Catholics and birth control

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a terrible example.

If you use spermicide the sperm just dies. If you have sex when she's no fertile the sperm just dies. If you use a condom the sperm just dies. If you don't have sex the sperm just dies.

There is no difference between any of them. In all cases you are knowingly killing the sperm or letting them die.

Sorry just had to do it.

Originally posted by Digi
Trying to read into it and reconcile all contradictions won't get you very far. For Catholics, it's an arbitrary rule in place to make them feel good about sex, but seems to make sense if you buy into their particular worldview. I, for one, can't quite figure out how a woman, or indeed a couple, is supposed to fully embrace and enjoy lovemaking if there exists strict rules about it and reasonable chance of (presumably unwanted) pregnancy at some point.

Ignorance is no valid form of reasoning. Though you can't doesn't mean one can't. Ad hominum's aside, it is (in some shape or form) enjoying the sex as a transcendent for of enjoyment. Catholics view that our passions, when off from our intellect, are the cause of our follies as mortals. Only when when return the balance between our appetites and our reasoning do we then truly enjoy what God has given us. I know it sounds inflated, but take it from a person still with the faith 😉

Originally posted by Digi

Or one could simply see it as our evolutionary procreation tool, and enjoy fully while realizing that a lack of procreation (traditional birth control) isn't blaspheming, but is normal and healthy, and also easier on one's wallet as well as the precarious population totals of the planet. But I realize that would be far too easy.

A valid perspective. Catholics recognize that Humanae Vitae cites "physical, economic, psychological and social conditions" as possibly compelling reasons to avoid pregnancy".

Originally posted by Digi

The rhythm method is also a less sure form of BC. So in theory, along with anti-abortion rules, it will increase the number of Catholic adherents. A clever way to wrap a religion's survival in fancy-sounding theology.

Rhythm is not as effective as NFP. So if one were to choose one or the other, NFP is considered the most accurate.

Originally posted by Digi

It's also inadvertently destructive in the Third World, where it could help curb population and disease totals. But given the church's humanitarian efforts and influence in such matters, it isn't likely to be corrected soon.

How so?

Originally posted by King of Blades
How so?

Converts avoid condoms but not sex and don't know birth cycles nearly as well as the rest of us. As a result STDs and over population run rampant. Christianity is very much responsible for those problems. Human stupidity doesn't help but many religious approaches to sex and birth control really do make things worse.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a terrible example.

If you use spermicide the sperm just dies. If you have sex when she's no fertile the sperm just dies. If you use a condom the sperm just dies. If you don't have sex the sperm just dies.

There is no difference between any of them. In all cases you are knowingly killing the sperm or letting them die.

No it is a perfect example in my case that both killing in self defense and murder both result in a dead person. By him saying that since they both bear similar results and therefore it really doesn't which you choose, would support my claim then that murder and self-defense would be the same. But they're not because we differentiate not by the results but by the means behind them. In the same manner do we differentiate the "killing of sperm".

Originally posted by King of Blades
No it is a perfect example in my case that both killing in self defense and murder both result in a dead person. By him saying that since they both bear similar results and therefore it really doesn't which you choose, would support my claim then that murder and self-defense would be the same. But they're not because we differentiate not by the results but by the means behind them. In the same manner do we differentiate the "killing of sperm".

But you fail to explain why "killing sperm this way" and "killing sperm that way" are different. The example falls apart because you're applying to emotion and nothing else. No good differentiation between condoms and natural spermicide and killing sperm by not using them exists nor have you even attempted to present those differences, just claimed that they are there and you somehow know what they are.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Converts avoid condoms but not sex and don't know birth cycles nearly as well as the rest of us. As a result STDs and over population run rampant. Christianity is very much responsible for those problems. Human stupidity doesn't help but many religious approaches to sex and birth control really do make things worse.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Although (between the lesser of two evils) it is better to wear protection then not at all (I believe, God correct me if I'm wrong...)

Originally posted by King of Blades
No it is a perfect example in my case that both killing in self defense and murder both result in a dead person. By him saying that since they both bear similar results and therefore it really doesn't which you choose, would support my claim then that murder and self-defense would be the same. But they're not because we differentiate not by the results but by the means behind them. In the same manner do we differentiate the "killing of sperm".

There is natural birth control, in the sense of having sex during a period that is unlikely to result in the conception of a child and there is artificial birth control, condoms etc.

