Reproduction Morality - IVF and NFP

[CutePuppy]

<short whine>
I don't understand how jedweber can make the exact same point on NFP that I've been making since the start of this thread, and Agent40 responds to him/her but not to me.
</short whine>

Anyway Agent40, you're wrong on NFP. Stop being so ignorant on the issue of NFP.

[Agent40]

Latex is a natural substance.  In fact, so is estrogen.  Please don't try to twist your definition of "natural" to suit your prejudices

.

How shocking!  Here we go again with the argument that I am arguing natural law means only that which is “natural” Please look up what is meant by Natural Law. It does not mean only what one may find naturally occurring in nature. Natural Law has to do with design and purpose and order.

What they are doing is making conception less likely.  Artificial birth control also makes conception less likely.  Obviously, reducing the chances of conception is not immoral, in and of itself. The question is, at what rate does it become immoral.  If NFP results in conception 10% of the time and artificial birth control results in conception .1%, at what percentage point did it become immoral?  What if every pack of condoms came with one that had a hole in it and condoms were only successful at preventing pregnancy 90% of the time?

I find it fascinating that so many criticize the Church for being legalistic. It’s as if you expect the Church to fit your false stereotype about them. Nothing would please you more than if the Church came out and gave some kind of specific percentage of what constitutes immorality. The fact is the Church does not do this, because the Church does not see her like you see her – as some kind of moral police out to bust everyone.

When it comes to determine whether a person is acting in a moral or immoral manner especially regarding something like NFP, he/she would need to talk to a spiritual directory, or priest, or ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. This could help clear up any doubts he/she may have. A neutral third party is often better to shed some light on a situation to help you better see the truth of the situation.

What would a serious reason be?  I can guess finances, and so on.

Finances, mental instability of one of the spouses, life of the mother at risk, extreme healthy concern, etc.

At what point would a couple practicing NFP be abusing it?  How would one abuse it?

Perhaps a person’s husband just lost his job and they already have two small children and are feeling overwhelmed, commons sense may tell us that there would be nothing immoral about such a couple who began practicing NFP. However, as soon as the wife started feeling like she had a better handle on her situation or as soon as the husband found a job again, the wise couple would come to realize it’s more freeing to simply be open to whatever life brings their way, then to feel some need to control everything. God wants us to be happy. He realizes we are human and can find life difficult at times, but a couple that loves God enough to make the sacrifice to practice NFP in their difficult trial instead of resorting to the immoral practice of artificial contraception, is a couple that will soon realize God will give them the necessary grace to deal with their situation. Perhaps practicing NFP for a short period would improve the couple’s marriage. The couple would truly find out what they mean to each other. They would need to communicate more and become more intimate. They would discover each others genuine concern for one another.

What is it about the sacrifice that makes a difference?

Sacrifice is proof of love. Sacrifice shows the spouses are not selfishly using each other. The husband isn’t saying, “I love you completely and I give myself entirely to you – except my fertility.” If the spouses are holding something back then it isn’t really love. It isn’t self-donation and total giving. It becomes selfish. You can shout you love your spouse till your blue in the face, but only your actions would prove it. Want to give all that you have and all that you are to your spouse? Then do it. Don’t make exceptions. Don’t make excuses. Why put limits on your love?

Could it be the Pope is protecting a fortune?

Hee, hee – don’t you have that backwards? Do you have any idea how many “catholics” would probably love it if the Pope changed the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception? Why perhaps even more people would convert to the Catholic Church if she were to do so. The Church’s numbers would increase and naturally so would their donations. Why if the Church declared artificial contraception moral, there would be a great many of “Catholics” and non-catholics alike who would be very happy to hear that. But the truth is the Church is not interested in increasing its numbers at the expense of truth. The Church is not a democracy. We did not vote Jesus Christ as our King. He is our king by right of His divinity. The Church does not determine truth by popular majority. And this I am afraid is what bothers you the most.

