'Rhythm Method' May Kill Off More Embryos Than Other Methods Of Contraception

[blutoski]

Science Daily: 'Rhythm Method' May Kill Off More Embryos Than Other Methods Of Contraception

Excerpt:
The "rhythm method" may kill off more embryos than other contraceptive methods, such as coils, morning after pills, and oral contraceptives, suggests an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

See rest at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526180749.htm

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Science Daily: 'Rhythm Method' May Kill Off More Embryos Than Other Methods Of Contraception

Excerpt:


See rest at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526180749.htm If this is true, it has very interesting implications.

My brother-in-law and sister-in-law are devout catholics who practice the rhythm method 'religiously'. They have repeatedly preached to us about the 'evil' birth control pill, and how it is effectively an abortion every month.

...Maybe I'll forward them this article. :)

[The_Fire]

Can't wait untill the vatican sees this one......

[Meffy]

Predicted Vatican response: O ye cynics! In his infinite mercy God is merely harvesting the little dears while they're still innocent. Mysterious ways, it's not our place to question, yadda etc. Or something like that.

[edit] Can blastocytes make it into Heaven? Purgatory anyway?

[blutoski]

Predicted Vatican response: O ye cynics! In his infinite mercy God is merely harvesting the little dears while they're still innocent. Mysterious ways, it's not our place to question, yadda etc. Or something like that.

[edit] Can blastocytes make it into Heaven? Purgatory anyway?

I was taught Heaven's nursery, but this is no longer canon.

[Meffy]

Hm. It does seem a bit too "Family Circus" to be considered official doctrine.

[blutoski]

Hm. It does seem a bit too "Family Circus" to be considered official doctrine.

It was, though! Until the mid-90s. I think it was canon for over a century.

[Meffy]

=>_<= Silly me. Thanks for setting me straight on that.

[blutoski]

=>_<= Silly me. Thanks for setting me straight on that.

Well, who can keep track, really? It went out in the same document as St. Christopher and about 200 other saints, and maybe another fifty canonical truths that had lost favour that week.

[UrsulaV]

I think this falls under "It's okay if God does it." After all, if he wanted one of the embryos to make it, he's omnipotent, he just goes "ZOT!" and bestows viability 'pon the little squishy.

Of course, one could then question why he doesn't just zot something past the contraceptives as well. I assume, however, that progesterone pills are like God's kryptonite or something, and in their presence, he loses his superpowers.

Hmm. Well, it's only a tough call if you think carefully about it, and I kinda doubt that anybody who thinks that God is deeply and pruriently concerned with your family planning strategy is going to.

[Meffy]

I anticipate that nuns who teach in Catholic schools will be hit with yet another batch of unanswerable "zingers" from their students. (This is not an official try for the million, just a casual prophecy.)

[Kopji]

A Catholic boss I had a long time ago told me this joke:

Q: What do you call people who practice the rhythm method?

A: Parents.

[Elind]

If this is true, it has very interesting implications.

My brother-in-law and sister-in-law are devout catholics who practice the rhythm method 'religiously'. They have repeatedly preached to us about the 'evil' birth control pill, and how it is effectively an abortion every month.

...Maybe I'll forward them this article. :)

Your brother-in-law is married to your sister-in-law? Cool catholic sect that. Is it called Mormon?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They have repeatedly preached to us about the 'evil' birth control pill, and how it is effectively an abortion every month.
Say what?

~~ Paul

[CP489]

Under the "birth control is an abortion every month" does that make a woman's period an abortion every month too? Just wondering.


If so, is God a murderer?

[thaiboxerken]

If so, is God a murderer?

I don't think christians have a problem with their god being a murderer.

[blutoski]

Under the "birth control is an abortion every month" does that make a woman's period an abortion every month too? Just wondering.


If so, is God a murderer?

No, it's not the protection of egg, but the protection of sperm and embryos. There are different rationales. Embryos are regarded by the church as people, so that just speaks for itself. Why sperm is more valuable than eggs has the historical attachment to homunculus theory, which is no longer the rationalization, so I'm not sure if they have a techncial explanation; the Vatican forbids waste of sperm for more mundane moral reasons.

[MaxHardcore]

http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/every_sperm_is_sacred.html

where can I get one of these homonculuses?

[Psi Baba]

If this is true, it has very interesting implications.

My brother-in-law and sister-in-law are devout catholics who practice the rhythm method 'religiously'. They have repeatedly preached to us about the 'evil' birth control pill, and how it is effectively an abortion every month.

...Maybe I'll forward them this article. :)
Doesn't that depend on the type of pill? The combination pill actually prevents ovulation in the first place. How can an ovum be "aborted" if it was never released from the ovary to begin with?

[I'll_buy_that]

How can there be an abortion if there is no embryo? how can it be an embryo if the egg never implants in the uterus? That's the function of the pill anyway.

[Katana]

Under the "birth control is an abortion every month" does that make a woman's period an abortion every month too? Just wondering.



No, it just makes her and everyone and anything that she touches profoundly unclean. And God forbid (literally) that a husband have sex with his wife during her period. Any children conceived from such an act will have leprosy, epilepsy, or, worse yet, will be possessed by the devil [taken from a the words of a 4th-century Archbishop].

[Psi Baba]

No, it just makes her and everyone and anything that she touches profoundly unclean. And God forbid (literally) that a husband have sex with his wife during her period. Any children conceived from such an act will have leprosy, epilepsy, or, worse yet, will be possessed by the devil [taken from a the words of a 4th-century Archbishop].
I read this post and then noticed the title under your username.

[MWare]

Actually, I would tend to think that the Church may just add this to the list of banned contraceptive practices. Thus, even more unplanned pregnancies.

[Katana]

I read this post and then noticed the title under your username.

Your point?

[brodski]

Your brother-in-law is married to your sister-in-law? Cool catholic sect that. Is it called Mormon?
If he is referring to his wife's sibling and spouse then this is perfectly legal, and very common.

[CFLarsen]

I don't think christians have a problem with their god being a murderer.
I think that goes for all religious people.

[I'll_buy_that]

if this is true, then shouldn't condoms be the only allowed birth control under the church? no way an egg can get fertilized unless god steps in and rips a hole in it.

[Katana]

if this is true, then shouldn't condoms be the only allowed birth control under the church? no way an egg can get fertilized unless god steps in and rips a hole in it.

Or you could get snipped...Ouch!

[Psi Baba]

Your point?
It's moot now, because your number of posts changed and the title field no longer says "new blood" (I was just amused by the coincidence is all).

[Katana]

It's moot now, because your number of posts changed and the title field no longer says "new blood" (I was just amused by the coincidence is all).

Ah. Fair enough. Thanks.

[Scott Haley]

If the birth control pill is an abortion every month, does that mean that female celibacy is an abortion every month also?

[Katana]

If the birth control pill is an abortion every month, does that mean that female celibacy is an abortion every month also?

No. She can't get pregnant when she is celibate (unless she goes through infertility treatments but then abortion wouldn't likely come up). To be an abortion, you at least need a fertilized egg. The Religious Right call it an abortion then. Others say that it would need to be implanted in the lining of the uterus, too.

Oh, wait. I forgot about immaculate conception. It happened once, didn't it? Oops. That's another thread.
: )

[elliotfc]

1. The Catholic Church does not promote the "rhythm method".
2. The Catholic Church does promote Natural Family Planning, which directs the couple to be abstinent *during the entire fertile period*.

Shrug, the Professor appears to be both misinformed and unnecessarily morally outraged.

-Elliot

[Katana]

1. The Catholic Church does not promote the "rhythm method".

My understanding is that "rhythm method" is the older name of natural family planning. What's yours?


2. The Catholic Church does promote Natural Family Planning, which directs the couple to be abstinent *during the entire fertile period*.


While that may be true, here's how good we are at predicting when our "fertile periods" begin and end:
1 in 4 women using NFP will get pregnant

And those are only the fertilizations that we know about. More women than these have eggs fertilized at the edges of their "fertile period", times when pregnancy is less likely to be viable. They then "pass" the embryo. Hence the article and this lovely thread.

Shrug.

[elliotfc]

My understanding is that "rhythm method" is the older name of natural family planning. What's yours?

The short version.
http://www.ccli.org/nfp
You can get more details all over the site.

While that may be true, here's how good we are at predicting when our "fertile periods" begin and end:
1 in 4 women using NFP will get pregnant

Yes, if you use it incorrectly. Like if you use a condom incorrectly, or, if you forget to take the pill for a few days.

And those are only the fertilizations that we know about. More women than these have eggs fertilized at the edges of their "fertile period", times when pregnancy is less likely to be viable. They then "pass" the embryo. Hence the article and this lovely thread.

Shrug.

My points were that NFP is not the Rhythm Method, and that the good Professor is morally outraged unnecessarily. If the good Professor is against the death of fertlized eggs, I'd be happy to direct him to some rosary meetings where he can talk to like minded folks.

What's his point? The Catholic Church is hypocritical? Is that his point? Or, that it is wrong for fertilized eggs to die? Is that his point?

-Elliot

[Katana]

The short version.
http://www.ccli.org/nfp
You can get more details all over the site.

Interesting. They ought to know.
I was citing the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, but I know which site patients will be looking at-the NFP site. So that's probably the one to go with.


Yes, if you use it incorrectly. Like if you use a condom incorrectly, or, if you forget to take the pill for a few days.

No. It's the difference between perfect and actual use.


What's his point? The Catholic Church is hypocritical? Is that his point? Or, that it is wrong for fertilized eggs to die? Is that his point?

No to all of the above.

The point is that, for so long, the Catholic Church has forbidden certain methods of birth control as well as abortion because they could (do in the case of abortion) lead to the loss of a fertilized egg. The idea that the method that the church recommends may do the same is merely interesting from the standpoint of the issues that it may raise for the church and those who follow its teachings/mandates (and humor to those who don't). Anticipating just what the Catholic Church says on the matter (if they choose to acknowledge this) adds to the interest value.

[blutoski]

My points were that NFP is not the Rhythm Method, and that the good Professor is morally outraged unnecessarily. If the good Professor is against the death of fertlized eggs, I'd be happy to direct him to some rosary meetings where he can talk to like minded folks.

By the looks of it, actually, according to your own citation, the NFP is your choice of the old Rythm Method (now called The Sympto-Thermal Method) OR "Ecological Breastfeeding"

The latter only applies if you've got a kid of the right age already.

So, if you're a newlywed or if its been awhile since your last kid, your one and only Catholic option is still the Rythm Method.

[elliotfc]

The point is that, for so long, the Catholic Church has forbidden certain methods of birth control as well as abortion because they could (do in the case of abortion) lead to the loss of a fertilized egg.

The Church is against artificial birth control, or contraception. The Church is not against natural birth control. The Church is against artificial birth control because it is inherently immoral. If we had *zero knowledge of fertilized eggs*, the Church would still be against artificial birth control. It's also true that some methods of birth control lead to the destruction of fertilized eggs. That makes it even more immoral. But it already is immoral.

Artificial birth control severs the ultimate purpose of the sexual act. That is why the Church says it is immoral.

The idea that the method that the church recommends may do the same is merely interesting from the standpoint of the issues that it may raise for the church and those who follow its teachings/mandates (and humor to those who don't). Anticipating just what the Catholic Church says on the matter (if they choose to acknowledge this) adds to the interest value.

Yes, I agree that many people are very interested in what the Church teaches.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

By the looks of it, actually, according to your own citation, the NFP is your choice of the old Rythm Method (now called The Sympto-Thermal Method) OR "Ecological Breastfeeding"

It has evolved. It isn't the same as the rhythm method, but I can't force you to believe that. Believe whatever you want. It really doesn't matter I guess.

-Elliot

[Katana]

The Church is against artificial birth control, or contraception. The Church is not against natural birth control. The Church is against artificial birth control because it is inherently immoral. If we had *zero knowledge of fertilized eggs*, the Church would still be against artificial birth control. It's also true that some methods of birth control lead to the destruction of fertilized eggs. That makes it even more immoral. But it already is immoral.

This thread was started because a study has suggested that natural family planning contributes to the loss of fertilized eggs, perhaps even more so than "artificial" methods. Given your assertion that the destruction of fertilized eggs adds to the immorality of an artifical birth control method, is that amount of immorality added to a method deemed morally acceptable (NFP) sufficient to warrant a switch in the position of the church?

[elliotfc]

This thread was started because a study has suggested that natural family planning contributes to the loss of fertilized eggs, perhaps even more so than "artificial" methods. Given your assertion that the destruction of fertilized eggs adds to the immorality of an artifical birth control method, is that amount of immorality added to a method deemed morally acceptable (NFP) sufficient to warrant a switch in the position of the church?

