a position to adequately care for a child perhaps?

neuro-praxis

Xizors Palace wrote: »

If a married couple is contracepting, then sex is already an idol for them, and they are already enslaved by lust (disordered sexual desire), because they have put their 'candy' ahead of the will of God for their sexuality.

Lol. Candy!

Moderators, this thread is actually moving into scary territory.

georgieporgy

Morbert wrote: »

The argument is made that the failure rate of contraceptive measures is what leads to abortion rates rising. While I don't know how I feel about that claim, I don't understand why this argument is exclusive to artificial contraception. Natural contraceptive measures have a much much much higher failure rate.

That's not the issue here Morbert. It's the acceptance of the idea of contraception within marriage as being ok that subsequently led to the acceptance of abortion being considered ok too.

It has nothing to do with advances in medicine and improved contraception techniques etc. nothing to do with unwanted babies, poverty, religion etc.

As for the distinction between natural and artificial contraception, the problem is mainly with artificial. That said, the RC would also say that prolonged use of natural contraception for no good reason is also wrong. A good reason would be poverty ( we are supposed to be able to look after the children we produce so if you live on the street in Calcutta it's ok to space your pregnancies out a bit), caught up in warfare, famine or such where starting a family could be hazardous for all concerned.

I'll make a separate post to explain why prolonged use of cotraception is verboten

prinz

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Don't be an idiot. Nobody is saying that it is extremely detrimental to women for their husbands to ejaculate inside of them..

Well that seems to have been what was said, so I was asking as I was genuinely curious.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

What is being said as you well know is that this kind of rule being enforced, i.e., "All sexual encounters between husband and wife must culminate in the ejaculation of the male inside the female" mean that due to religious duty a woman becomes suddenly vulnerable when entering into any intimate activity with her husband.

Vulnerable how?

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I don't care what any priest or theologian thinks: if I don't want to have penetrative sex I'm not having it. No woman should have to. My husband would be horrified if things were any other way - he doesn't want to have sex with a sore/tired/bleeding/emotional woman any more than I do sometimes. That doesn't mean we wouldn't want intimacy..

No one is forcing you to have penetrative sex.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

This is the kind of specific rule made by celibates, based on nothing (certainly not on scripture), that creeps the hell out of me. If our sole purpose is baby making you might as well rule that any activity between husband and wife should end with the male's ejaculation...

Who said the sole purpose is baby making?

neuro-praxis wrote: »

And quite apart from anything else, it is a misogynistic decree concerned with the man's pleasure.

I doubt it seeing as how any time I have seen a poll of where men would most like to ejaculate......inside the woman is usually well down the list.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Are you married prinz?

Yes I am.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

You don't have to abstain. You also don't have to play Russian roulette. You don't have to jay-walk, or eat fatty foods etc., or drink to excess. There are plenty of things we would like to do, but they have a consequence. Sex is one of the only areas I can think of where people put such an effort into denying the consequences and sticking their heads in the sand. If you want to have sex......great...there's a possibility you could get pregnant. If you want to eat McDonald's everyday...great... there's a possibility you could end up over-weight. Actions have consequences.

In this day and age an unwanted pregnancy does not have to be the consequence of having sex. You might not like it, and you most certainly don’t have to take advantage of it, but you have no right to tell someone else and unwanted pregnancy has to be a consequence of them having sex.

prinz wrote: »

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/C0708805/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/07/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]Right. What about when the couple keep a proper track of fertility and avoiding sex during the fertile period......is it still extremely detrimental to the lady to ejaculate inside her during her infertile time? Unprotected sex in a marriage does not automatically lead to "squeezing out kids your entire fertile life".

There are plenty of women in Ireland that have had so many kids they have spent more than half their lives pregnant, many of whom did not want 10 or 12 or 14 kids.We aren’t talking about people that keep a proper track, and have a calendar telling them when they can and can’t have sex. We are talking about ordinary people that want to have the freedom to have sex with the person they love, or anyone else for that matter, whenever they want and not have to worry about getting pregnant. This is one of the advantages of living ion modern times.

MrP

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

In this day and age an unwanted pregnancy does not have to be the consequence of having sex. You might not like it, and you most certainly don’t have to take advantage of it, but you have no right to tell someone else and unwanted pregnancy has to be a consequence of them having sex.

..but it is a possible consequence.... why should that be ignored? I never said sex had to end in a pregnancy.