When it comes to your views about sex and contraception, it just smells like SPAG to me.  You use vague terms like "abuse" and "be open to" and "sacrifice."  Only you know what you mean be that.  Only you know when you think someone has had too much NFP or not enough abstinence.  You should see if the Vatican can make you the sex police and then all catholics can be subjected to your whims and instincts.

It has nothing to do with ME. That’s why sometimes you guys want a specific answer/amount/percentage and I am unable to give you one. I use words like “open” and “reasonable” and “sacrifice” because it is ultimately up to the individual and God to know what their intentions are. The Church is not as narrow and rigid as you want to make her out to be. She sets the guidelines. Her job is to help people know/recognize what is right and good and true. The Church presents the commandments – the laws (which are wonderful guidelines), but ultimately expects/hopes its members rise above the law.

Are you married? Do you need a commandment to tell you not to cheat on your spouse? Adultery is immoral, but many of us have risen above the law and don’t simply remain faithful because it is a law.

When it comes to birth control, the teaching is artificial contraception is immoral. The Church hopes that spouses will rise above the law. I don’t practice contraception in my marriage, because my Church says not to, but because of the love I have for my spouse. Because I realize that only when we follow what is right and good and true are we really free. I have no desire to place the limitations on myself that contraception would. It would be beneath my dignity of human being to do so.

You think contraception is immoral and you have stated your reasons, we don't have to agree, but you have made your position clear.  Your stance on NFP, however, is full of holes and on a very shaky foundation. .

 What holes? That it can be abused? Uhhh, alcohol can be abused, shall we then declare it immoral? Sex can be abused, should we consider sex bad?

If you want to talk about shaky foundations, perhaps you should take a look at marriages that contracept. Now that’s a shaky foundation!
 

It reveals your desperation to follow what the church has taught you and not acknowledge any problems in the doctrine.

What do I have to be desperate about? Perhaps, you need to find holes in my church’s teachings because you desperately need to feel good about your behavior?

And what problems are there in my Church’s doctrine? I see no problems.

 
 

How do you handle it when the church changes it's position on issues?  Do you just change yours too?  I wonder if the church will change it's position on birth control some day and how you would react.

Hee, hee. I’m not too worried. I am quite confident in the wisdom of the Church.

How will you react when the truth regarding these issues becomes more apparent?

Thanks for the dialogue, but you have a misunderstanding of the Church, of NFP, of marriage, and of freedom.

[CutePuppy]

This is not about "abusing NFP". NFP, for "normal use", is meant to be a contraceptive method. It's a form of contraception. We've already been over this, Agent40.

Waiting for a woman to be temporarily infertile before having sex, thus sexual intercourse without pregnancy/procreation, can clearly be classified as a conscious, intentional act. It is a deliberate action to separate sexual pleasure from procreation. Since you said it was immoral to intentionally separate the "unitive aspect" of sex and procreation, NFP is immoral. Stop being so hypocritical. The RCC are hypocrites on this and so are you. And for the record: I'm not sorry for shattering your illusion that the RCC consists of just a bunch fallible human beings with hypocritical stances.

[Agga]

I haven't forgotten about you, Agent40, it's just that I'm too wrapped up in some genuine and worthwhile discussions in other threads, with people who aren't fundamentally manipulating the entire conversation to promote their own agendas in a subversive manner, so as I'm sure you can appreciate my attention is focused on some pretty sincere people right now.

I'll come back to you once those have ended.

[jedweber]

And what problems are there in my Church’s doctrine? I see no problems.

Maybe there's no problem for YOU. If you're happy living in accordance with the church's teachings on birth control, that's great.

I don't have a problem with people living out their values voluntarily. But there's a real problem when the church interferes with AIDS prevention programs in Africa, or prevents access to family planning information, sex education and birth control, especially in the third world. Then they are making choices FOR people, and the consequences are often sickness, misery and death. 