If you are only have sex during periods where your spouse is unlikely to conceive then you are taking advantage of a natural loophole, but questions might be raised as to whether or not the sex is a matter of love or of lust. Are you respecting the near-sacramental nature of sex?

Artificial birth control is totally forbidden because it is totally contrary to the divine plan and the nature of sex.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Converts avoid condoms but not sex and don't know birth cycles nearly as well as the rest of us. As a result STDs and over population run rampant. Christianity is very much responsible for those problems. Human stupidity doesn't help but many religious approaches to sex and birth control really do make things worse.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Although (between the lesser of two evils) it is better to wear protection then not at all (I believe, God correct me if I'm wrong...)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Human stupidity doesn't help.

Besides, the Church isn't handing out condoms to them on the basis that "God is good, condoms are not." So, yeah, while I'm usually the one defending religion here there's really no doubt that Christian evangelism in the Third World is doing huge amounts of damage.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Besides, the Church isn't handing out condoms to them on the basis that "God is good, condoms are not." So, yeah, while I'm usually the one defending religion here there's really no doubt that Christian evangelism in the Third World is doing huge amounts of damage.

To their bodies or to their souls?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
There is natural birth control, in the sense of having sex during a period that is unlikely to result in the conception of a child and there is artificial birth control, condoms etc.

If you are only have sex during periods where your spouse is unlikely to conceive then you are taking advantage of a natural loophole, but questions might be raised as to whether or not the sex is a matter of love or of lust. Are you respecting the near-sacramental nature of sex?

Artificial birth control is totally forbidden because it is totally contrary to the divine plan and the nature of sex.

God gave us a brain to use. Anything we create is a natural loophole, unless you think that aliens gave us condoms and scientists have been desperately trying to cover it up for decades.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
To their bodies or to their souls?

Both. If you spread suffering among the them you do nothing but turn people away from true faithfulness.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God gave us a brain to use. Anything we create is a natural loophole, unless you think that aliens gave us condoms and scientists have been desperately trying to cover it up for decades.

God gave man a brain, what that brain produces is considered man made and therefore unnatural- its why we would describe flying in a plane as unnatural.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Both. If you spread suffering among the them you do nothing but turn people away from true faithfulness.

Unearned suffering is redemptive.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
God gave man a brain, what that brain produces is considered man made and therefore unnatural- its why we would describe flying in a plane as unnatural.

So, piety is unnatural?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Unearned suffering is redemptive.

It's still suffering and does not redeem people who are unable to understand it and so turn away from God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So, piety is unnatural?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's still suffering and does not redeem people who are unable to understand it and so turn away from God.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Man was made to worship God. Piety seems something he has had an active role in creating, through the saints and the prophets.

Saints become saints after the fact. Prophets do not create piety they create prophecy (from their brains).

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I do not pity them.

So you're a prick?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But you fail to explain why "killing sperm this way" and "killing sperm that way" are different. The example falls apart because you're applying to emotion and nothing else. No good differentiation between condoms and natural spermicide and killing sperm by not using them exists nor have you even attempted to present those differences, just claimed that they are there and you somehow know what they are.

Not at all, I mentioned clearly before that "Catholics view that our passions, when off from our intellect, are the cause of our follies as mortals. Only when when return the balance between our appetites and our reasoning do we then truly enjoy what God has given us."

Killing sperm by wearing a condom or by spermicide are both means of accomplishing a goal but by means other then what God originally intended. Steming from the will of God is sinful.

Before I lose track of myself (cause I'm multi-tasking here) here is what I'm saying:

The "they both accomplish the same thing/no differentiation" is clearly an invalid form of argument seeing that you don't apply that same reasoning to murder/self-defense.

The reason that NFP is better then rhythm is statistics. (Natural vs. Natural)
The reason why NFP is better then spermicide/condoms is because they are both artificial remedies that plays a direct role in the killing of sperm and go against the intentions of God during creation. (Natural vs. Unnatrual and playing God).
Hence why anything other then NFP is discouraged and/or prohibited.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Saints become saints after the fact. Prophets do not create piety they create prophecy (from their brains).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you're a prick?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
??? Where did I say anything that you just posted? I said that by how the "PILL" works I can understand (based on religious faith), nothing about sperm and killing of sperm. So by that logic when I shoot my load into my wife I'm killing about 40 million people when she isn't fertile and about 39,999,999 when she isn't?

That was directed to Systematic Chaos, not to you.