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The study DOES NOT MENTION NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING.

-Elliot

[Katana]

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The study DOES NOT MENTION NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING.

-Elliot

You're right. I slipped back into using NFP as a synonym for the rhythm method.

Having just read a bit about NFP, I understand the distinction a bit better. Proponents of NFP claim lower rates of pregnancies than seen with the rhythm method, so, presumably, the article's claims of massive numbers of embryos being lost may be a stretch. However, the fertilization and loss of the embryo will still occur using the NFP techniques for the same reason that they do with the rhythm method. Just less often.

Artificial contraception works to prevent the egg & sperm from meeting or by rendering the uterus an inhospitable environment for an embryo's implantation. In its attempts to avoid the "fertile" portion of the menstrual cycle, NFP is doing the same thing. Ideally, sperm & egg don't meet, but, if they do, conditions for the fertilized egg will be suboptimal, increasing the likelihood of embryonic loss.

Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae: "...we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth."

If you don't feel that NFP is a direct interruption, I would argue that neither are artificial contraceptive methods with the one exception possibly being IUDs. So why are birth control pills, for example, not acceptable? Because they violate the sanctity of the marriage act? Then I don't understand, based on the following comments, how the Catholic Church can support NFP?

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399).

Pope Pius XI: "...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and that those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of grave sin."

[elliotfc]

Having just read a bit about NFP, I understand the distinction a bit better. Proponents of NFP claim lower rates of pregnancies than seen with the rhythm method, so, presumably, the article's claims of massive numbers of embryos being lost may be a stretch. However, the fertilization and loss of the embryo will still occur using the NFP techniques for the same reason that they do with the rhythm method. Just less often.

I dunno. Check this link.

http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/32/6/355

Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae: "...we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth."

If you don't feel that NFP is a direct interruption, I would argue that neither are artificial contraceptive methods with the one exception possibly being IUDs.

NFP involves a couple deciding when to have sex, and when not to have sex. I don't know what direct interruption has to do with two people talking to each other and planning a sexual relationship, without the use of man-made barriers or devices.

So why are birth control pills, for example, not acceptable? Because they violate the sanctity of the marriage act? Then I don't understand, based on the following comments, how the Catholic Church can support NFP?

Here's a few links, if you don't mind me sharing:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html
http://www.silentvoices.org/naturalfamilyplanning.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRACTNFP.HTM

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399).

Pope Pius XI: "...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and that those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of grave sin."

I agree that if NFP is used solely for the purpose of permanently avoiding pregnancy, and that the couple is completely against conception, in that case it is wrong. Of course it can be misused.

-Elliot

[blutoski]

It has evolved. It isn't the same as the rhythm method, but I can't force you to believe that. Believe whatever you want. It really doesn't matter I guess.

It matters very much! I still teach Cathecism from time to time.

NFP includes two elements: Fertility Awareness and Lactational Amenorrhea Method. The latter only works if you've been pregnant recently.

Rhythm Method is the older version of what became Fertility Awareness, where the woman monitored physical symptoms and charted out her 28-day cycle so they couple could know which days in the cycle were fertile, and could choose to abstain.

Modern Fertility Awareness jettisons the assumption of a 28-day cycle, and encourages couples to monitor symptoms daily. That's the only difference.

They both have high failure rates when followed perfectly (9% for RM, 1-3% for NFP), because the problem is that the physical symptoms - identical in both strategies (body temperature, mucous, &c) - do not reliably indicate fertility.

Both are used for either pregnancy avoidance (abstain during fertile periods), or pregnancy attempts (focus sexual activity on fertile periods).



It should be pointed out that while RM is 'obsolete', it is not at all forbidden, and according to a 2001 Vatican survey, it is the exclusive method of choice for hundreds of millions of practicing Catholics who are of childbearing age. Probably the most used non-mechanical, non-hormonal, in fact, and is still taught to new couples all over the world.

[RSLancastr]

By the looks of it, actually, according to your own citation, the NFP is your choice of the old Rythm Method (now called The Sympto-Thermal Method) OR "Ecological Breastfeeding"Speaking of "Ecological Breastfeeding"...



After the birth of our first child, my then-wife (raised Catholic) convinced me that this would keep us from conceiving a second child for a while.

Our second child was born eleven months after our first.

[elliotfc]

Speaking of "Ecological Breastfeeding"...



After the birth of our first child, my then-wife (raised Catholic) convinced me that this would keep us from conceiving a second child for a while.

Our second child was born eleven months after our first.



You had 2 months, isn't that enough? That's like 60 days.

-Elliot

[Katana]

I dunno. Check this link.

http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/32/6/355

I admit the argument involves some leaps. At least one of the critics made the distinction between artificially rendering the uterus inhospitable and taking advantage of the natural conditions that lessen the likelihood of pregnancy, being suboptimal (I'm paraphrasing). So it's about active vs active-passive pregnancy avoidance?


NFP involves a couple deciding when to have sex, and when not to have sex. I don't know what direct interruption has to do with two people talking to each other and planning a sexual relationship, without the use of man-made barriers or devices.


How is a man-made barrier (and I assume you mean condom) a direct interruption of the "generative process already begun"?


Here's a few links, if you don't mind me sharing:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html
http://www.silentvoices.org/naturalfamilyplanning.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRACTNFP.HTM
I agree that if NFP is used solely for the purpose of permanently avoiding pregnancy, and that the couple is completely against conception, in that case it is wrong. Of course it can be misused.

-Elliot

So it's what's in your head when you have sex that matters! Basically, you'd better not really not want a pregnancy.

[elliotfc]

How is a man-made barrier (and I assume you mean condom) a direct interruption of the "generative process already begun"?

I dunno. I don't think I actually appreciate the phrase you quote, tell you the truth. I wouldn't use that phraseology, but there it is.

So it's what's in your head when you have sex that matters! Basically, you'd better not really not want a pregnancy.

Sex is a procreative act, morally. But it is not always procreative in practice. NFP recognizes that. Artifical devices seek to make that distinction irrelevant.

-Elliot

[HeavyAaron]

If he is referring to his wife's sibling and spouse then this is perfectly legal, and very common.

My brother may very well marry my sister-in-law. If that happens, are you saying that I can refer to my brother as my brother-in-law?

Aaron

[Katana]

I dunno. I don't think I actually appreciate the phrase you quote, tell you the truth. I wouldn't use that phraseology, but there it is.

The Pope did.

Sex is a procreative act, morally. But it is not always procreative in practice. NFP recognizes that. Artifical devices seek to make that distinction irrelevant.

-Elliot
This is what I don't get. Isn't NFP taking the procreative aspect out of it, as well (assuming you're trying to avoid pregnancy rather than using NFP to get pregnant)?

[elliotfc]

This is what I don't get. Isn't NFP taking the procreative aspect out of it, as well (assuming you're trying to avoid pregnancy rather than using NFP to get pregnant)?

Out of what? Out of sex during infertile periods?

-Elliot

[Katana]

What I said: This is what I don't get. Isn't NFP taking the procreative aspect out of it, as well (assuming you're trying to avoid pregnancy rather than using NFP to get pregnant)?

Out of what? Out of sex during infertile periods?

-Elliot

The act.

One of the objections of the Catholic Church to artificial birth control is that sex should be an act committed by husband and wife for the purpose of procreation.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370)
(my bold)

NFP is a method endorsed by the Catholic Church as a method for married couples to avoid having children but still have sex. How are these distinctions made?

[I'll_buy_that]

...Sex is a procreative act, morally. But it is not always procreative in practice. NFP recognizes that. Artifical devices seek to make that distinction irrelevant.

-Elliot

you seem to be arguing semantics. if in using NFP, you are trying to avoid pregnancy, then what does it matter if you take the extra precaution of using a condom? you are trying to avoid pregnancy, otherwise just have sex whenever and don't track fertility cycles.

[elliotfc]

What I said: This is what I don't get. Isn't NFP taking the procreative aspect out of it, as well (assuming you're trying to avoid pregnancy rather than using NFP to get pregnant)?

I disagree. Choosing to abstain from sex is merely recognizing the design of the conjugal act and acting in a self-regulatory way. It doesn't take the procreative act out of sex during "fertile" periods. Instead, it just does not initiate such an act. By not acting you are not essentially changing the nature of sex.

One of the objections of the Catholic Church to artificial birth control is that sex should be an act committed by husband and wife for the purpose of procreation.

Yeah, but a woman is not always fertile, so that isn't actually true. It can be an act committed by a husband and wife for the purpose of procreation. If the woman is post-menopausal, that is no longer possible. I mean, I kind of get what you're saying...and sex is primarily intended for reproduction, but that is limited both in an approximately monthly period during fertility, and completely limited during the barren years. The barren years.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370)
(my bold)

Well yeah...I guess you can extend that a million ways. Forbidding girls in their early teens from having sex also renders procreation impossible. I think they mean that very specifically, but you're welcome to your opinion.

NFP is a method endorsed by the Catholic Church as a method for married couples to avoid having children but still have sex. How are these distinctions made?

It's an alternative to artifical birth control which does not respect the natural cycles of women. Heck I don't practice NFP, nor will I probably ever (theoretically)...I guess you need a woman involved as well...I'm not an advocate of it or anything. I think it's a huge stretch to say it's commensurate to other forms of birth control. Or that it goes against Catholic teaching.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

you seem to be arguing semantics. if in using NFP, you are trying to avoid pregnancy, then what does it matter if you take the extra precaution of using a condom?

Because, in NFP, the point is to be aware of fertile and infertile periods. This is using our faculties, our knowledge, our judgment, our ability to talk to each other, etc. This is not an impediment of nature. Using a condom is an impediment of nature. It is a *barrier*, no? It has the direct purpose of getting in the way. Literally, too. If a conjugal act occurs during an infertile period there is no getting in the way of a natural process. Sex is natural. An infertile period is natural. A condom is not natural.

I do agree that it does not matter to you.

you are trying to avoid pregnancy, otherwise just have sex whenever and don't track fertility cycles.

There's nothing wrong with doing that either.

Essentially, NFP *is not* about just "trying to avoid pregnancy". If it was, it would be as popular as the pill I reckon.

-Elliot

[blutoski]

Essentially, NFP *is not* about just "trying to avoid pregnancy". If it was, it would be as popular as the pill I reckon.

I would wager that its low popularity is due to two factors: it is less reliable, when comparing 'theoretical proper use', and much less reliable when comparing 'actual use' (est 75% effective over one year of adherence), yet it's much, much more work (daily invasive temperature readings, reference documentation), and much more expensive (eg: core thermometers, mucous-testing kits, &c).

[elliotfc]

I would wager that its low popularity is due to two factors: it is less reliable, when comparing 'theoretical proper use', and much less reliable when comparing 'actual use' (est 75% effective over one year of adherence), yet it's much, much more work (daily invasive temperature readings, reference documentation), and much more expensive (eg: core thermometers, mucous-testing kits, &c).

Right.

If the *point was to avoid pregnancy*, NFP is a poor choice.

-Elliot

[Katana]

Some of this is about semantics, agreed.

However, using condoms does no more disprect to a woman's cycle than consciously avoiding sex during her fertile time.

Avoiding sex only during her most fertile time to avoid pregnancy sounds like it does take the procreative aspect out of it. Or, let's put it this way, having sex only when she is not fertile does.

[blutoski]

If the *point was to avoid pregnancy*, NFP is a poor choice.

I think maybe that makes sense, but I think you said above that if the point was to avoid pregnancy, it would also be sinful. Is this a correct interpretation? (I know this is not the church's position, but I thought you were suggesting this earlier as a personal opinion)

[I'll_buy_that]

I think it's kind'a weird to be following my wife's cycle so closely. The large calendar on my bedroom wall with red X's on it is starting to arouse suspicion. My kids want to know if we are counting down our next Disney trip.


"..a woman breast feeds her baby consistently? she probably will not conceive for 18-24 months. " this doesn't sound like a good method to me. And what about women who work out side of the home? they can't breastfeed as consitently as needed for this to work at all. Should women stay home barefoot and pregnant to make god happy?

[I'll_buy_that]

"With Natural Family Planning, couples keep their covenant of life and love intact. They use only the means given to them by God, which are intrinsic to who they are. In expressing their marital love, they are mindful that this action not only unites them as husband and wife, but also may participate in God's creative love. "

WHAT! :eek: :eek: :eek: This crap can only be written by someone who is or was never and never intends to be married.

[I'll_buy_that]

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I can't stand this....