How will you react when the truth regarding these issues becomes more apparent?

And when's that gonna happen? Sorry, but the days when the church could assert itself as the arbiter of truth (under the threat of violence) are long over. They had their chance, and they screwed it up pretty badly.

[Timtheskeptic]

cutepuppy, i totally agree.

Agent40, no matter how many times you say it, we always know what we're talking about on the subject. You on the other hand rely on your religious doctrine to tell you what they think is moral and not.

Why is it really any of your business, or your Church's business as to what happens inside the bedroom? Should we snoop into people's bedroom and ask if they were intentionally trying to conceive? Should we remove all the birth control methods from the pharmacies? Should we tell the homosexual men that they must marry a woman and not their lover? Same for the lesbians, should they be told to marry a man they are not attracted to? Should we be telling everyone not to touch their privates for some imaginary claptrap like "Enslaved to your own body?" Should we be strapping every women and young girls on the gurney everytime they're pregnant?

Everytime we ask you this Agent40, you ignored them and still think we should nose into other people's private business. I believe that we should not care what people do just as long as no one is getting harmed in any way at all.

You strongly believe a Fetus should have rights to life as a child. But to force a woman to keep a baby against her will is a horrible thing to do really. I really don't see any reason why we should stop a woman from having a choice for themselves. To stop women from having choice over their body is to take away their free will. This is not justice. This shows that women are not equal, women are to be controlled. That is disgusting thing to do really. No one should really be forced to keep a baby they can't or don't want to raise.

What should we do with people who are Elderly and married? What should we do with people who are infertile? Should we lock them up because they can't procreate? Should we lock up homosexuals as well?

Why, Agent40, why is it any of your concern or anyone else's concern? Why shouldn't we be able to do as we please with our own bodies? Why shouldn't we be able to have sex however we want (Except for sexual abuse, rape, or pedophilia)? Natural law? Human rights? God?

Human rights does not equate with forcing people to be celibate or to just procreate or to force women to keep a baby they can't or don't want. That is not human rights, that is control and you Agent40 are pro-imposition and pro slavery. How pro slavery? You believe our bodies should be controlled by you and your church. I tell you this Agent40, that you have about as much control over my life as monkeys could fly out of my ass.

[xphobe]

Latex is a natural substance.  In fact, so is estrogen.  Please don't try to twist your definition of "natural" to suit your prejudices

.

How shocking!  Here we go again with the argument that I am arguing natural law means only that which is “natural” Please look up what is meant by Natural Law. It does not mean only what one may find naturally occurring in nature. Natural Law has to do with design and purpose and order.

I don't know what you're talking about.  Neither one of us said anything about Natural Law (whatever that is).  You said "what may naturally occur".  I am pointing out that abstaining when you otherwise want to have sex, or using a piece of sheep's bladder or latex are both natural choices made for the purpose of contraception.  The Catholic Church's disctinction in this matter is, frankly, insane.  Next I suppose I'll be hearing that the Pope advocates oral sex as a means of birth control because it is "natural".  Does it matter whether you come in a woman's mouth as opposed to a rubber balloon?

I looked up Natural Law.   It's a muddle.  Maybe if you can define it we can talk about it.  Doesn't seem relevant to this thread though.

[velkyn]

wow. I do feel sorry for Agent 40 sometimes.  If she feels that love is only about having children with a man, wow.

Also, you are right intention does matter. A couple that gets married and plans to never have children and plans to practice NFP in order to avoid ever having children would most certainly be immoral. However, NFP in and of itself is not what would render the couple’s actions immoral. NFP is not immoral, but the abuse of it most certainly could be. The Church has always taught that NFP should only be used when a couple has serious reason to do so. And when the couple practices NFP the couple is required to make a sacrifice – abstinence.