MrPudding wrote: »

There are plenty of women in Ireland that have had so many kids they have spent more than half their lives pregnant, many of whom did not want 10 or 12 or 14 kids.We aren’t talking about people that keep a proper track, and have a calendar telling them when they can and can’t have sex. We are talking about ordinary people that want to have the freedom to have sex with the person they love, or anyone else for that matter, whenever they want and not have to worry about getting pregnant. This is one of the advantages of living ion modern times.

So what? How can they guarantee no pregnancy, ever? There are a lot of things I'd love to do and not have to worry about the possible consequences that doesn't mean those possible consequences cease to exist just because they are inconvenient to me.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

That's the thing about sin. When you're inside it, consumed by it, you can't see the divine light. You can't see that there is anything wrong with what you are doing.

The trouble is Xizor, we've only got your word for it. And we've a Bible who paints an utterly different God.

Where's the food for thought in that .. or is this just another "Mother Church says it, I believe it, that settles it" thread.

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

The trouble is Xizor, we've only got your word for it. And we've a Bible who paints an utterly different God.

Where's the food for thought in that .. or is this just another "Mother Church says it, I believe it, that settles it" thread.

You have a Bible which indicates that God doesn't mind people thwarting his plan for human sexuality by engaging in lust and ignoring the Natural Law and the moral order he has established?

The Catholic has Scripture and Tradition, 2000 years worth, which shows that the early Christians, taught by the Apostles, held contraceptive practises and abortion as sinful.

Now all that changed in 1930 when it was decided that it was OK and all the protestant denominations went with that. There are exceptions: Quiverfull is a movement among Evangelicals in America who now realise that the Catholic teaching is true and that the vast majority of Protestants took a run turn when they followed the CoE down the wrong road.

Prinz - from wiki:

Humanae Vitae cites "physical, economic, psychological and social conditions" as possibly compelling reasons to avoid pregnancy.[43] Couples are warned, however, against using NFP for selfish, immoral, or insincere reasons.

JimiTime

Xizors Palace wrote: »

If a married couple is contracepting, then sex is already an idol for them,

Ok Xizors, what is an idol?

and they are already enslaved by lust (disordered sexual desire), because they have put their 'candy' ahead of the will of God for their sexuality. Sex isn't meant to be a recreational thing (in essence, mutual masturbation) - sex is meant to be procreative and unitative. If we separate these two aspects, we distort the meaning of sex and we commit sin.

Again, all you display is a warped view. Maybe this is based on the the fact that, as you mentioned earlier, sexual lust dominated YOU at one time. Unfortunately, it seems to have left a scar, in that you are still seeing something perverse due to it being perverse in YOUR head (at one time).

That's the thing about sin. When you're inside it, consumed by it, you can't see the divine light. You can't see that there is anything wrong with what you are doing.

On the contrary, when one is free in Christ and realises that he is Lord, and that the traditions of men enslave us, one can see a lot more than narrow judicial rules.

You are still exhibiting a rather perverse view of sexual relations, and simply dressing your rather skewed and sordid view up as divine or holy. It is folk like YOU who are preoccupied with sex, not people like me. You are the one consumed and ensnared. It seems your vision does not proceed past the end of your nose. Read Corinthians and also Song of Solomon.

Fanny Cradock

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Lol. Candy!

Moderators, this thread is actually moving into scary territory.

Why am I reminded of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwnwBbX70k

Sweet can... dy

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Antiskeptic: You don't even understand the Catholic teaching on the meaning and purpose of human sexuality, so you aren't in any position to be discrediting it.

Um.. although I think the Catholic teaching on sexuality* (in the area of "purpose of") is as mishapen as their teaching on anything else, I haven't discredited it in this thread. There is no responding to "Mother Church is right - you're all wrong" Xizor. It's simply too kindergaarten an approach to be able to deal with it.

* as presented by you that is.

The sad thing is that most people who call themselves Christian (and this applies equally as much in the RCC) have sex as an idol.

Contraception = sex as idol case has not been made. "The RC Church says so" isn't a case

I know because I once thought just as they do before my (re-)conversion, the process of which began about 6 years ago. When sex is your idol, you can't imagine being denied your 'candy' and so this is why people are so attached to contraception, which makes of sex recreation and 'candy' and can't imagine life without it.

Ditto the above. You need to make the contraception = idolatory case first before elaborating on it's consequences.