"With artificial birth control, where the couple has everything nicely planned and is in control, the surprise pregnancy oftentimes spells disaster. Remember that one of the arguments for legalized abortion is to correct "unplanned pregnancies."

and NFP doesn't have "unplanned pregnancies?" and why does it spell disaster in one instance and not another if the intent was the same. I don't get it.

[elliotfc]

Some of this is about semantics, agreed.

However, using condoms does no more disprect to a woman's cycle than consciously avoiding sex during her fertile time.

Ummm...it depends on what level you understand it. Does the woman's cycle take it personally? I guess not. How about the other way around? Does a condom personally disrepsect the woman's cycle? I guess not. But let's say the condom *did* have an opinion...I think it would be something like "woman's cycle? it doesn't matter."

Then there's the Catholic perspective which I don't think I need to give.

Avoiding sex only during her most fertile time to avoid pregnancy sounds like it does take the procreative aspect out of it. Or, let's put it this way, having sex only when she is not fertile does.

It takes the procreative aspect out of what? Be specific. Sex? Meaning...the woman's cycle is suddently aware that the couple is using NFP, and thus does what it can to not allow pregnancy to happen? Are you saying that something the couple *does* makes the sex act more procreative, or less procreative?

If I have sex with a woman during her fertile period, that mere fact does not make the act anything different than it would be if I...knew it was a fertile period...didn't know it was a fertile period...and the other way around. This is a question of knowledge, not changing any active of the chosen activity.

And I'll reitereate...condoms make this all irrelevant.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I think maybe that makes sense, but I think you said above that if the point was to avoid pregnancy, it would also be sinful.

I don't think there's anything sinful if a couple decides they want to decrease, substantially, the possibility of pregnancy for a fixed amount of time (1 or 2 years?) by educating themselves and making choices about when to have sex, or when not to have sex. I think there is something sinful if a couple gets married with the understanding that they will never have children, and use NFP to make that happen.

Is this a correct interpretation? (I know this is not the church's position, but I thought you were suggesting this earlier as a personal opinion)

I think NFP practitioners would agree with my sentiments above...I can ask around...in fact I will.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I think it's kind'a weird to be following my wife's cycle so closely. The large calendar on my bedroom wall with red X's on it is starting to arouse suspicion. My kids want to know if we are counting down our next Disney trip.

Yeah...the name of the ride is Space Mountain. Assure them that it's not Brokeback Mountain.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

"With Natural Family Planning, couples keep their covenant of life and love intact. They use only the means given to them by God, which are intrinsic to who they are. In expressing their marital love, they are mindful that this action not only unites them as husband and wife, but also may participate in God's creative love. "

WHAT! :eek: :eek: :eek: This crap can only be written by someone who is or was never and never intends to be married.

I disagree, I'm practically certain the people who design and run NFP programs are lay and married. Priests and nuns and celibates are not in charge of NFP courses as advertised by the Church, it's invariably married people speaking to other married people. It might be better to question their sincerity perhaps, if you're interested in doing that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I can't stand this....

"With artificial birth control, where the couple has everything nicely planned and is in control, the surprise pregnancy oftentimes spells disaster. Remember that one of the arguments for legalized abortion is to correct "unplanned pregnancies."

and NFP doesn't have "unplanned pregnancies?" and why does it spell disaster in one instance and not another if the intent was the same. I don't get it.

No, NFP does have unplanned pregnancies. The vast majority of pregnancies, throughout the world's history, have been unplanned pregnancies.

It doesn't spell disaster in one instance, and not the other. It the first instance, abortion *exists*. That's one of the main reasons for abortion. To avoid disaster. Do NFP couples get thee to abortion clinics if pregnancy occurs? I don't think they do, I think in using NFP they have more respect for the Church's teaching, and then would go quadruple for abortion.

You most likely *don't* get it. I don't practice NFP, go to your local church and get the phone number of the couples who are involved in NFP instruction.

-Elliot

[Morrigan]

It takes the procreative aspect out of what? Be specific. Sex? Meaning...the woman's cycle is suddently aware that the couple is using NFP, and thus does what it can to not allow pregnancy to happen? Are you saying that something the couple *does* makes the sex act more procreative, or less procreative?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Katana said that having sex ONLY when the woman is NOT fertile takes the procreation aspect out of the sex act. And it's true, really. It's the same desire for sex including an avoidance of pregnancy, just with another method. And if there mere avoidance of pregnancy, or taking the procreation aspect out of sex, is sinful, then it follows NFP or rhythm methods are also sinful.

[elliotfc]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Katana said that having sex ONLY when the woman is NOT fertile takes the procreation aspect out of the sex act.

Out of the particular sex act? No, the sex act is already basically non-procreative, because you're doing it during a non-fertile time.

This is different from using a condom, in which instance fertile time, non-fertile time is irrelevant.

I don't think I'm being obtuse. If I am, please accept my assertion that it is non-deliberate.

And it's true, really. It's the same desire for sex including an avoidance of pregnancy, just with another method. And if there mere avoidance of pregnancy, or taking the procreation aspect out of sex, is sinful, then it follows NFP or rhythm methods are also sinful.

Let's talk about desire. Let's say I desire world peace. Are their multiple ways of enacting that desire? Sure. Are some moral, and some immoral? Sure. The desire is independent of the method of action. Someone can be in court and say "my desire was good"...and that's irrelevant...it may be relevant in the sentencing phase I guess.

I don't think mere avoidance of pregancy is sinful. I think certain ways of doing that are sinful. Let's say a couple doesn't want to get pregnant for a year...and completely abstains for a year. Is that also sinful? What, are they supposed to have sex as much as possible? What's wrong with abstinence? What's wrong with periodic abstinence?

So...maybe you should tell me what the Catholic Church *ought* to teach, in order to remain consistent. If you're interested.

-Elliot

[Morrigan]

!!!! You ARE obtuse.

Of course that abstinence itself could not be called sinful according to doctrine - there isn't even any sex! The point is that IF taking the procreation aspect out of sex is sinful, THEN having sex for pleasure only, which is what NFP does by deliberatingly avoiding pregnancy, is inherently sinful.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

[elliotfc]

!!!! You ARE obtuse.

Most girls tell me I'm acute. :(

The point is that IF taking the procreation aspect out of sex is sinful,

How can you take the procreation aspect out of sex during non-fertile times? Blame God for that one, add that to the lengthy list.

THEN having sex for pleasure only, which is what NFP does by deliberatingly avoiding pregnancy, is inherently sinful.

Everytime someone has sex during infertile periods...is that for pleasure only? Yes, sex is pleasurable, and yes, it is meant to be a unificative act where the couple expresses mutual love.

I think the church would say that it is inherently sinful if a couple gets married and never has sex during so called fertile times. Most couples who use NFP already have children. *NFP*, by itself, does not deliberately avoid anything. It just gives knowledge and awareness.

I've already said that couples can use NFP in a sinful way. The Chuch says that NFP can also be used in a non-sinful way. I'm sorry you think that is false. Maybe you can start a petition. What, you want more sins added to the list? Good luck convincing Catholics on that one.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

You're telling me that something the Church says isn't sinful, ought to be sinful (or is sinful and should be declared simple). I grasp that. Do I agree with you? No. What's wrong if a married couple wants to go a couple years, having sex only during non-fertile times? I don't think that is sinful, and I'm sorry that you do. You Fundies, always trying to make us feel guilty, always telling us that we are sinners, always cramming your morality down our throats. I'm sick of it! Go preach your message of sin somewhere else. Bwah hah.

-Elliot

[Morrigan]

....You don't -seriously- believe that *I* think it's sinful, do you?

[elliotfc]

....You don't -seriously- believe that *I* think it's sinful, do you?

No. You just think we should have more sins than we already do. Why? Why? Why?

-Elliot

[blutoski]

I don't think there's anything sinful if a couple decides they want to decrease, substantially, the possibility of pregnancy for a fixed amount of time (1 or 2 years?) by educating themselves and making choices about when to have sex, or when not to have sex. I think there is something sinful if a couple gets married with the understanding that they will never have children, and use NFP to make that happen.

Well, I think we're pretty safe, then. I could probably count these people on one hand. The ones who don't want to have children get 'fixed'.

Also: I have friends who married with the intention of not having children. Is this, in itself, sinful?



I think NFP practitioners would agree with my sentiments above...I can ask around...in fact I will.

Probably, although the links you provided were interesting in that every editorialist had a different set of reasons, often contradicting one another. My impression is that the Vatican has a solid line against mechanical/hormonal contraception, but is so utterly vague about the rationale that everybody just obeys and invents some reasons of their own, because no rational reason has been provided.

This is probably intentional, because it provides wiggle-room for future findings like the one that started this thread: if it turns out to be true, they'll just say that the point isn't to save embryos after all, but was to (insert something about respecting women - from a nation that denies women citizenship, and Catholics are supposed to swallow it)


For example, one of the editorials you provided said that the reason NFP was acceptable was that it was unreliable. (OK: what he literally said was that it "...doesn't shut the door completely on the chance of early pregnancy when being used with the intention of postponing." By 'early' pregnancy, he means 'unwanted,' of course.)

[blutoski]

I've already said that couples can use NFP in a sinful way. The Chuch says that NFP can also be used in a non-sinful way. I'm sorry you think that is false. Maybe you can start a petition. What, you want more sins added to the list? Good luck convincing Catholics on that one.

I think what the poster, and the rest of the world, are seeking is some kind of consistency. The pronouncements are without underlying logic, interpretations contradict one another, and all we're left with is confusion. That postponing pregnancy for 2 years using the unreliable NFP is acceptable, but having and raising 5 good Catholic kids and getting a tubal ligation is 'an unforgivable sin' is utterly incomprehensible.

As you may be aware, Canada is probably 2/3 Catholic (of those who are religious) and when it comes to First Nations, probably 85% Catholic. These communities also have the highest rate of child abandonment, child abuse, and adoption donation. It is not a coincidence. Knowing this, a friend of mine from elementary school married her husband twenty years ago, and they have foster-parented over thirty abandoned first nations kids. They adopted five who were young enough. This was their plan, and they are both surgically altered with tubal ligation and vasectomy. According to the Vatican, cleaning up the Church's mess means they're terrible sinners, bound for hell. As it happens, they left the church, and raise the kids as atheists.

This is why people on this list are honestly confused: is the Church this utterly immoral? Why do people stay when the Church's view of morality is so bizzarre? And when explanations ("it's more respectful of women") are so transparently phony and laughable?


So, to summarize, nobody's arguing for more sins. They just want the Church's sins to be caused by doing actual 'bad' things.

[elliotfc]

Also: I have friends who married with the intention of not having children. Is this, in itself, sinful?

I think so...without knowing them, or every detail. Maybe. Probably.

My impression is that the Vatican has a solid line against mechanical/hormonal contraception, but is so utterly vague about the rationale that everybody just obeys and invents some reasons of their own, because no rational reason has been provided.

Not even in Humanae/Evangelium Vitae?
from EV...
"Such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment...The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception."

The above is *certainly* a rationale. Is it rational? We can disagree about that I guess.

For example, one of the editorials you provided said that the reason NFP was acceptable was that it was unreliable. (OK: what he literally said was that it "...doesn't shut the door completely on the chance of early pregnancy when being used with the intention of postponing." By 'early' pregnancy, he means 'unwanted,' of course.)

I agree that this is a fuzzy issue, I've already done that by admitting that sometimes NFP can be *used* sinfully, and sometimes not.

-Elliot

[blutoski]

Not even in Humanae/Evangelium Vitae?
from EV...
"Such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment...The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception."

The above is *certainly* a rationale. Is it rational? We can disagree about that I guess.

True, it's a rationale. This is gibberish, and vague. Are we supposed to have kids until destitute? Isn't using contraception "accepting responsibility," whereas the traditional Catholic role of cranking out kids and giving them up to adoption is just institutionalized irresponsibility?

Also: this passage doesn't speak to me about why NFP is 'moral', but condoms are 'sinful'. I think they both work within this moral framework. The prioritization of NFP contains a mix of weasel-words like 'natural' and 'respects women', which are empty of real meaning and even hypocritical.

("hypocritical"? OK eg: a few years ago, one excuse they came up with for not worrying about unchecked population growth is that the ocean can be covered with plankton farms, and we could live on that, given the benefits of genetic engineering - so much for prioritizing natural solutions)

My point is that there's just no consistency.

[elliotfc]

I think what the poster, and the rest of the world, are seeking is some kind of consistency. The pronouncements are without underlying logic, interpretations contradict one another, and all we're left with is confusion.