Sacrifice is proof of love. Sacrifice shows the spouses are not selfishly using each other. The husband isn’t saying, “I love you completely and I give myself entirely to you – except my fertility.” If the spouses are holding something back then it isn’t really love. It isn’t self-donation and total giving. It becomes selfish. You can shout you love your spouse till your blue in the face, but only your actions would prove it. Want to give all that you have and all that you are to your spouse? Then do it. Don’t make exceptions. Don’t make excuses. Why put limits on your love?

[Timtheskeptic]

wow. I do feel sorry for Agent 40 sometimes.  If she feels that love is only about having children with a man, wow.

Also, you are right intention does matter. A couple that gets married and plans to never have children and plans to practice NFP in order to avoid ever having children would most certainly be immoral. However, NFP in and of itself is not what would render the couple's actions immoral. NFP is not immoral, but the abuse of it most certainly could be. The Church has always taught that NFP should only be used when a couple has serious reason to do so. And when the couple practices NFP the couple is required to make a sacrifice – abstinence.

Sacrifice is proof of love. Sacrifice shows the spouses are not selfishly using each other. The husband isn't saying, “I love you completely and I give myself entirely to you – except my fertility.” If the spouses are holding something back then it isn't really love. It isn't self-donation and total giving. It becomes selfish. You can shout you love your spouse till your blue in the face, but only your actions would prove it. Want to give all that you have and all that you are to your spouse? Then do it. Don't make exceptions. Don't make excuses. Why put limits on your love?

She's gone nuts she has. Clearly, i really don't know why she thinks couples should only be a couple if they plan on having children. I don't understand Agent40 really. I feel sorry that she has lost her marbles. She tragically lost her mind!

[CutePuppy]

wow. I do feel sorry for Agent 40 sometimes.  If she feels that love is only about having children with a man, wow.

Do you know what sucks, though? If you're a good Catholic and you've been saving yourself for the OneTruePartner^TM and you somehow end up separated? Loss of life, or just general unhappiness followed by a divorce. What then? Are you going to find new love again knowing you'll be unable to give him/her your SuperProofOfTrueLove^TM anymore?

Since Catholics deliberately go out of their way to save themselves for that special moment, won't they literally become "secondhand" goods if it doesn't work out for them the first time? Sucky. That sounds like added pressure just for being the imperfect humans that we are.

Important to note that married couples aren't logically happier than unmarried or "married but divorced before" couples. And in the aforementioned situation: sounds like extra unnecessary stress/force.

[Timtheskeptic]

wow. I do feel sorry for Agent 40 sometimes.  If she feels that love is only about having children with a man, wow.

Do you know what sucks, though? If you're a good Catholic and you've been saving yourself for the OneTruePartner^TM and you somehow end up separated? Loss of life, or just general unhappiness followed by a divorce. What then? Are you going to find new love again knowing you'll be unable to give him/her your SuperProofOfTrueLove^TM anymore?

Since Catholics deliberately go out of their way to save themselves for that special moment, won't they literally become "secondhand" goods if it doesn't work out for them the first time? Sucky. That sounds like added pressure just for being the imperfect humans that we are.

Important to note that married couples aren't logically happier than unmarried or "married but divorced before" couples. And in the aforementioned situation: sounds like extra unnecessary stress/force.

exactly cutepuppy.

[Gnu Ordure]

Agent40:

Natural Law has to do with design and purpose and order

Yes, and don't forget, Agent40, that's the part of your argument that you've already admitted is an assumption. And it's crucial, because your right reasoning and logical deductions depend on it.

I'll get back to you to continue our strand of the discussion in a day or so, I'm a bit tied up elsewhere, sorry. (But it's not as if you don't have anyone else to talk to !).

xphobe:

I looked up Natural Law.   It's a muddle.  Maybe if you can define it we can talk about it.  Doesn't seem relevant to this thread though.

Agent40, xphobe is right, it is a muddle. Natural Law has a secular interpretation (Aristotle), and a religious one (Aquinas). It also divides into a Moral Theory (Hume), and a Legal Theory (Franklin). Plenty of room for misunderstanding.