Sex is our all. That is why we cannot follow the will of God in this matter: our intellects are darkened and our wills weakened. We crave the sex and we cannot for one moment imagine what it would be like to follow God's laws, desiring a pure heart and clean hands. Blessed are the pure in heart; they shall see God.

I know and understand how you think because I was once like you. Sex was once my precious idol too until God set me free.

Yet more extrapolating from an unargued position. Where's the food for thought aspect in all this?

Xizors Palace

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok Xizors, what is an idol?



Again, all you display is a warped view. Maybe this is based on the the fact that, as you mentioned earlier, sexual lust dominated YOU at one time. Unfortunately, it seems to have left a scar, in that you are still seeing something perverse due to it being perverse in YOUR head (at one time).


On the contrary, when one is free in Christ and realises that he is Lord, and that the traditions of men enslave us, one can see a lot more than narrow judicial rules.

You are still exhibiting a rather perverse view of sexual relations, and simply dressing your rather skewed and sordid view up as divine or holy. It is folk like YOU who are preoccupied with sex, not people like me. You are the one consumed and ensnared. It seems your vision does not proceed past the end of your nose. Read Corinthians and also Song of Solomon.

An idol is something we put in the place of God. It can be food, sex, drugs, cars, shopping - whatever we use to numb our pain and to fill the void that can only be filled by God.

Whenever we turn to food (or anything else) rather than to God in prayer and sacrament to fill our void and sooth our pain, we are making idols of created things.

This is the problem.

I think rather than my being preoccupied with sex would be those fixated on condoms and the pill so they can have their 'fix' of lustful sexual activity which disregards the truth and meaning of human sexuality. Sex was never meant to be an idol - it was never meant to be a blame to sooth loneliness of the existential emptiness we experience because of the fall. Only God can fill us and any attempt to use anything else to numb our pain is futile. The mockery and scorn that expressing these truths on this thread only further supports the truth of what I am saying. We can use the disparaging term 'traditions of men' to righteously dismiss out of hand any objection to our misuse of God's creation.

I'll throw out something even more controversial but which I believe to be true based on my knowledge of the human person and what I see around me on a daily basis: most people, including most Catholics, get married for the wrong reason.

neuro-praxis

I don't know about you Xizor's Palace, but I have sex with my husband because I love him...not to numb my pain! Yikes. You have some mixed up thinking.

georgieporgy

yes there is such a thing!

Most of what has been attributed as catholic rules regarding sex in many of the above posts just isn't factual. I don't have time to take each comment apart and correct them. Let me try to make a few general points.

1 God created the world and mankind. The world is not static and continues to grow and evolve. Man grows in wisdom/knowledge etc and our world builds on the achievements of those gone before us.

2 God's greatest creation is man (that's mankind, ladies)

3 God loves us and wants our love in return. To prove it he asks our cooperation in furthering his creation. God cannot create a new human without human cooperation.

4 That's the big problem with contraception. We decide to cut God out of the deal, we engage in the act of creation but say no to new life.

5. The rc does not teach that we have to breed like rabbits. It's ok to space children so parents can rear them properly. Likewise each couple decides how many children they can raise. if you're living in a tenement, unemployed etc, 20 kids is probably too many.

6 sex is not to be used as a weapon between the spouses. it's meant to be a completely mutual affair. So partners don't force themselves on the other when the other isn't up to it. Neither is sex to be witheld as a form of blackmail etc.

If anyone wants to know what the rc really teaches about anything, it's best to seek out a good teacher and don't rely too much on websites. There are many great sites but difficult for the non catholic to tell which is which.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You have a Bible which indicates that God doesn't mind people thwarting his plan for human sexuality by engaging in lust and ignoring the Natural Law and the moral order he has established?

And this notion stems from..

The Catholic has Scripture and Tradition, 2000 years worth, which shows that the early Christians, taught by the Apostles, held contraceptive practises and abortion as sinful.

..a tired old argument that puts dubious quantity over quality.

Now all that changed in 1930 when it was decided that it was OK and all the protestant denominations went with that. There are exceptions: Quiverfull is a movement among Evangelicals in America who now realise that the Catholic teaching is true and that the vast majority of Protestants took a run turn when they followed the CoE down the wrong road.

My own focus hasn't been on this but since you've mentioned it a half dozen times it might be worth asking you more about it. You seem to be under the impression that eg: Martin Luther is the equivilent of a Pope for me. That in straying from what he might have thought I am straying from my version of the one true flock.

