contraception

[jamais]

my understanding is that both the early Church, the medieval Church, and even the reformation and all the Protestant groups taught that contraception is seriously wrong until recent decades

there is no question of judgment of persons here

can contraception be defended ethically?

I don't think so, as it--like all other sexual sins--seeks to divorce sex from responsibility

[Goat]

Please show why 'reproduction' and 'bonding purposes' of sex are not meant to be separated. Why? Prove it.

such a statement is meaningless unless we can agree on what would constitute proof that contraception is licit or illicit, etc

Why?? Are you trying to play word games?

Stanford researcher Robert Michaels has noted the strong correlation between the spread of contraceptives and that of divorce

And it has been noted that the decrease in crime has a strong correlation with abortion. Your point? Remember, correlation is not causation.

[jamais]

Why does loving one's partner have to do with making a baby every time you express that love...

who said anything of the sort?

Isn't it implied by your POV? At last during the "fertile period"?

What does open to life mean...?

being willing to accept the natural consequences of choosing to express one's love genitally--note the meaning of the term "genitally"-- during the fertile period

But technology (contraception) makes this a moot point when it works. Otherwise, yes, i agree.

btw, what defines a sexual sin? do you believe there are any?

of course:
lack of informed, free, and sober consent
lying, false flattery, false promises
disrespecting boundaries
breakign promises
being with kids, animals, relatives, people acting out or in an emotionally impaired state
selfishness in bed
not taking responsibility if contraceptives fail
not disclosing deseases
lack of discretion
disrespect
abuse of power
unwanted advances
and fakign orgasm

for starters.

I think that contraception belongs on that list and is implied in many of your terms

what would be the point of having sex during the fertile period if one isn't open to having life come from that love?

and if one isn't able to restrain oneself then it is clearly lust and not love

NFP correlates with very low divorce rates because it fosters the self-control which love absolutely requires

and interestingly enought, those that practice NFP have more sex, which against shows the natural law God gave

[Goat]

Why does loving one's partner have to do with making a baby every time you express that love...

who said anything of the sort?

Isn't it implied by your POV? At last during the "fertile period"?

What does open to life mean...?

being willing to accept the natural consequences of choosing to express one's love genitally--note the meaning of the term "genitally"-- during the fertile period

But technology (contraception) makes this a moot point when it works. Otherwise, yes, i agree.

btw, what defines a sexual sin? do you believe there are any?

of course:
lack of informed, free, and sober consent
lying, false flattery, false promises
disrespecting boundaries
breakign promises
being with kids, animals, relatives, people acting out or in an emotionally impaired state
selfishness in bed
not taking responsibility if contraceptives fail
not disclosing deseases
lack of discretion
disrespect
abuse of power
unwanted advances
and fakign orgasm

for starters.

I think that contraception belongs on that list and is implied in many of your terms

what would be the point of having sex during the fertile period if one isn't open to having life come from that love?

and if one isn't able to restrain oneself then it is clearly lust and not love

NFP correlates with very low divorce rates because it fosters the self-control which love absolutely requires

and interestingly enought, those that practice NFP have more sex, which against shows the natural law God gave

You contend that.. but you haven't supported your contention.

YOu have yet to show actual evidence that NFP correlates with a very low divorce rate. You made that claim, yet did not support it.

[sarabellum]

Hello jamais!

I get paid the same amount of money for a wrong answer, as I do a right answer, around here...

So I'll take another swing at it...

First off...
If you want to do what you suggest, mainly not use contraceptives, have at it...

(IMO) It seems impractical to force that stance on to every type of situation.

Consider this hypothetical...

A person in africa has been infected with HIV...
Unfortunately the infection occurred accidentally through contaminated blood at a hospital...
That person is a christian and married...
That person has children..

Under your plan their sex life is over due to no fault of there own?

Is there is a better way?
Can we provide the unaffected spouse protection from death?
Can we protect the children from having no parents at all?
Of course there is...

How about wearing a condom with an HIV killing lubricant?

Now our happy christian couple can continue expressing their love for each other with out fear of spreading illness?
Without fear of there kids being left without someone to raise them?

Why would God demand that the couple suffer the loss of connection because of a mistake?

Sorry christian couple, you got unlucky, no sex for you?

[jamais]

Hello jamais!

I get paid the same amount of money for a wrong answer, as I do a right answer, around here...

So I'll take another swing at it...

First off...
If you want to do what you suggest, mainly not use contraceptives, have at it...

(IMO) It seems impractical to force that stance on to every type of situation.

Consider this hypothetical...

A person in africa has been infected with HIV...
Unfortunately the infection occurred accidentally through contaminated blood at a hospital...
That person is a christian and married...
That person has children..

Under your plan their sex life is over due to no fault of there own?

Is there is a better way?
Can we provide the unaffected spouse protection from death?
Can we protect the children from having no parents at all?
Of course there is...

How about wearing a condom with an HIV killing lubricant?

Now our happy christian couple can continue expressing their love for each other with out fear of spreading illness?
Without fear of there kids being left without someone to raise them?