Some people aren't confused, and I don't think most people care.

That postponing pregnancy for 2 years using the unreliable NFP is acceptable, but having and raising 5 good Catholic kids and getting a tubal ligation is 'an unforgivable sin' is utterly incomprehensible.

I don't think it's an unforgiveable sin. I do think it's a sin. I'm not perturbed that most people find that incomprehensible. I find it incomprehensible that there was once slavery in this country. I don't think whether or not something is sinful, or not, is dependent upon majority opinion regarding comprehensibility.

As you may be aware, Canada is probably 2/3 Catholic (of those who are religious) and when it comes to First Nations, probably 85% Catholic. These communities also have the highest rate of child abandonment, child abuse, and adoption donation. It is not a coincidence.

Yes, but there are also higher rates of alcoholism, poverty, chaotic family life, etc. Native Americans in the US, who are not Christian, have similar problems.

Now...you are aware that it is *unCatholic* to abandon and abuse children, right? But it happens anyways. So in these cases they could care less about the Church teaching, but they'll be *damned* if they go against the Church teaching on contraception. Is that the equation? If so, then the problem is selective following of Church teaching, and not Church teaching itself.

Knowing this, a friend of mine from elementary school married her husband twenty years ago, and they have foster-parented over thirty abandoned first nations kids. They adopted five who were young enough. This was their plan, and they are both surgically altered with tubal ligation and vasectomy. According to the Vatican, cleaning up the Church's mess means they're terrible sinners, bound for hell. As it happens, they left the church, and raise the kids as atheists.

I don't think they are terrible sinners bound for hell, and I don't think the Vatican does either.

This is why people on this list are honestly confused: is the Church this utterly immoral?

Immoral in that they apparently decree that certain people are terrible sinners bound for hell? Or in another way do you mean immoral?

Why do people stay when the Church's view of morality is so bizzarre?

Because it isn't bizarre. I agree that some think it is. I think lots of things are bizarre meself, and others disagree with me, and that's fine too.

And when explanations ("it's more respectful of women") are so transparently phony and laughable?

Lots of women will disagree with you on this. Yeah, I suppose secular society has contempt for the Catholic Church. Oh well.

So, to summarize, nobody's arguing for more sins. They just want the Church's sins to be caused by doing actual 'bad' things.

I see what you're saying. But the Church is also worried about people's spiritual welfare, that there is also something actual about or spirituality. Of course I don't expect people in this forum to accept that, so I do see what you're saying. The Church is on a different level.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

True, it's a rationale. This is gibberish, and vague. Are we supposed to have kids until destitute?

No, which is why the church has never condemned the rhythm method, and obviously doesn't condemn NFP.

Isn't using contraception "accepting responsibility," whereas the traditional Catholic role of cranking out kids and giving them up to adoption is just institutionalized irresponsibility?

Traditional...meaning...most Catholics who have ever existed have given kids up to adoption? I think that's a steretyped role. Yes of course you know people in this role, I know.

In a few senses, contraception is accepting responsibility, but the Church isn't the dispenser of secular morality. In a secular sense, you are correct...actually I don't think so, but I'll concede that because I'm not a secularist so my opinions probably don't mean much.

Also: this passage doesn't speak to me about why NFP is 'moral', but condoms are 'sinful'.

Right. I've suggested, or I think stated before, that NFP respect a woman's fertility, and condoms don't. Condoms will interfere with a woman's fertile period, and NFP won't. NFP will recognize it. Will you get this in a papal encyclical? I don't think you will. All I can say is that papal encyclicals have condemend articial contraception, and have not condemned the rhythm method and NFP.

I think they both work within this moral framework. The prioritization of NFP contains a mix of weasel-words like 'natural' and 'respects women', which are empty of real meaning and even hypocritical.

I don't know how to respond to that, so I won't. They have real meaning to the people who use NFP, and that will be enough. No, I don't expect people who don't find meaning in those terms to use NFP.

My point is that there's just no consistency.

In papal encyclicals? I disagree. There apparently isn't the direct support of NFP that you would want, but I don't find that problematic.

-Elliot

[blutoski]

Some people aren't confused, and I don't think most people care.

Millions do. That's why the Church is shrinking.



I don't think it's an unforgiveable sin. I do think it's a sin. I'm not perturbed that most people find that incomprehensible. I find it incomprehensible that there was once slavery in this country. I don't think whether or not something is sinful, or not, is dependent upon majority opinion regarding comprehensibility.

The Church thinks it's a sin. That's my point. I find it uncomprehensible.



Yes, but there are also higher rates of alcoholism, poverty, chaotic family life, etc. Native Americans in the US, who are not Christian, have similar problems.

Now...you are aware that it is *unCatholic* to abandon and abuse children, right? But it happens anyways. So in these cases they could care less about the Church teaching, but they'll be *damned* if they go against the Church teaching on contraception. Is that the equation? If so, then the problem is selective following of Church teaching, and not Church teaching itself.

Well, the problem is when a dictat goes against human nature, and the dictator is unwilling to take responsibility for its repurcussions. Let's focus on the adoption issue, then: why is this 'being responsible?' Be mindful that even in the US, the majority of adoption agencies were run by the Catholic church specifically because they were the ones with the big outflow. Estimates are that in the 1960s, Catholics had, and gave up for adoption through Catholic-run adoption agencies, over 11 million unwanted children.

That statistic has dropped dramatically in the last 30 years for three reasons: 1) there are fewer Catholics, 2) Catholics are using mechanical/hormonal contraception, and 3) social services make it easier to keep unexpected children




I don't think they are terrible sinners bound for hell, and I don't think the Vatican does either.

Yes, the Vatican is pretty clear on this. They got surgical contraception, and were not penitent. The Church's line on this is that they are damned. As it happens, we have (had) the same priest, and this is a common topic for mass.




Immoral in that they apparently decree that certain people are terrible sinners bound for hell? Or in another way do you mean immoral?

Immoral in that they enforce policies that are immoral, or manipulate people to their own ends. eg: have more catholic babies, so the Vatican can get more gold-encrusted baubles.



Lots of women will disagree with you on this. Yeah, I suppose secular society has contempt for the Catholic Church. Oh well.

That shrug is a big one, though. Forecasts are that fifty years from now, at this rate, the Catholic church may be 100 million strong if it's lucky. The morality of the church has caught up with the real world before: they stopped skinning people alive (Hypatia), and moved on to just burning them at the stake (Inquisition). Finally, they stopped even doing that. Now, they have more moral lessons to learn, and if they want to survive, they'll have to grow up some more.



I see what you're saying. But the Church is also worried about people's spiritual welfare, that there is also something actual about or [sic] spirituality. Of course I don't expect people in this forum to accept that, so I do see what you're saying. The Church is on a different level.

Then they should say that. This is what I mean about the declarations being vague: they can't win the moral argument face-to-face with a knowledgeable critic, so they switch to the medical argument about embryos. When the embryo angle fizzles (this thread), they're on to respecting women, which nobody buys, so they find some other reason next week. It looks like what it is: they made a bad decision, and have spent ten generations fobbing out excuses. Their apologists are contradicting themselves, because there's no solid, consistent, reasoning behind the dictat.

Shoot: the church used to endorse first and second-trimester abortions, for Pete's sake (or, more specifically, I guess I should have said, "for St. Thomas' sake"). The church can change when they find themselves totally out of step with morality. They've just dug in their heels about this one because it would be too embarassing to change their tune after all these years of excommunicating and vilifying dissenters.

Edited to fix an attribution. I had quoted elliotfc without enclosing it in quotes.

[bignickel]

It may be a little late to step in here with this, but:

How can sex between consenting adults have anything whatsoever to do with morality?

[elliotfc]

Millions do. That's why the Church is shrinking.

The Church is shrinking in Europe, and a wee bit in South America. Is it because of the Church's teaching on sex/birth control? Sure. Why not. If people accept or based religion based on how they instruct us sex/birth control, that's up to them. I wouldn't have it any other way. Why should I care if the Church is shrinking? People have free will, and I say any disgruntled Catholic should find another church. There are many Christian denominations who do not condemn the Pill or condoms, they can go to those churches.

The Church thinks it's a sin. That's my point. I find it uncomprehensible.

And I can comprehend it. Comprehension in innumerable matters varies by the individual. I'm sure there are things that you can comprehend that I can't comprehend. Like I can't comprehend why anyone would want to blow into a musical instrument, but maybe you can.

Well, the problem is when a dictat goes against human nature, and the dictator is unwilling to take responsibility for its repurcussions.

Bwah. And the Pill doesn't go against human nature? This is too much. bwah hah. Is it human nature to want to put latex around your penis? No, lemme guess, it's human nature to want to avoid pregnancy. Yeah, that's it. What did I leave out, keep 'em coming.

Let's focus on the adoption issue, then: why is this 'being responsible?' Be mindful that even in the US, the majority of adoption agencies were run by the Catholic church specifically because they were the ones with the big outflow. Estimates are that in the 1960s, Catholics had, and gave up for adoption through Catholic-run adoption agencies, over 11 million unwanted children. That statistic has dropped dramatically in the last 30 years for three reasons: 1) there are fewer Catholics, 2) Catholics are using mechanical/hormonal contraception, and 3) social services make it easier to keep unexpected children.

I don't know what to say. Better that these human beings, given up for adoption, never game into existence in the first place? I'm not questioning your stats, but I would like to read into this, if you can drop me some links or something.

Yes, the Vatican is pretty clear on this. They got surgical contraception, and were not penitent. The Church's line on this is that they are damned. As it happens, we have (had) the same priest, and this is a common topic for mass.

I disagree. Give me the document, or notice, that the Church gave them declaring them damned. Are you saying the priest is damning them? Then that's on him.

Immoral in that they enforce policies that are immoral, or manipulate people to their own ends. eg: have more catholic babies, so the Vatican can get more gold-encrusted baubles.

I don't think you understand at all. They only have 982 gold-encrusted baubles. I don't see how any sensible person can think that is too many. If they had over 2000, that would be different.

Your morality is different from the Catholic Church, I coulda guessed this before we started this discussion.

That shrug is a big one, though. Forecasts are that fifty years from now, at this rate, the Catholic church may be 100 million strong if it's lucky.

I think that's an absolutely daft forecast. But if you're right, DO YOU THINK THAT'S A BAD THING? Just curious. Survival of the fittest! If the Church's ideas truly suck, and any sensible person could figger that out, the Church will die, the Church will wither, and why don't you just allow that to happen then. Unless you think the Church is good, and ought to prosper. I reject the daft forecast, so I won't join you in the fight to make the Church better so that it can survive as 1 billion (and growing. And it is growing. Really.).

The morality of the church has caught up with the real world before: they stopped skinning people alive (Hypatia), and moved on to just burning them at the stake (Inquisition). Finally, they stopped even doing that. Now, they have more moral lessons to learn, and if they want to survive, they'll have to grow up some more.

OK. Either they will, or they won't. If they do, you can back off the Church bashing then. If they don't, there won't be anything to bash. What's the big deal?

Then they should say that. This is what I mean about the declarations being vague: they can't win the moral argument face-to-face with a knowledgeable critic, so they switch to the medical argument about embryos.

I hardly think they care about face-to-face moral arguments with knowledgeable critics. And you're ignoring all the moral types who are quite content with the declarations, and don't find them vague.

When the embryo angle fizzles (this thread), they're on to respecting women, which nobody buys, so they find some other reason next week.

Wrong, many women feel the Church respects women more than secular society. Such absolute declarations just reveal your general contempt for the Church and its followers, and I'm losing my interest in conversing with you as this becomes more and more manifest as you lose patience with me. I liked you better when you kept your dogmatic biased judgments to yourself.

It looks like what it is: they made a bad decision, and have spent ten generations fobbing out excuses. Their apologists are contradicting themselves, because there's no solid, consistent, reasoning behind the dictat.

Yeah, you keep saying that. If you say it 50 more times, maybe I'll agree with you. Give it a shot, this thread is only 2 and a bit pages long.

Shoot: the church used to endorse first and second-trimester abortions, for Pete's sake (or, more specifically, I guess I should have said, "for St. Thomas' sake"). The church can change when they find themselves totally out of step with morality. They've just dug in their heels about this one because it would be too embarassing to change their tune after all these years of excommunicating and vilifying dissenters.

Light a candle, say a prayer. I must admit I admire that you wish the Church to be better so it can continue to be successful and build more gold baubles.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

It may be a little late to step in here with this, but:

How can sex between consenting adults have anything whatsoever to do with morality?