That isn't how I view the body of Christ. The body of Christ consists of imperfect men who get it right and get it wrong (wasn't it Luther who suggested Revelation has no place in the Bible). It isn't a monolithic entity like Catholicism who sets the direction. So what if I disagree with Calvin (and the many who adhere to his teaching) on the issue of contraception - I disagree with him on TULIP as well.

This "Protestantism said then/now" approach really is a red herring. It completely overlooks the fact that men are men of their times - not necessarily better or worse informed in matters Absolute Truth than me today.

antiskeptic

georgieporgy wrote: »

yes there is such a thing!

The divil is in the detail. So let's probe.

3 God loves us and wants our love in return. To prove it he asks our cooperation in furthering his creation. God cannot create a new human without human cooperation.

Okay

4 That's the big problem with contraception. We decide to cut God out of the deal, we engage in the act of creation but say no to new life.

Contracepted sex isn't engaging in the act of creation - per definition. Only if you first define sex as an act of creation does that point stand. Your previous point doesn't define sex that way. It simply says that God wants us to procreate (which people who contracept can do)

5. The rc does not teach that we have to breed like rabbits. It's ok to space children so parents can rear them properly. Likewise each couple decides how many children they can raise. if you're living in a tenement, unemployed etc, 20 kids is probably too many.

How is one to do this?

Assuming something other than abstention, then why artificial forms problematic over natural forms.

6 sex is not to be used as a weapon between the spouses. it's meant to be a completely mutual affair. So partners don't force themselves on the other when the other isn't up to it. Neither is sex to be witheld as a form of blackmail etc.

Okay. Off topic but okay


I

f anyone wants to know what the rc really teaches about anything, it's best to seek out a good teacher and don't rely too much on websites. There are many great sites but difficult for the non catholic to tell which is which.

What's so difficult about simply saying it as it is? You, I mean.

georgieporgy

neuro-praxis wrote: »

(NB I didn't watch the stupid video)

I'm a married Presby and despite using contraception myself have a certain uneasiness about it. It is without doubt a barrier between a couple (literally in some cases) and a barrier to new life. In my experience in reformed circles contraception is taken as a given "good" and there is no debate whatsoever about it (which is unusual - we like to debate).

So in my discomfort I had a good look into the Catholic theology of the body and sex and was quite horrified by what I found. To name just one example, every single sex act for Catholic married couples must end with the man ejaculating inside the woman. So, while they are not using contraception and further, must not have a "contraceptive mindset" (whereby the Rhythm Method or similar is being "abused" by the hope that a child will not result from the lovemaking) they can't even just have fun in other ways during times of ovulation. Their sex must culminate in the man's ejaculation inside his wife. This is absurd and unbiblical on so many levels.

To cut an extremely long story short, my cognitive dissonance on the subject is appeased by my firm position is that I am open to life. I am not intending to start a family right now, as I am attempting to put in place some things that will greatly help me to be a good parent (emotionally, mentally, spiritually, materially) who provides well. However if I find myself pregnant at any time I will be thrilled and will welcome the child into our lives with open arms. I have made an informed decision on the topic in the context of simply not living in an ideal world.

Also, there are many children out there without families. Surely their adoption shouldn't be the remit of purely those who can't have their own biological children? The choice not to reproduce but rather to adopt is surely a beautiful one that in fact mirrors God's relationship to us.

Your view is almost the same as the catholic view.

paragraph 2 above isn't accurate; if wishing to delay starting a family, the couple avoids intercourse during the fertile period, it certainly is ok to be intimate in other ways. no need to sleep on the floor.

paragragh 3, pretty much catholic with emphasis on informed choice.

paragraph 4, if you mean you would like to contracept all your life and adopt babies instead, that wouldn't be quite catholic, but I think you are thinking the right way.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

..but it is a possible consequence.... *why should that be ignored? I never said sex had to end in a pregnancy.

of course if is a possibleconsequence but it need not be a nessecary consequence.*
*

*

prinz wrote:

So what? How can they guarantee no pregnancy, ever? There are a lot of things I'd love to do and not have to worry about the possible consequences that doesn't mean those possible consequences cease to exist just because they are inconvenient to me.