Now, I understand your approach in this discussion, you want to use a secular interpetation (ie Merriam-Webster rather than the Modern Catholic Dictionary). My point is that the axiomatic assumptions of your argument are those of Catholics - ie your source on page 1, John Courtney Murray was a Catholic priest, so when he uses terms such as teleology and Natural Law, he is using those terms as defined by his religion - so it would seem reasonable to interpret his words according to that Catholic definition, because that's how he meant them to be understood, surely ?

If you still object to me connecting teleology to theology in this way, no problem, I'll drop the point - it's not necessary to my argument. Your assumption that teleology is correct is sufficient, and you've already conceded that.

Catch you later,

Gnu.

[KNOX]

<short whine>
I don't understand how jedweber can make the exact same point on NFP that I've been making since the start of this thread, and Agent40 responds to him/her but not to me.
</short whine>

Anyway Agent40, you're wrong on NFP. Stop being so ignorant on the issue of NFP.

I've been parroting your stuff too.  Not much in the way of response though.  I think she can see where answering a question will lead to the demise of her "logic" so she ignores them.  She has completely ignored so many points on NFP.

[Timtheskeptic]

<short whine>
I don't understand how jedweber can make the exact same point on NFP that I've been making since the start of this thread, and Agent40 responds to him/her but not to me.
</short whine>

Anyway Agent40, you're wrong on NFP. Stop being so ignorant on the issue of NFP.

I've been parroting your stuff too.  Not much in the way of response though.  I think she can see where answering a question will lead to the demise of her "logic" so she ignores them.  She has completely ignored so many points on NFP.

oh i totally agree.

[nogodsforme]

I looked into that natural law stuff and it is a lot of bs. You can argue that almost anything is okay or not using the natural law argument.

If you don't believe me, just look up all the different ways Catholic people have justified slavery over the millenia. I just read about how some medieval popes said slavery was fine as long as you enslaved non-Christians, ie pagans and Muslims. Others said all slavery was fine as long as both the slave a master were moving towards communion, whatever that means. 

Hardly anyone before the 1800's categorically said that all slavery was wrong, based on natural law.
Don't bother to try to explain this, Agent40. You'll just look worse than you do already.

[Timtheskeptic]

I looked into that natural law stuff and it is a lot of bs. You can argue that almost anything is okay or not using the natural law argument.

If you don't believe me, just look up all the different ways Catholic people have justified slavery over the millenia. I just read about how some medieval popes said slavery was fine as long as you enslaved non-Christians, ie pagans and Muslims. Others said all slavery was fine as long as both the slave a master were moving towards communion, whatever that means. 

Hardly anyone before the 1800's categorically said that all slavery was wrong, based on natural law.
Don't bother to try to explain this, Agent40. You'll just look worse than you do already.

That is why i thought this whole natural law is horse manure.

[KNOX]

What they are doing is making conception less likely.  Artificial birth control also makes conception less likely.  Obviously, reducing the chances of conception is not immoral, in and of itself. The question is, at what rate does it become immoral.  If NFP results in conception 10% of the time and artificial birth control results in conception .1%, at what percentage point did it become immoral?  What if every pack of condoms came with one that had a hole in it and condoms were only successful at preventing pregnancy 90% of the time?

I find it fascinating that so many criticize the Church for being legalistic. It’s as if you expect the Church to fit your false stereotype about them. Nothing would please you more than if the Church came out and gave some kind of specific percentage of what constitutes immorality. The fact is the Church does not do this, because the Church does not see her like you see her – as some kind of moral police out to bust everyone.

So are you saying they know the percentage where it becomes immoral and do not give that information to the public or they do not know the percentage?  And why don't you answer questions, instead of giving quips?  You have the opportunity of educating me in catholic teachings.