Right and wrong is not necessarily determined by individual consent. It can be, but it does not have to be. Now...*SECULAR MORALITY* declares that, particularly in sex, all sexual activity between consenting adults is completely liberated from other moralities. If you were to add the word secular before morality in your question, I would say your question is irrelevant, and you have nothing to worry about.

-Elliot

[bignickel]

Right and wrong is not necessarily determined by individual consent. It can be, but it does not have to be. Now...*SECULAR MORALITY* declares that, particularly in sex, all sexual activity between consenting adults is completely liberated from other moralities. If you were to add the word secular before morality in your question, I would say your question is irrelevant, and you have nothing to worry about.

-Elliot

Well, I have inadvertently drawn attention to the wrong thing in my sentence. The basic version is:
"How can sex have anything whatsoever to do with morality?"
but then someone always brings up kids and/or rape, which has nothing to do with sex, but everything to do with doing something to someone without their consent.

So, back again to my original, with the 'between consenting adults' kept in the background of the sentence: what does sex have to do with morality? There is no connection between the two, that I can see.

[Morrigan]

No. You just think we should have more sins than we already do. Why? Why? Why?

-Elliot
I did no such thing. You are either being an ass or completely and utterly dense.
I was attacking inconsistencies within the church's dogma, not asserting my own position on the matter. That you couldn't even see that is almost cute in its own sad way.

It may be a little late to step in here with this, but:

How can sex between consenting adults have anything whatsoever to do with morality?
Excellent question. I don't think you can expect any answer based in rationality, for sure.

Now...*SECULAR MORALITY* declares that, [...] If you were to add the word secular before morality in your question,
Secular morality is redundant. There is no other kind of morality. The rest is just a denial of reality.

[Aquila]

How can there be an abortion if there is no embryo? how can it be an embryo if the egg never implants in the uterus? ....

Exactly...

Isn't the main premise of the article by those "Medical Ethics" people fallacious? They claim that the rhythm method kills off embryos, when it is a method of contraception; that means it is a method of preventing embryos from being formed. What is released every month in a woman's period is an unfertilized egg plus some blood from the uterus.

Maybe the confusion started because of the word "egg". The carrier of the male reproductive material is known as sperm in humans, mammals and most other animals, and it is pollen in flowers. The carrier of he female reproductive material is known as an "ovum" in mammals, but is sometimes called (especially by non scientists) an egg. This leads to confusion, because after the union of the male and female cells the product is called a zygote then an embryo, then in mammals a fetus, and in plants it is a seed, but lay people sometimes call it an egg also.
BTW, many people also think that "fertile eggs" sold in health food stores have live chicken embryos in them (yuck). The word is fertile, not fertilized, and all the term means is that the eggs have been laid by hens who have eaten whole food and have been able to run about doing what hens do, instead of being caged. They probably are also allowed to have sex with cocks if they like, but in that case their eggs would be fertilized and produce little yellow fluffy chickens. The eggs we eat are really just a source of nourishment, mainly protein, for the potential growing chick.

Aquila, sometime biology teacher

[elliotfc]

Well, I have inadvertently drawn attention to the wrong thing in my sentence. The basic version is:
"How can sex have anything whatsoever to do with morality?"
but then someone always brings up kids and/or rape, which has nothing to do with sex, but everything to do with doing something to someone without their consent.

If rape has nothing to do with sex, but everything to do with...I guess an imposition of power over another without their consent...why not just smack them in the head a few times? If it has nothing to do with sex...WHY THE SEX? Why not something else? Why not just rip a man's/woman's clothes off and make him/her bark like a dog? Why the SEX?

You're only the 187th person I've come across with this nonsensical idea, and it gets more and more stupid every time I have to read/consider it.

Is it only about sex? Of course not. No reason to posit something preposterous to get that point across.

So, back again to my original, with the 'between consenting adults' kept in the background of the sentence: what does sex have to do with morality? There is no connection between the two, that I can see.

Right, because you are a secular moralist. Morality is, or can be, all-encompassing, and it can pass judgment on the rightness or wrongness of *ANYTHING*, regardless of consent. Two adults can consent to blow each others brains out an the exact same time, and that would be immoral by other moralities. Maybe even secular morality too, I dunno.

Does this mean sex is inherently immoral? No. I don't think any morality says that, and if one does, it sure as hell isn't very popular. Does that mean some sex can be moral, and some sex immoral? Sure. Now...you think you've pulled a pretty nifty trick...take all of the BAD SEX (like rape, molestation, bestiality) and say that it isn't sex. I don't buy it, others do. As for consent, it is a factor that can certainly be independent on whether or not a certain sexual act is judged to be immoral, or moral.

Again, anyone who feels as you do can simply tow the line and go with the secular flow. If you can't see a connection, then by all means don't. I don't have any interest in having you see a connection. I would ask that you cut out the rape doesnot equal sex bit. It's loony.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I did no such thing. You are either being an ass or completely and utterly dense.
I was attacking inconsistencies within the church's dogma, not asserting my own position on the matter. That you couldn't even see that is almost cute in its own sad way.

Right, we've been through this already, you don't think I'm acute, you think I'm obtuse. :(

Secular morality is redundant. There is no other kind of morality. The rest is just a denial of reality.

Well that settles that!

-Elliot

[bignickel]

blah blah blah
-Elliot
For all the verbage you typed, I can't seem to find the bit where you show that sex and morality have anything to do with each other. Instead, you ridicule the notion that they could NOT have anything to do with each other.

Which is not an argument, but is wholly predictable. Only the 187th person? Well, I hope we can get those numbers way up then.

I could go more into the specifics of your posts 'logic', but: why bother? I think many posters here find rape to be completely horrible, without connecting any morality to sex, but I guess you just think we're all lying to ourselves, or something. Whatever.

[elliotfc]

For all the verbage you typed, I can't seem to find the bit where you show that sex and morality have anything to do with each other.

Three things.

First, I've already said I don't care about your particular opinion about that. Your view on this matches the secular moral view, and that's fine.

Second, other extant moralities *do* connect sex and morality, and I guess you can accept that, ignore that, or explain it away as you will.

Third, I do think it's obvious that sometimes sex is immoral, and we have secular laws to deal with that...that goes beyond the consensual adults circumstance that you started this particular diversion on.

Instead, you ridicule the notion that they could NOT have anything to do with each other.

I'm ridiculing the notion that rape is not sex. Just that. Only that notion. That's it.

Which is not an argument, but is wholly predictable. Only the 187th person? Well, I hope we can get those numbers way up then.

No, there are thousands and thousands who think that way, but I haven't encountered all of them.

-Elliot

[Katana]

Been gone a while but think I'm caught up. Comments appreciated, Morrigan & Blutoski. I think that you have summed up many of my opinions on this, so I won't belabor them. I do have to respond to one of Elliot's misstatements, however.

Condoms will interfere with a woman's fertile period, and NFP won't. NFP will recognize it.

Condoms have absolutely no effect whatsoever on a woman's fertile period.

[elliotfc]

Been gone a while but think I'm caught up. Comments appreciated, Morrigan & Blutoski. I think that you have summed up many of my opinions on this, so I won't belabor them. I do have to respond to one of Elliot's misstatements, however.

Condoms have absolutely no effect whatsoever on a woman's fertile period.

Yes, good point. I alter my language then. It makes the woman's fertile period irrelevant. -Elliot

[bignickel]

Three things.

First, I've already said I don't care about your particular opinion about that. Your view on this matches the secular moral view, and that's fine.
You know, looking at the words (secular, moral, view): I know what those words mean individually, but put together, that sentence makes no sense.
Second, other extant moralities *do* connect sex and morality, and I guess you can accept that, ignore that, or explain it away as you will.
Let's switch some words, and see how this sentence comes out:
"Other 'alternative physics' *do* connect physical reality with the power of the mind, and I guess you can accept that, ignore that, or explain it away as you will."

There is only one 'morality'; I wouldn't allow someone to make a human sacrifice right in front of me just because it's 'their morality'. We can use logic and reason to talk about what's morally right and wrong; otherwise, we have an infinity of moralities, all 'equally acceptable'. That's the nasty influence of post-modernism for you.
Third, I do think it's obvious that sometimes sex is immoral, and we have secular laws to deal with that...that goes beyond the consensual adults circumstance that you started this particular diversion on.
I'm ridiculing the notion that rape is not sex. Just that. Only that notion. That's it.
Again: you state that sometimes sex is immoral, just because you include sex in an immoral context. To wit: rape. You're reasoning, if I may be so bold:
1. Rape is awful horrible and immoral.
2. In rape (typically), the man inserts his member into a woman's oriface.
3. In sex, (typically), the man inserts his member into a woman's oriface.
4. Since rape is either moral/immoral, sex is too, since something that happens during sex also happens during rape.

So, let's apply this line of reasoning elsewhere.
1. Jumping on random strangers and forcing food down their mouth is bizarre strange and immoral.
2. In eating (typically), food enters the mouth, and travels down to the stomach.
3. Since forced-mouth-stuffing is either moral/immoral, eating is too, since something that happens during eating also happens during forced-food-stuffage.

Now, you could bypass this line of reasoning completely IF you attribute some kind of SACREDNESS to the sexual act. But we all know what will happen in this thread if you do that; which is why I think you won't. But I think many of the posters on this thread, including myself, suspect that is in fact your number one reason for the link between sex and morality, but you won't allow yourself to use it.
No, there are thousands and thousands who think that way, but I haven't encountered all of them.
Our name is Legion, for we are many.

[elliotfc]

You know, looking at the words (secular, moral, view): I know what those words mean individually, but put together, that sentence makes no sense.

Well I'm sorry for that then.

There is only one 'morality'; I wouldn't allow someone to make a human sacrifice right in front of me just because it's 'their morality'.

Because that would go against your morality, and not theirs.

I think morality is a very useful word. I think there are good moralities and bad moralities. When human sacrifice *was* accepted...that was the morality of the time, agreed? You recognize that to be a bad morality, so you wouldn't accept it today.

We can use logic and reason to talk about what's morally right and wrong; otherwise, we have an infinity of moralities, all 'equally acceptable'. That's the nasty influence of post-modernism for you.

I reject that they are equally acceptable! That's why we can attach labels to the word morality to express our acceptablity of them.

Again: you state that sometimes sex is immoral, just because you include sex in an immoral context. To wit: rape. You're reasoning, if I may be so bold:[/QUOTE}

You have this preposterous presumption that sex cannot be in an immoral context? Why?

[QUOTE]1. Rape is awful horrible and immoral.
2. In rape (typically), the man inserts his member into a woman's oriface.
3. In sex, (typically), the man inserts his member into a woman's oriface.
4. Since rape is either moral/immoral, sex is too, since something that happens during sex also happens during rape.

I guess that's about right. I think sex can be moral, immoral, amoral, whatever.

So, let's apply this line of reasoning elsewhere.
1. Jumping on random strangers and forcing food down their mouth is bizarre strange and immoral.
2. In eating (typically), food enters the mouth, and travels down to the stomach.
3. Since forced-mouth-stuffing is either moral/immoral, eating is too, since something that happens during eating also happens during forced-food-stuffage.

Sure, I think eating can be moral, immoral, amoral, whatever. Why not?

A better example. You're in a room with starving children and you're stuck there for a week.. You have a lot of food. You eat ALL OF IT, even though you're not starving, and could last a week without food. The children starve to death. Now that's some immoral eating right there!

Now, you could bypass this line of reasoning completely IF you attribute some kind of SACREDNESS to the sexual act. But we all know what will happen in this thread if you do that; which is why I think you won't. But I think many of the posters on this thread, including myself, suspect that is in fact your number one reason for the link between sex and morality, but you won't allow yourself to use it.

Oh, well that's on you then, if you're going to have an opinion on me independent of what I provide, I'm not going to worry about getting through to you.



Like I've said, I've been through this conversation many many times. I often add this rejoinder. Let's say I decide that *Christians HAVE to be good people*. End of. Christians can't be immoral. They just can't. You give me an example of a priest who molests children. That's a bad Christian! I say no. He isn't a Christian. You say "of course he's a Christian". I say no, because Christians can't be bad. I say he may be a bad person...or maybe when he molests children it's all about power...but it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Convenient for me! Hey, Christianity is all good! Christians can't be bad! If they are bad, it's not that Christians are bad, it's something else that is bad!

You talk about sacred. Why is sex so sacred to you? Why can't it be immoral? Why must you elevate it where it is anathema to suggest that sex could be immoral?

-Elliot

[Katana]

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."
-Abraham Lincoln

[I'll_buy_that]

Ok, let's take sex out of the rhelm of it being immoral. We started this thread about NFP which isn't about making rape sex moral.

