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

[Braveheart]

The feeling I get in my penis is its own meaning, and self-validating as long as it doesn't undermine other values we affirm.
.
.

should we affirm the values of purity, chastity, respect, and fertility?

As values? Absolutely.

-purity: what does this mean? of heart and intent? or some sort of anti-sex agenda? I'm not an ancient hebrew, so ritual purity is lost on me. But honesty etc is all good.

- chastity: again, not sure what it means today. I take it to mean responsibility, boundaires, limits, choice, discretion, discernment. Otherwise it's some sort of anti-sex agenda.

- Respect: always. I've respected every women I've slept with, even the one nighters.

- fertility: fertility is not a virtue. It may be a value to some. I affirm it insofar as I think that we should triple funding for planned parenthood to provide fertility services, as well as invest in science to make babies healthy, provide childcare, safe foods, safe environments, safe pregnancies etc.

I think that if we divorce sex from a necessary connection to natural fertility, we end up with a culture of selfishness and eroticism rather than respect, with all the horrible consquences socially, psychologically etc

I respect that you present this as opinion, and I respectfully disgaree. I have lived in places where the sex to child ratio was inverted, with lots of eroticism in the air, and they functioned wonderfully. These kind of places often excel on measures of social and psuchological well-being (reported happiness, crime rate, divroce rate, economic robustness, artistic robustness, intellectual robustness, education level, prevelemnce of leaders, diversity, quality and range of sex, etc)

why do you think there is such a correlation between divorce and contraceptives, and NFP and non-divorce?

Well, I doubt there is and I question the source. Liberal states have lower divorce and dmoestic violence than conservative sttes. But if it were true I'd say that christian conservatives are against both divorce and contraception. The latter doesn't drive the former. It's just consistency, not cause.

also contraceptives--both the Mini and the Combination Pill--are abortifacient. abortion is linked with great health risks from alcoholism to smoking, PTSD, etc

I don't know what you're talking about, and I suspect that makes two of us. So I don't wish to engage it. Smells like kooky fringe stuff to me.

thanks be to God for His Infinite Mercy through Jesus Christ, since we ALL so need it

Could you spare us the preaching?

Ya' know Slopey, you and I both claim to be Catholic, but you have not said one thing I agree with, and I rather doubt I have said anything you agree with. So let's compare our beliefs with the bible right now, right here, since we are both Christians (does the word have any meaning?). First of all, lets examine the very meaning of being a Christian.

[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

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

wow it seems like maybe you are really reaching, perhaps based on your religious beliefs

in the first case, there is nothing in the disclaimer about how the United Nations data is incorrect

let's suppose it is

According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom

is that anywhere near good enough? and that is with correct and consistent use

in the second case, Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies--

is hardly a "religious" source. I don't know if his religion is atheism, secularism, Mormonism, or whatever.

he did say that there isthat there is a consistent association between availability of condoms and HIV prevalence

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... jean-lopez

[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

wow it seems like maybe you are really reaching, perhaps based on your religious beliefs

in the first case, there is nothing in the disclaimer about how the United Nations data is incorrect

let's suppose it is

According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom

is that anywhere near good enough? and that is with correct and consistent use

in the second case, Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies--

is hardly a "religious" source. I don't know if his religion is atheism, secularism, Mormonism, or whatever.

he did say that there isthat there is a consistent association between availability of condoms and HIV prevalence

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... jean-lopez

No, it's not perfect.. but.. what is your claim. YOu claim that the rate of HIV infection goes UP with condom use. So far, we have a statement that 'condoms are 80% effective in preventing HIV'.

Can you show that the rate of infection goes up?? Support your claim with something other than a religious or a politically conservative web site.

Show an actual study by doctors.

[Braveheart]

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

wow it seems like maybe you are really reaching, perhaps based on your religious beliefs

in the first case, there is nothing in the disclaimer about how the United Nations data is incorrect

let's suppose it is

According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom

is that anywhere near good enough? and that is with correct and consistent use

in the second case, Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies--

is hardly a "religious" source. I don't know if his religion is atheism, secularism, Mormonism, or whatever.

he did say that there isthat there is a consistent association between availability of condoms and HIV prevalence

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... jean-lopez

No, it's not perfect.. but.. what is your claim. YOu claim that the rate of HIV infection goes UP with condom use. So far, we have a statement that 'condoms are 80% effective in preventing HIV'.

Can you show that the rate of infection goes up?? Support your claim with something other than a religious or a politically conservative web site.

Show an actual study by doctors.

From a Christian point of view, (and others) God created everything. If God created everything, don't you think He would want us to preserve His creations? Like maybe, oh I don't know, the animals? Contraceptives have been proved to put estrogen into the environment, which is feminizing fish, frogs, and other animals. Without the male sex, it becomes impossible to reproduce, until finally the species dies (I know right, who would have guessed). So even if you don't believe in God, you still ought to value at least the fish. They are a major food source to many creatures including humans.