Of course there is no guarantee, nit o am sure you will agree that contraception is better at preventing pregnancy than no contraception. Please remember that until fairly recently a man pretty much was entitled to sex off his wife when he wanted. This was part of the marriage contract and was protected in law by the marital rape exemption. It would not matter how well a woman tracked her cycle, whether or not to have sex was not something she really had control over, on a lot of cases.*

You really have to ask why an organisation would, on the one hand say that contraception is wrong, and on the other that the man was entitled to sex when he wanted. It is almost as if they want the women on a near constant state of pregnancy.*

MrP

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

And this notion stems from..My own focus hasn't been on this but since you've mentioned it a half dozen times it might be worth asking you more about it. You seem to be under the impression that eg: Martin Luther is the equivilent of a Pope for me. That in straying from what he might have thought I am straying from my version of the one true flock.

That isn't how I view the body of Christ. The body of Christ consists of imperfect men who get it right and get it wrong (wasn't it Luther who suggested Revelation has no place in the Bible). It isn't a monolithic entity like Catholicism who sets the direction. So what if I disagree with Calvin (and the many who adhere to his teaching) on the issue of contraception - I disagree with him on TULIP as well.

This "Protestantism said then/now" approach really is a red herring. It completely overlooks the fact that men are men of their times - not necessarily better or worse informed in matters Absolute Truth than me today.

Your position is modernism. What was true then isn't necessarily true now. What was good then may not be good now. The early Christians believed that homosexuality, contraception, fornication etc... were immoral. Some people now say, ''Yes homosexuality was viewed as wrong, but we now know that homosexuality is perfectly good and harmless.'' There is no difference between yourself and the 'Christian' pro-homosexual lobby. Both positions necessarily must disassociate themselves from the constant teaching Tradition of the Catholic Church, but not only the Catholic Church, but the separated ecclesial communities until 1930.

There is little difference between contracepted sexual acts between married couples and homosexuals. Both are closed to life and both contravene the moral and natural law.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps. Although this doesn't look encouraging:

Let's assume the average failure rate with typical use is 5%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Effectiveness

http://www.indiaparenting.com/preconception/111_61/ovulation-and-fertilization.html

A woman is fertile on average 1.5 days per 30 days. Which is about 5% of the time.

That doesn't seem like a good deal. Take a drug to limit the chance of getting pregnant to 5% when your chances of getting pregnant are naturally limited to 5%



ps: The rightfull maligned Rhythm Method - which supposed women automatons who all had a 28 day cycle and who all ovulated at day 14 is the natural method you're probably thinking of. There are far more advanced ways (Fertility Awareness Method) of naturally determining when ovulation is taking place - which can be used both for contraception and getting pregnant.

If we assume the methods are used typically, the failure rate of the Fertility Awareness method is about 25%. It is on par with the withdrawal method (27%). The same goes for the rhythm method (25%). The failure rate of the COCP is 8%.

If we assume the methods are used perfectly (which is not typical), the failure rate drops to 3% for natural methods, and 0.3% for COCP (i.e. 10 times more reliable than the perfectly executed natural method, which translates to a lot more accidental pregnancies with natural contraception if we consider a population). It should also be noted that it is far more difficult to execute natural methods correctly (so much so that instructors are often needed.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

% failure rate, in other words, is not equivalent to % of fertile days in a cycle.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

An idol is something we put in the place of God. It can be food, sex, drugs, cars, shopping - whatever we use to numb our pain and to fill the void that can only be filled by God.

Whenever we turn to food (or anything else) rather than to God in prayer and sacrament to fill our void and sooth our pain, we are making idols of created things.

So far so good (although we need to assume the void and pain is through lack of God rather than through eg: hunger or tootache. Turning to God in prayer rather than eating when you need to makes an idol of prayer)

I think rather than my being preoccupied with sex would be those fixated on condoms and the pill so they can have their 'fix' of lustful sexual activity which disregards the truth and meaning of human sexuality.

See where you switch tracks without good reason. A sexual appetite is seen as lustful without any reasoning being supplied. This is poor argumentation because it requires that we simply believe you.

Sex was never meant to be an idol - it was never meant to be a blame to sooth loneliness of the existential emptiness we experience because of the fall. Only God can fill us and any attempt to use anything else to numb our pain is futile.

True

The mockery and scorn that expressing these truths on this thread only further supports the truth of what I am saying.

It could be that mockery and scorn attach to your unpreparedness to construct solid argumentation. Sermonising (which demands we simply believe you at points where you cannot actually rationalise your position) won't cut it.