NFP is taught to Christians who are married, having consensual sex and wish to put off having children for the time being, correct?

so we aren't talking about rape, nor are we talking about making sex sacred.

why is putting on a condom to put off having children so different than NFP? Both have the same intention, the sex doesn't change, the people don't change. It doesn't make the woman a sex object any more than it does to the man. It doesn't reduce the commitment between the two and it just might make them a bit closer.

by the way, my earlier post about "this can only be written by someone who isn't married" i was refering to an artical written by a priest, not about those who teach NFP. I don't have any problem with those that teach or practice it, i just don't see how they can say one way is a sin, the other way is not given all else equal. Also for them to say that NFP is more reliable than a condom (it was stated in one of those articles) is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

[elliotfc]

NFP is taught to Christians who are married, having consensual sex and wish to put off having children for the time being, correct?

so we aren't talking about rape, nor are we talking about making sex sacred.

why is putting on a condom to put off having children so different than NFP?

Because it is. I can prove it! Go into a drugstore...tell the people who buy condoms that they should practice NFP because it's not so different from using a condom. See what they say!

They are different. Really. Really. Really. Really. Really. They are different.

Both have the same intention, the sex doesn't change, the people don't change.

NFP is not essentially about preventing pregnancy. It is about determining the likely status of a woman's cycle. That knowledge can be used to guide a couple's sexual activity. *Independent of the choice of a couple* it is simply knowledge. NFP has no inherent intention. Some couples can use it to know what periods are most likely to encourage pregnancy.

Re: the sex doesn't change. The sex does change. The couple is liberated from the motivations that drive condom use.

Condoms were created for a singular reason. NFP wasn't created. It is simply knowledge about the reality of a woman's fertility cycle.

You can keep saying that they are the same, nothing is different. Whatever. Like others in this post say, there's such a thing as reality. How many people practice NFP? How many use condoms? Of course they are not the same.

It doesn't make the woman a sex object any more than it does to the man. It doesn't reduce the commitment between the two and it just might make them a bit closer.

Hey, if you think condom use has brought man and woman closer, that's on you.

by the way, my earlier post about "this can only be written by someone who isn't married" i was refering to an artical written by a priest, not about those who teach NFP.

White people teach African/Native American studies. Human beings teach zoology and botany. I'm not buying this. Anybody is capable of being informed.

I don't have any problem with those that teach or practice it, i just don't see how they can say one way is a sin, the other way is not given all else equal.

Fine, they're equal in your mind. Whatever. As for what is a sin, what isn't a sin, a church or religion can say whatever it wants. Fine. Reject it. The people who think it is sensible will accept it. I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't care if you don't think it is a sin. Think whatever you want.

Also for them to say that NFP is more reliable than a condom (it was stated in one of those articles) is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

Reliable for what end?

-Elliot

[bignickel]

I think morality is a very useful word. I think there are good moralities and bad moralities. When human sacrifice *was* accepted...that was the morality of the time, agreed? You recognize that to be a bad morality, so you wouldn't accept it today.
Morality may be a useful word, but 'moralities' is a completely utterly pointless word. Whether human sacrifice -was- accepted (probably not very much by the victims) is irrelevant: it was still immoral, just as slavery was (and is).

It comes as no surprise to me that 'eating', just like every action under the sun, comes under the domain of 'morality' in your view. This makes sense for an xtian theist, since under that view, god creates all things (which includes actions), and thus all are under the perview of moral/immoral. You just won't come out and say it, tho. Instead you use the reasoning of 'bad eating', which makes no actual sense: in your own example, it's not the eating that's bad, it's the denying the starving children the food that is immoral (or at the very least, is in a grey area). There is, until you show otherwise via logical reasoning, no connection between eating and morality, nor sex and morality.

You then go on give some kind of "no true Scotsman"; at least I thought it was. Not exactly sure what it's point was: you're still harping on the 'seperating something as bad sex' argument as far as I can tell. But that just gets us right back to what you've skipped over: rape has nothing whatsoever to do with sex. It's about power, and violence, using the parts of people that they only show when they are at their naked, their most vulnerable.

It's up to you to show that there is a connection between sex and morality, and still haven't done it yet. All you've done is point to an awful crime, and say 'thats sex!'. No, it isn't, no matter how many times you say it.

You talk about sacred. Why is sex so sacred to you? Why can't it be immoral? Why must you elevate it where it is anathema to suggest that sex could be immoral?
Could you point out where in my post that I stated that *I* thought sex was sacred? Just about anyone reading this thread knows that it was *YOU* who I believe thinks sex is sacred. If you were Catholic, who believes in Catholic doctrine, then I could just point to Catholic teaching and say: 'there, this indicates that as a Catholic, you believe that sex is a sacred act created by god, blah, blah, blah." But, again, you, *YOU*, refuse to state such a thing, because you will then lose this argument due to Special Pleading.

[bignickel]

A better example. You're in a room with starving children and you're stuck there for a week.. You have a lot of food. You eat ALL OF IT, even though you're not starving, and could last a week without food. The children starve to death. Now that's some immoral eating right there!
I just thought of something additional; instead of eating the food, donate it all to the Catholic church (and the Church, ala Mother Theresa, does not then turn around and give it back to the children; they sell it on the open market, and the proceeds go to the Church coffers).

Now: is that immoral DONATING?

Taking food away from starving children: immoral
Eating food: has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

[elliotfc]

Morality may be a useful word, but 'moralities' is a completely utterly pointless word. Whether human sacrifice -was- accepted (probably not very much by the victims) is irrelevant: it was still immoral, just as slavery was (and is).

I agree that there is objective morality, and immorality. Is "moralities" a pointless word? No, because there is such a thing as subjective morality. That mere fact may be unfortunate. You can tell someone that it is "pointless" to have a subjective morality. Maybe I even sympathize with that notion. But saying that it is pointless is pointless when considering the reality of subjective moralities, discarded moralities, and competing moralities in existence today.

Also, your opinion regarding objective morality can be rejected by others who have their own concept of objective morality.

It comes as no surprise to me that 'eating', just like every action under the sun, comes under the domain of 'morality' in your view.

Sho nuff. Anything that a human *does* can be connected to morality. It doesn't matter that you consider that pointless. No, it matters to you. I think it's pointless that you think it's all pointless.

This makes sense for an xtian theist, since under that view, god creates all things (which includes actions), and thus all are under the perview of moral/immoral.

It can also make sense for someone who is not a Christian, or is not a theist, but they can pipe in if they want.

You just won't come out and say it, tho. Instead you use the reasoning of 'bad eating', which makes no actual sense: in your own example, it's not the eating that's bad, it's the denying the starving children the food that is immoral (or at the very least, is in a grey area).

No, there is such a thing as bad eating. Eating poison is bad eating. If you're allergic to peanuts and you eat peanuts, that's bad eating. If you have a guest over for dinner but everybody runs to the table and starts stuffing their face before the guest sits down, that's bad eating. If someone is cooking dinner and they burn everything but then forces everybody to eat the burned food, that's bad eating. If the doctor tells you to cut out the cholesterol but you keep loading up on McDonalds, that's bad eating. If the doctor says no eating for 12 hours before surgery but you do anyway, that's bad eating. If you eat food that is 4 weeks past the due date, that's bad eating. If you go into your neighbor's house when he's not home and eat all of his food, that's bad eating. I can come up with a lot more.

There is, until you show otherwise via logical reasoning, no connection between eating and morality, nor sex and morality.

Shrug. Says you.

But that just gets us right back to what you've skipped over: rape has nothing whatsoever to do with sex.

Nice one! Boy, a defense team could use this one! The client is accused of rape! They bring in forensic semen/DNA evidence, and there's the objection! But your honor, rape has nothing to do with sex! This is brilliant stuff right here, you should become a lawyer and start defending rapists, and get all of the sexual evidence thrown out! Lacerations/tears in the vagina? Pffffft. It has nothing to do with sex! The victim describing the appearance of the penis? Get outta town! It has nothing to do with sex! The dictionary's which define rape as "the act of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse"? Burn the damn dictionaries, or stop making them! Stupid dictionarians, rape has nothing to do with sex!

It's about power, and violence, using the parts of people that they only show when they are at their naked, their most vulnerable.

Nobody disputes this. Just the other thing.

It's up to you to show that there is a connection between sex and morality, and still haven't done it yet.

Bwah. Sex is connected to moralities, look at all the moralities that talk about sex. You've got your own morality, which no doubt you consider objective. Good for you. Reject the other moralities. Fine.

Hell, keep your head in the sand, or wherever you want to stick it. Fine. No connection between sex and morality. Repeat the mantra over and over and over again whilst you tap yer ruby slippers. Now you're just annoying, but go ahead and have the last word.

-Elliot

[I'll_buy_that]

Any of the articles posted before about NFP have focused on preventing or putting off pregnancy, so you can not say to me that NFP isn't about preventing pregnancy, because it is. and in that end, it is no different except that it is less reliable than the use of a condom.

You are twisting my words. I don't say they are equal. I am saying if the intent is the same; intent not device.


"Re: the sex doesn't change. The sex does change. The couple is liberated from the motivations that drive condom use."

what motivations? are you married Elliot?

"Hey, if you think condom use has brought man and woman closer, that's on you."

I was refering to the act. with or without a condom. Just something that married couples do, the church doesn't condemn it.

"White people teach African/Native American studies. Human beings teach zoology and botany. I'm not buying this. Anybody is capable of being informed."

reread my post, i was not talking about the information, just the way marriage was described by the individual writing the article.

"Reliable for what end?"

reliable as a means for contraception. Don't argue that this isn't the intent. those articles posted before all focus on family planning (NFP). And it was mentioned that NFP was more reliable than condoms in preventing pregnancy. That is statistically wrong.

[elliotfc]

Any of the articles posted before about NFP have focused on preventing or putting off pregnancy, so you can not say to me that NFP isn't about preventing pregnancy, because it is.

It can be about preventing pregnancy by abstaining from sex during fertile periods, sure.

and in that end, it is no different except that it is less reliable than the use of a condom.

No, it is very different from using a condom. When you use a condom, the status of the woman's fertility cycle is irrelevant. You have detached the sexual act completely from the totality of the act, including all outcomes/raminfications/results. NFP doesn't do that. In NFP, each sexual act embraces the totality of the act. Condoms deliberately frustate a complete bond between the man and the woman. On all levels.

You are twisting my words. I don't say they are equal. I am saying if the intent is the same; intent not device.

I disagree that the intent is the same. Even if it was the same (which I disagree with), intents do not mean all actions driven by the same intent are equally moral or immoral. The same intent can result in activities that run the total morality spectrum.

"Re: the sex doesn't change. The sex does change. The couple is liberated from the motivations that drive condom use."

what motivations? are you married Elliot?

No.

"Hey, if you think condom use has brought man and woman closer, that's on you."

I was refering to the act. with or without a condom. Just something that married couples do, the church doesn't condemn it.

Sex doesnt necessarily bring a man and woman closer. Women cry or get mad after sex a lot. Or so I hear...

Was I just being sexist there? Maybe...I'm sure some men cry or get mad ater sex too.

"Reliable for what end?"

reliable as a means for contraception. Don't argue that this isn't the intent. those articles posted before all focus on family planning (NFP). And it was mentioned that NFP was more reliable than condoms in preventing pregnancy. That is statistically wrong.

Well I will concede this. Abstinence can be thought of as a form of contraception. Is it popularly thought of that way? Of course not. Contraception has to do with *having sex*, and utilizing materials and methods during the sexual act that will prevent pregnancy. When Planned Parenthood talks about contraception it's...so you're going to have sex...let's make that sex contraceptive sex.

NFP is about periodic abstinence, which is why I remove it from contraception. NFP is contraceptive in that you *don't* have sex at certain times, which is opposed to the general contraceptive mentality of *being liberated from the connection of fertility and sex*. When you're thinking contraceptively, you're not thinking about abstinence. When you're thinking NFP, you are. That's the fundamental difference.

I don't know about the stats about NFP. I agree that my suspicion is that condoms would be more effective in preventing pregnancy. Then there are the "correct use" factors and all that.

-Elliot

[I'll_buy_that]

"No, it is very different from using a condom. When you use a condom, the status of the woman's fertility cycle is irrelevant. You have detached the sexual act completely from the totality of the act, including all outcomes/raminfications/results. NFP doesn't do that. In NFP, each sexual act embraces the totality of the act. Condoms deliberately frustate a complete bond between the man and the woman. On all levels."