Why would God demand that the couple suffer the loss of connection because of a mistake?

Sorry christian couple, you got unlucky, no sex for you?

actually condemns have a very high system failure rate with HIV--i.e. they don't work well even when used correctly

in fact, condoms-use correlates with higher HIV rates

here is a good article on that issue

also, I should perhaps point out that the Trinitarian Church historically has always condemned contraception without exception

in the case you bring up, I'm not sure what the appropriate action would be. I only know that it is not contraception

[jamais]

Hello jamais!

I get paid the same amount of money for a wrong answer, as I do a right answer, around here...

So I'll take another swing at it...

First off...
If you want to do what you suggest, mainly not use contraceptives, have at it...

(IMO) It seems impractical to force that stance on to every type of situation.

Consider this hypothetical...

A person in africa has been infected with HIV...
Unfortunately the infection occurred accidentally through contaminated blood at a hospital...
That person is a christian and married...
That person has children..

Under your plan their sex life is over due to no fault of there own?

Is there is a better way?
Can we provide the unaffected spouse protection from death?
Can we protect the children from having no parents at all?
Of course there is...

How about wearing a condom with an HIV killing lubricant?

Now our happy christian couple can continue expressing their love for each other with out fear of spreading illness?
Without fear of there kids being left without someone to raise them?

Why would God demand that the couple suffer the loss of connection because of a mistake?

Sorry christian couple, you got unlucky, no sex for you?

possibly

actually condoms have a very high system failure rate with HIV--i.e. they don't work well even when used correctly

in fact, condoms-use correlates with higher HIV rates

here is a good article on that issue which refutes the P.C. argument as to AIDS and condoms

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... acies.html

also, I should perhaps point out that the Trinitarian Church historically has always condemned contraception without exception

in the case you bring up, I'm not sure what the appropriate action would be. I only know that it is not contraception

[Goat]

Hello jamais!

I get paid the same amount of money for a wrong answer, as I do a right answer, around here...

So I'll take another swing at it...

First off...
If you want to do what you suggest, mainly not use contraceptives, have at it...

(IMO) It seems impractical to force that stance on to every type of situation.

Consider this hypothetical...

A person in africa has been infected with HIV...
Unfortunately the infection occurred accidentally through contaminated blood at a hospital...
That person is a christian and married...
That person has children..

Under your plan their sex life is over due to no fault of there own?

Is there is a better way?
Can we provide the unaffected spouse protection from death?
Can we protect the children from having no parents at all?
Of course there is...

How about wearing a condom with an HIV killing lubricant?

Now our happy christian couple can continue expressing their love for each other with out fear of spreading illness?
Without fear of there kids being left without someone to raise them?

Why would God demand that the couple suffer the loss of connection because of a mistake?

Sorry christian couple, you got unlucky, no sex for you?

actually condemns have a very high system failure rate with HIV--i.e. they don't work well even when used correctly

in fact, condoms-use correlates with higher HIV rates

here is a good article on that issue

also, I should perhaps point out that the Trinitarian Church historically has always condemned contraception without exception

in the case you bring up, I'm not sure what the appropriate action would be. I only know that it is not contraception

Where is that article about higher HIV rates with condoms,.. it seems to be missing. Do you have an article by a scientific journal, or is it by merely a conservative website that is more political/religious than scientific?

[jamais]

The U.N reported an estimated 10% dondom system failure rate with HIV:

http://www.thebody.com/content/art28493.html

Edward C. Green is director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.

Dave Armstrong cites his interview with the National review

"There is," Green added, "a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... acies.html

[Goat]

The U.N reported an estimated 10% dondom system failure rate with HIV:

http://www.thebody.com/content/art28493.html

Edward C. Green is director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.

Dave Armstrong cites his interview with the National review

"There is," Green added, "a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded 'Demographic Health Surveys,' between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/ ... acies.html

And Gosh, let's look at the disclaimer in the first part of the article

': Since this article was written, the HIV pandemic has changed, as has our understanding of HIV/AIDS and its treatment. As a result, parts of this article may be outdated. Please keep this in mind, and be sure to visit other parts of our site for more recent information!

and the second one is a catholic blog. .. sorry, but that is a religiously motivated one.

So you got a disclaimer in the first one saying 'A lot of this is obsolete', and the second one which is a religious web site, which I asked you to avoid. Plus, the article did not show the coroloation you claimed.

You also ignored this article, on the very same site

http://www.thebody.com/content/art30024.html

[jamais]

[Who said spouse?
What small good? The orgasm and everything that accompanies it is on most people's short list of biggest and bestest things in life. I personally engage in the act due to the confluence of erection, female hotness, proximity, and consent. That's all the reason I need..

well I think if one appreciates the meaning of the sexual act then they appreciate the the other person and wouldn't want to do something which creates a barrier between them and leads to divorce and other problems

it's clear to me that the meaning of the sexual act is bonding and babies, and that these two cannot be separated

that would explain the correlation between NFP and happiness and contraception and divorce

but why do you think sexual pleasure has a meaning apart from reproduction in the context of marriage?

to me that is a curious dogma and one I am certain is false