[Slopeshoulder]

Trojans, albeit through a many step process, are undermining the procreation of fish?????!!!!!
What planet am I on?

[Braveheart]

Trojans, albeit through a many step process, are undermining the procreation of fish?????!!!!!
What planet am I on?

Earth.

[Wyvern]

Trojans, albeit through a many step process, are undermining the procreation of fish?????!!!!!
What planet am I on?

Earth.

More importantly BH what brand of condom are you using that contains estrogen?

This particular conversation is about condoms so it's pretty silly on your part to bring in facts about other types of birth control.

[Slopeshoulder]

Yeah, I checked it, it's about the pill, not condoms.
And even if true, all it means is that we should develop more eco-friendly means of contraception, not that contraception is wrong. It's a poor argument for the latter, like arguing we should never have invented the wheel because of what poluution has wrought. Um, no, just get better wheels.

[Slopeshoulder]

[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

No, the meaning you insist upon without establishing it, making it opinion only.
At least I admit that the meaning of sex is what we choose to impute to it.
You're just repeating yourself.

then they appreciate the the other person

Why can't any person having sex appreciate the other person? I can tell that I've appreciated all of them.

and wouldn't want to do something which creates a barrier between them

A thin latex barrier, or a pill, or a vesectomy, or a modern IUD.
And why not? Where is the logic chain? Seems like a value judgment and an opinion. If anything, the security increases intimacy.

I guess if I liked kids, identified as a parent, my wife was safe having them, I had no other creative and life-affirming outlets, was a millionaire, and had no qualms about any of the negative consequences of having a kid every 9 months for 35 years (with successive wives as the earlier ones died), I'd embrace this intimacy you recommend. But that's not the case.

and leads to divorce

Causation is NOT established. You thinking is shaky and your claims are opinion, bordering on ideology and indoctrination.

and other problems

What other problems? What proof?

it's clear to me that the meaning of the sexual act is bonding and babies, and that these two cannot be separated [/quoted]
Why clear?
Why not?
Opinion noted.
Relevance?
It's clear to me that the meanign of sex can be pleasure, friction, a party in one pants, a triumph over televsision and boredom, intimacy, bonding, and babies, as we CHOOSE. Now that I've had a vasectomy as a commitment to protecting my wife's health, my sexlife is about love, bonding, and pleasure. Got a problem with that?

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

All those correlations are shaky, none are causation, all are ideological, and mere opinion, and also a repeated unsubstantiated claim based on tainted ideological sources.

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

Are you kidding? To express love, experience intimacy, and experience pleasure in marriage is itself meaningful and self validating! Your 'argument is opinion, presented in a circular manner. It doesn't pass the straight face test for anyone with an iota of critical discernment. IMO of course.

to me that is a curious

Who cares?

dogma

Who said it was dogma? it's opinion, with a touch of theology, informed by many years of formal study.

and one I am certain is false

Your certain that the idea that sex without the welcomed possibility of babies, in marriage, in love, with intimacy and respect, being responsible, using technology, and in my own case to protect my wife's life, is false and meaningless? Well bully for you! May you have many many babies. In my opinion NFP is one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard, as is the "dogma' that underlies it.
But to each his own.

Please present evidence to support your certainty. Do you have anything to add other than the "curious" set of opinions you have presented so far? Because I call it narrowminded, circular, indoctrinated, offensive bigotry. Holier/more repressed than thou types make me ill.


BTW, per an earlier post, in love there is no lust. Rather, it's called desire, as someone pointed out, and it's always good, always with love. There is NO reason to abstain during the so called (and hard to time) fertile period. To suggest that refusing such abstinance (in addition to refraining during menstration presumably, at least for convenience reasons), is somehow a moral failing is MO both a category error, an adsurdity, and more ideological than rational. It also leads to a lot less sex.

[Braveheart]

Yeah, I checked it, it's about the pill, not condoms.
And even if true, all it means is that we should develop more eco-friendly means of contraception, not that contraception is wrong. It's a poor argument for the latter, like arguing we should never have invented the wheel because of what poluution has wrought. Um, no, just get better wheels.

Even if they did make a more "eco friendly" pill, we still have another problem from which, from my point of view, has destroyed Europe. Can you guess what it is? It's the fact that while many native Europeans use birth control, the "join or die" Muslims have practically become the largest race in Europe because they have laws against it (birth control). Have you noticed there are a lot of of Illegal Aliens in America? The same thing is happening here. The good news is Mexicans aren't exactly "join or dies." But still, you get my point. The ones who don't use birth control, rule the world. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be ruled by Muslims, since all the people in my religion would be dead (if you consider martyrdom a bad thing).