"Sex doesnt necessarily bring a man and woman closer. Women cry or get mad after sex a lot. Or so I hear... :eye-poppi :eek: :eek:

Was I just being sexist there? Maybe...I'm sure some men cry or get mad ater sex too."


What the hell are you talking about? Now you are just showing your inexperience.

[I'll_buy_that]

by the way elliot, thanks for the laugh

[elliotfc]

by the way elliot, thanks for the laugh

Without the occasional yuck I woulda ditched this crew many moons ago!

[bignickel]

Bwah. Sex is connected to moralities, look at all the moralities that talk about sex. You've got your own morality, which no doubt you consider objective. Good for you. Reject the other moralities. Fine.

Hell, keep your head in the sand, or wherever you want to stick it. Fine. No connection between sex and morality. Repeat the mantra over and over and over again whilst you tap yer ruby slippers. Now you're just annoying, but go ahead and have the last word.

-Elliot

And there we have it folks: "Sex is connected to moralities." Elliotfc's admission that he can't use reason and logic to connect the dots between sex and morality. Under "moralites", you can connect anything to anything else. Honor killing your daughter because she had unmarried sex? Well, that's just part of someone's 'morality'. Discriminating against homosexuals because they have 'sinful sex'? All part of someone's 'morality'.

Any possibly way to dispute that neither is immoral in any way? Nope, just not immoral in 'your morality'. How far would you trust a craftsmen who built a building or a suspension bridge using his alternative 'engineering'. How far would many people on this board trust a quack who followed his alternative 'medical science'.

Once again you've shown that you can't grasp the simplest point that I could make: that you're taking a particular action that happens during rape, and then saying that since it happens during typical sex, then morality applies to sex as well. Not just sex though: you've indicated morality applies to eating, and just about every action under the sun.

Why? Because you won't admit that you believe that God created all things, and thus, since God is the final arbiter of all things moral, all actions he created belong under the rubric of morality. Oh, sorry: "moralities". And yet, you won't come out and admit this. Isn't being dishonest a bad thing in 'your morality'?

Don't think I didn't notice your non-response to BAD DONATING. Because defending Mother Church is much more important that people's lives, eh? Since the Church has the all-important mission of saving souls?

Oh, lovely: "go ahead and have the last word." Nice way to get the last word in yourself; I can't think of a more juvenile way to end a discussion that only took place over ONE PAGE of a thread.

[Katana]

In NFP, each sexual act embraces the totality of the act. Condoms deliberately frustate a complete bond between the man and the woman. On all levels.

I've got it! Everyone have anal sex!


Maybe...I'm sure some men cry or get mad ater sex too.

Only if they don't use enough lube.:D

[elliotfc]

I've got it! Everyone have anal sex!

I prefer banal sex. When I have banal sex I use condumbs.

[Morrigan]

No, there is such a thing as bad eating. Eating poison is bad eating.

By "bad" he obviously meant "immoral". Eating poison, itself, is not immoral.

If you're allergic to peanuts and you eat peanuts, that's bad eating.

Eating peanuts while allergic is dangerous, but not inherently immoral.

If you have a guest over for dinner but everybody runs to the table and starts stuffing their face before the guest sits down, that's bad eating.

No, the "bad" is in the rudeness, not the eating.

If someone is cooking dinner and they burn everything but then forces everybody to eat the burned food, that's bad eating.

No, the "bad" is in the coercion, not the eating.

If the doctor tells you to cut out the cholesterol but you keep loading up on McDonalds, that's bad eating.
If the doctor says no eating for 12 hours before surgery but you do anyway, that's bad eating.
If you eat food that is 4 weeks past the due date, that's bad eating.

No, that's irresponsible and foolish and possibly dangerous, not immoral.


If you go into your neighbor's house when he's not home and eat all of his food, that's bad eating.

No, it's the stealing that's "bad".


I can come up with a lot more.

Please don't, you obviously just want to quibble on the semantics of "bad". He clearly meant bad in the "wrong" or "immoral" sense, but you decided it would be cute to draw an entire paragraph about otherwise. Possibly because you're a peasant incapable of rational discussion.


Bwah. Sex is connected to moralities, look at all the moralities that talk about sex.
Circular logic for teh win!!!11!1

[elliotfc]

Please don't, you obviously just want to quibble on the semantics of "bad". He clearly meant bad in the "wrong" or "immoral" sense, but you decided it would be cute to draw an entire paragraph about otherwise. Possibly because you're a peasant incapable of rational discussion.

Bad is bad. He's dogmatic about morality. That's on him.

-Elliot

[Katana]

I prefer banal sex. When I have banal sex I use condumbs.

Banal: lacking originality, freshness, or novelty; trite.

[bignickel]

Nice one! Boy, a defense team could use this one! The client is accused of rape! They bring in forensic semen/DNA evidence, and there's the objection! But your honor, rape has nothing to do with sex! This is brilliant stuff right here, you should become a lawyer and start defending rapists, and get all of the sexual evidence thrown out! Lacerations/tears in the vagina? Pffffft. It has nothing to do with sex! The victim describing the appearance of the penis? Get outta town! It has nothing to do with sex! The dictionary's which define rape as "the act of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse"? Burn the damn dictionaries, or stop making them! Stupid dictionarians, rape has nothing to do with sex!
You know, I just could not let this pass.

You're thick. Really thick. Super amazingly thick.

I said rape had nothing to do with SEX, you bozo, NOT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Or do you ask your friends, everytime they say they just had sex the night before, "was it consensual?" Because everyone on this forum knows that when we talk about having sex, we are talking about 2 adults having consensual sexual intercourse. THAT'S what SEX IS! If any of us wanted to talk about having sexual intercourse specifically, we'd say 'sexual intercourse' instead!

And when I used the word 'bad' it was to describe points in YOUR reasoning, not mine, because you used the word liberally throughout your posts. "Instead you use the reasoning of 'bad eating' " and "'separating something as bad sex' argument".

The only places that I used it to not describe your views was "Isn't being dishonest a bad thing in 'your morality'?" and "BAD DONATING"... neither of which you bothered to address. 'Dogmatic': that's a laugh coming from you.

It's clear that everyone around you is is in grave danger, because you are so amazingly dense that you threaten to collapse into a singularity, taking anything and anyone around you into a deep black hole. Which is the number one image that pops into my head while attempting to reason with you.

[pchams]

Heh-heh.
You guys are arguing with a defender of a hypocriical medieval institution.

Catholic chuch: Any sex that is not for procreating is sinful.
Catholic church: Psst...just use this method, we know it will keep you from procreating, but we'll pretend it's something else by using semantics, and hope no one notices.

Telling people whom you have brainwashed into your cult to avoid condems is despicable.

[elliotfc]

Heh-heh.
You guys are arguing with a defender of a hypocriical medieval institution.

Catholic chuch: Any sex that is not for procreating is sinful.
Catholic church: Psst...just use this method, we know it will keep you from procreating, but we'll pretend it's something else by using semantics, and hope no one notices.

Telling people whom you have brainwashed into your cult to avoid condems is despicable.

The Catholic Church does not say that any sex that is not for procreating is sinful.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

It's clear that everyone around you is is in grave danger, because you are so amazingly dense that you threaten to collapse into a singularity, taking anything and anyone around you into a deep black hole. Which is the number one image that pops into my head while attempting to reason with you.

Not only do I reject your morality, I also reject the possibility of this occurring. Give me more things to reject if you want.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I said rape had nothing to do with SEX, you bozo, NOT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Oh. Wow, you got me there.

Or do you ask your friends, everytime they say they just had sex the night before, "was it consensual?" Because everyone on this forum knows that when we talk about having sex, we are talking about 2 adults having consensual sexual intercourse. THAT'S what SEX IS!

Do you write your own dictionaries or something? I've just checked an online dictionary, and three in book form, and nowhere do I see that sex is 2 adults having consensual sexual intercourse.

If any of us wanted to talk about having sexual intercourse specifically, we'd say 'sexual intercourse' instead!

Points for originality I guess.

-Elliot

[bignickel]

Why, yes, when everyone goes around talking about sex, we're all just following DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. Otherwise, we just wouldn't be able to communicate with each other.

"I just had sex last night."
"Was it consensual? I have to ask, since sex is the act of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. I have no idea that if someone says that they had sex, that it's generally assumed to be consensual."
"Holy cow! You're right! Let's see... hmmm... uh... AH! It was consensual! Glad I remembered!"
"It's good to get those details nailed down."

Now you're just annoying, but go ahead and have the last word.
Points for originality I guess.
Physician, heal thyself.

[elliotfc]

Why, yes, when everyone goes around talking about sex, we're all just following DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. Otherwise, we just wouldn't be able to communicate with each other.

"I just had sex last night."
"Was it consensual? I have to ask, since sex is the act of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. I have no idea that if someone says that they had sex, that it's generally assumed to be consensual."
"Holy cow! You're right! Let's see... hmmm... uh... AH! It was consensual! Glad I remembered!"
"It's good to get those details nailed down."

Yeah, but who asks if sex was consensual? Do you? I'm trying to place this hypothetical conversation in, I dunno, REALITY. Have you had a conversation like this before? Has anyone?

I'm kinda thinking that if the sex *wasn't* consensual, it's unlikely the guy would bring it up in the first place. I'm not speaking from experience. But I think my theory is reasonable.

-Elliot

[bignickel]

Yeah, but who asks if sex was consensual? Do you? I'm trying to place this hypothetical conversation in, I dunno, REALITY. Have you had a conversation like this before? Has anyone?

I'm kinda thinking that if the sex *wasn't* consensual, it's unlikely the guy would bring it up in the first place. I'm not speaking from experience. But I think my theory is reasonable.
You just walk right into these things, don't you? Sigh.

Holy flerking snit, THAT'S MY POINT. NO ONE has conversations like this, because we all know that when we're talking about sex, that it's CONSENSUAL, which is something your 'dictionary definitions', and you, lack. And you wouldn't know 'reason' if it's jaws locked on your ass, then died, then remained on your ass as a giant black bubo for the rest of your life. That's another image I have whenever I attempt a discussion with you (for those keeping score at home)

Do you honestly believe... no, wait. I'm not going to make the error of feeding the beast anymore. This discussion is already too much for you without adding anything else to it.

[elliotfc]

NO ONE has conversations like this, because we all know that when we're talking about sex, that it's CONSENSUAL, which is something your 'dictionary definitions', and you, lack.

Wrong. My point was that if the sex wasn't consensual you wouldn't bring it up, because there are laws against non-consensual sex. The reason that no one has conversations like this has to do with fear of imprisonment, not whatever reason you conjure up.

Also, a guy *could* say he had sex last night, but the girl could tell *her* friends that she might have been raped. I'm sure that happens a lot.

Let's remove the legal restrictions. Let's say you're the head of a clan, an emperor, or something. You are the law. You have 100 girls brought to you, and they are ordered to have sex with you under fear of death. So they have sex with you. The next day you tell your friends you had sex with 100 girls last night. Now there's rape, but you're calling it sex.

And you wouldn't know 'reason' if it's jaws locked on your ass, then died, then remained on your ass as a giant black bubo for the rest of your life. That's another image I have whenever I attempt a discussion with you (for those keeping score at home)

Keep yer fantasies to yerself! You sicko!

-Elliot

[bignickel]

Let's remove the legal restrictions. Let's say you're the head of a clan, an emperor, or something. You are the law. You have 100 girls brought to you, and they are ordered to have sex with you under fear of death. So they have sex with you. The next day you tell your friends you had sex with 100 girls last night. Now there's rape, but you're calling it sex.
And the person claiming it was sex WOULD BE LYING. Because he knows that what he did was NON-CONSENSUAL. Geez, how hard can this possibly be to get you to see that rape has plenty to do with SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, but nothing to do with SEX?

Not only that, but your entire argument is, and you've never contradicted it: Rape is a DIFFERENT version of sex, and since rape falls under the domain of morality, so does sex. THUS, everything falls under the domain of morality because you can somehow or another point to some bad act, and then make any act that involves similar actions fall under the domain of morality. Fuse 2 atoms together? That's either moral or immoral, because somewhere, some terrorist could make a hydrogen bomb! Look at a beautiful painting? That's either moral or immoral, because somewhere there's a peeping tom looking thru a window!


Now you're just annoying, but go ahead and have the last word.
Keep yer fantasies to yerself! You sicko!
Elliot, it's like there's a knife in my eye, and you just keep twisting it.

[elliotfc]

And the person claiming it was sex WOULD BE LYING. Because he knows that what he did was NON-CONSENSUAL. Geez, how hard can this possibly be to get you to see that rape has plenty to do with SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, but nothing to do with SEX?

Oh great, anybody who doesn't accept your silly notion is a liar. Nice one!

I think *you're* the liar. Take that!

Not only that, but your entire argument is, and you've never contradicted it: Rape is a DIFFERENT version of sex, and since rape falls under the domain of morality, so does sex.

Is rape a different version of sex? Ummm...I wouldn't put it that way. I would have SEX in a big box, and the lots of lines branching off from the big box, with little boxes at the ends of the branched lines. One of the little boxes would have the word rape in it. So it's a kind of sex. I don't think "different version" gets that across, so I wouldn't phrase it that way.

*Everything that people do* falls under the domain of morality. Things can be moral. Immoral. Amoral.

If you're suggesting that since I think rape falls under morality, therefore, sex must then fall under morality, you're wrong. I've never said that, and don't believe that. I think everything that people do can be viewed morally. Now, that also includes *amorality*, where something is judged as being neither moral, or immoral. And example of that for me is someone tossing a tennis ball up, and then catching it, and doing thar repeatedly for a reasonable period of time.

THUS, everything falls under the domain of morality because you can somehow or another point to some bad act, and then make any act that involves similar actions fall under the domain of morality.

I don't believe this, accept this, or promote this view. I will not ride this sham horse.

-Elliot

[bignickel]

Things can be moral. Immoral. Amoral.

If you're suggesting that since I think rape falls under morality, therefore, sex must then fall under morality, you're wrong. I've never said that, and don't believe that. I think everything that people do can be viewed morally. Now, that also includes *amorality*, where something is judged as being neither moral, or immoral. And example of that for me is someone tossing a tennis ball up, and then catching it, and doing thar repeatedly for a reasonable period of time.
YES!

Finally. Some things can be amoral. Now then: What reasons exist, or do any exist, for moving consensual adult sex out of the 'amoral' 'tossing a tennis ball' box, and into the 'moral/immoral' box?

[elliotfc]

YES!

Finally. Some things can be amoral.

Sure. Why not? I base that judge on my given/accepted understanding of morality.

Now then: What reasons exist, or do any exist, for moving consensual adult sex out of the 'amoral' 'tossing a tennis ball' box, and into the 'moral/immoral' box?

Choice and morality are two different things. Consensual has to do with choice, not morality.

It all depends on the standards which guide your morality. Adultery is consensual adult sex. It can be defined as immoral if it breaks the standards of the morality in play; in this case, it could be a vow of fidelity. Sex between a married man and woman is moral because the standards in place decree that to be the fitting and appropriate status for sex.

Those are reasons. If you think they are superfluous, contrived, arbitrary, outdated, that's fine. They are still reasons, as laid out or as follows from the standards of a given morality. Do you have to accept these standards, or this morality? No, of course not. Reject it. Does the morality exist? Of course it does.

-Elliot

[bignickel]

You are so close. So close. I'm not sure I can get you any closer, but, what the heck, I'll try.

Why did I say "consensual sex?" So right off the bat we're taking rape off the board. OK, you bring up adultery. I would argue that it's breaking one's marriage contract with one's partner that is immoral, and the sex is just the action that is doing it. But, if you'd like: we can take this off the table too: 2 adults having sex, both not married: no adultery, no rape. Now, what reason could move this out of the 'tossing a tennis ball in the air' box, and put it in the 'immoral' box?

The problem is, you're bringing up 'moralities', instead of 'sense of morality' or 'view of morality'. Everyone can have the latter; we all can disagree on what's moral and immoral, but at least we can reason our way thru our discussion to determine what IS moral.

But if we have 'moralities', then there is no objective morality that we can work for, in exactly the same way if we have 'Western science' and 'Eastern science'. With the latter, 'Eastern science' doesn't have to 'prove' anything, since that's all just a 'western' thing; thus, all discussion about 'science' becomes fragmented and useless.

So, let's get into an example. Youre friend converts a Muslim to Xtianity. A fellow Muslim recognizes this as Apostasy, a truely horrendous immoral action. He kills his fellow Muslim for this immoral sin, and then: he tries to kill your friend, before your friend can do any more Apostacizing.

Now: this Muslims 'morality' says it's perfectly OK to kill your friend. How can you argue against him, when there is no Objective Morality that you can both use reasoning to discuss? After all, isn't his 'morality' just as valid as yours?

[elliotfc]

Why did I say "consensual sex?"

Here's *my* essential point. You are saying consensual sex is commensurate with sex. I'm saying *no way*. There is a reason why a word like "consensual" exists. In fact, it's basically *only* used in conjunction with sex. Why? *To differentiate it from different kinds of sex*. If all sex is consensual, then I really *doubt* anybody would ever use the word consensual. But the word is used often, and practically everybody knows what it means. Why? *Because it is a common qualifier for the word sex*. This is not semantics. I think this is just a pretty basic point.

I'll reply to the rest later. -Elliot

[bignickel]

Can you PLEASE get past the 'consensual' thing? I'm trying to word this in a way that removes rape off the table, and heck, even adultery, JUST to have a conversation with you. I'm only having to use the word 'consensual' with 'sex' because of the difficulties I'm having with you talking about all this. If anyone ELSE ever mentions 'consensual sex', it's because there's some confusion about occuring about whether sex or rape occured (this is what happens when we mix alcohol and narcotics into the equation).

Get past it, and address the rest when you come back later.

[elliotfc]

Why did I say "consensual sex?" So right off the bat we're taking rape off the board.

You would! But I am content with this.

OK, you bring up adultery. I would argue that it's breaking one's marriage contract with one's partner that is immoral, and the sex is just the action that is doing it.

So we agree that adultery is immoral. I am content with this too.

But, if you'd like: we can take this off the table too: 2 adults having sex, both not married: no adultery, no rape. Now, what reason could move this out of the 'tossing a tennis ball in the air' box, and put it in the 'immoral' box?

Easy. An extant set of standards which judges it to be immoral. Just like a contract is an extant set of standards which judges something to be immoral.

Now, if you do not personally accept the extant set of standards which judges fornication to be immoral, I am content with that. I have no desire to convince you to accept a set of existing moral standards that you do not want to accept.

I would like you to recognize that an extant morality judges fornication to be wrong. Actually, I think just by entering this conversation with me, you've already acceded to that fact.

Is your point something like this? There's no reason for a morality to declare fornication to be immoral? Says you! What's the reason for contract breaking to be immoral? Why is it immoral to coerce someone into something, or exert power over another? Any moral statement can be questioned, any moral assertion can be judged to be arbitrary and without rational reason.

Jumping back a few steps...you say that, in rape, it isn't the sex that is immoral, but the forced nature of it. But forcing someone to do something is not, in and of itself, immoral either! I played at a wedding last weekend. Friends of mine. *THREE TIMES* I insisted that I would not receive payment, and each time they said nothing to suggest the contrary. They stuck in envelope in my hand anyways. Surely that's immoral. They went against my will. A 40 year old ODs on pills, paramedics come, he asks them to leave him alone and not pump his stomach. They do it anyways. That's immoral as well. The police come to arrest a hacker. He asks them not to take him into custody. They do it anyhow. More immorality.

I hope you're not thinking that when I hear the word sex, or consider the word sex, I immediately consider the moral ramifications of sex. That's not true. I think sex is pretty neat! I think there is a biological imperative behind sex as well. Those are amoral sexual considerations. Can we break sex down into different types? Sure. *Just doing that, is, in and of itself, an arbitrary decision*. But it's a morally acceptable one. If I meet a woman, and I force her to bark like a dog, I'm probably not looking at 20 years in jail. If I force her to have sex, I am. Why? Because of the *sex*. Of course rape has something to do with sex. It isn't just coercion, because there are mainfold coercive activities which vary on any moral, or legal, scale.

Many posts ago I also gave you the following thought. There is no such thing as an immoral Christian. Do you agree, or disagree?

The problem is, you're bringing up 'moralities', instead of 'sense of morality' or 'view of morality'. Everyone can have the latter; we all can disagree on what's moral and immoral, but at least we can reason our way thru our discussion to determine what IS moral.

If *everyone stopped believing in Judeo-Christian morality*, it would still exist as a morality, an objective person could write down the morality without accepting it. Of course moralities which judge some kinds of sex to be immoral exist. That people find that sensible, or accept the viewpoints, kind of goes along with that, but if they stopped doing that it would still exist, at least in books.

As far as reasoning our way through things...I think we agree that rape and adultery are immoral. We disagree about fornication I reckon. But I have no desire to convince you to change your moral sense, or lack thereof, in regards to fornication.

But if we have 'moralities', then there is no objective morality that we can work for, in exactly the same way if we have 'Western science' and 'Eastern science'. With the latter, 'Eastern science' doesn't have to 'prove' anything, since that's all just a 'western' thing; thus, all discussion about 'science' becomes fragmented and useless.

I diasgree. You can have various scientific theories, yet still work for the objective truth.

So, let's get into an example. Youre friend converts a Muslim to Xtianity. A fellow Muslim recognizes this as Apostasy, a truely horrendous immoral action. He kills his fellow Muslim for this immoral sin, and then: he tries to kill your friend, before your friend can do any more Apostacizing.

Now: this Muslims 'morality' says it's perfectly OK to kill your friend. How can you argue against him, when there is no Objective Morality that you can both use reasoning to discuss? After all, isn't his 'morality' just as valid as yours?

I never brought up validity. That's a whole other discussion.

At some level, it's might makes right. You can argue morality with God all you want, but his morality will be declared objective. You can subjectively disagree. This is simple freedom.

Also, in a sense, all moralities are valid. Nobody can be forced to dispose of a chosen morality. A NAMBLA type could insist that pedophilia is perfectly fine, and he will have to deal with the fact that other moralities are in opposition to his morality. Is his morality valid? Sure, to himself and his friends. So what? That doesn't make him exempt from dealing with other moralities. He can sit in jail and be utterly convinced his morality is valid. And it is valid to himself. So what?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I'm only having to use the word 'consensual' with 'sex' because of the difficulties I'm having with you talking about all this.

You're kidding. Come on, this thread had *nothing to do with what we're talking about*. Out of nowhere, you insert something about rape having nothing to do with sex. You did that. We weren't talking about that in this thread.

Since you brought up rape (YOU BROUGHT UP RAPE) why should I get past the word consensual?

If anyone ELSE ever mentions 'consensual sex', it's because there's some confusion about occuring about whether sex or rape occured (this is what happens when we mix alcohol and narcotics into the equation).

This is what is so annoying about our discussion. You're still assuming that rape and sex are two different things. No. Consensual sex and nonsensual sex are two different things.

Do we not use the word consensual as much as we should? Sure. I ought to say "yo me llamo Elliot", but I say "me llamo Elliot". Sometimes I speak in sentence fragments. So what?

-Elliot

[bignickel]

At some level, it's might makes right. You can argue morality with God all you want, but his morality will be declared objective. You can subjectively disagree. This is simple freedom.

Also, in a sense, all moralities are valid. Nobody can be forced to dispose of a chosen morality. A NAMBLA type could insist that pedophilia is perfectly fine, and he will have to deal with the fact that other moralities are in opposition to his morality. Is his morality valid? Sure, to himself and his friends. So what? That doesn't make him exempt from dealing with other moralities. He can sit in jail and be utterly convinced his morality is valid. And it is valid to himself. So what?

-Elliot
I've been extremely busy this week, getting ready for and traveling to Seoul to apply for a work visa (and I'm typing this from a PC Bang downtown right now). So, I haven't been able to really get back to this.

This will be my last post with you on this thread. I think we've both come as far as we can in stating our positions, no matter what I would characterize as your position, nor yours, mine. You have noticed that I'm only quoting the last section of your second-to-last post; not becaue I'm deliberately ignoring any of it, just at this stage of the game, it's a bit irrelevent. The info that I was really looking for I have quoted above.

"Might makes right", combined with 'moralities', rather than 'sense of morality' or 'differant moral view', removes Morality from the objective list of singular things that can be studied, discussed rationally, and reasoned about. I can find no reason or logic that indicates that it should be lifted from this singular list, and given a plural. There are no 'botanies', 'alternative physics', 'alternate mathes'. Since I have no evidence of a God currently, I can't argue with him, but if he would like to make his presence known to argue with me, s/he/it's welcome to it.

As it stands, 'might makes right' only 'works' when you are on the side of 'might'. I didn't use the example of the 'muslim wasting your friend' by happenstance. I hope your side is able to maintains it's strength, at least for your and yours' sake, eliotfc. Good luck.

[elliotfc]

Thanks for the good discussion Nick.