When it comes to determine whether a person is acting in a moral or immoral manner especially regarding something like NFP, he/she would need to talk to a spiritual directory, or priest, or ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. This could help clear up any doubts he/she may have. A neutral third party is often better to shed some light on a situation to help you better see the truth of the situation.

Or they could just talk to you and you could tell them.  I would like to know what a priest would think of your positions.

What would a serious reason be?  I can guess finances, and so on.

Finances, mental instability of one of the spouses, life of the mother at risk, extreme healthy concern, etc.

At what point would a couple practicing NFP be abusing it?  How would one abuse it?

Perhaps a person’s husband just lost his job and they already have two small children and are feeling overwhelmed, commons sense may tell us that there would be nothing immoral about such a couple who began practicing NFP. However, as soon as the wife started feeling like she had a better handle on her situation or as soon as the husband found a job again, the wise couple would come to realize it’s more freeing to simply be open to whatever life brings their way, then to feel some need to control everything.

More like when YOU feel like she has a better handle on the situation.  Sure, it's more freeing to simply be open to whatever life brings their way...that's why I leave my doors unlocked.

God wants us to be happy.

God wants for nothing. 

He realizes we are human and can find life difficult at times, but a couple that loves God enough to make the sacrifice to practice NFP in their difficult trial instead of resorting to the immoral practice of artificial contraception, is a couple that will soon realize God will give them the necessary grace to deal with their situation. Perhaps practicing NFP for a short period would improve the couple’s marriage. The couple would truly find out what they mean to each other. They would need to communicate more and become more intimate. They would discover each others genuine concern for one another.

Wow, you know EVERYTHING!  Are all catholics as wise as you or are you advanced?

What is it about the sacrifice that makes a difference?

Sacrifice is proof of love. Sacrifice shows the spouses are not selfishly using each other. The husband isn’t saying, “I love you completely and I give myself entirely to you – except my fertility.” If the spouses are holding something back then it isn’t really love.

Sacrificing, by definition, is holding something back.  So which is it, should you sacrifice or give everything?

It isn’t self-donation and total giving. It becomes selfish. You can shout you love your spouse till your blue in the face, but only your actions would prove it. Want to give all that you have and all that you are to your spouse? Then do it. Don’t make exceptions. Don’t make excuses. Why put limits on your love?

Except when it comes to sex.  That should be limited, unless you are open to having more children. 

Could it be the Pope is protecting a fortune?

Hee, hee – don’t you have that backwards? Do you have any idea how many “catholics” would probably love it if the Pope changed the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception?

Exactly.  The church would lose credibility.  They have made generations live by a set of rules.  If they turned around and said something like contraception is not immoral, a lot of people would be pissed.  I would if I had been living a repressed life and then found out I didn't have to.

Why perhaps even more people would convert to the Catholic Church if she were to do so. The Church’s numbers would increase and naturally so would their donations.

I don't think so.

Why if the Church declared artificial contraception moral, there would be a great many of “Catholics” and non-catholics alike who would be very happy to hear that. But the truth is the Church is not interested in increasing its numbers at the expense of truth. The Church is not a democracy. We did not vote Jesus Christ as our King. He is our king by right of His divinity. The Church does not determine truth by popular majority. And this I am afraid is what bothers you the most.

Nah, that doesn't bother me.  It's a dictatorship, if they became democratic it would break into many factions...even more factions i should say.

When it comes to your views about sex and contraception, it just smells like SPAG to me.  You use vague terms like "abuse" and "be open to" and "sacrifice."  Only you know what you mean be that.  Only you know when you think someone has had too much NFP or not enough abstinence.  You should see if the Vatican can make you the sex police and then all catholics can be subjected to your whims and instincts.

It has nothing to do with ME. That’s why sometimes you guys want a specific answer/amount/percentage and I am unable to give you one. I use words like “open” and “reasonable” and “sacrifice” because it is ultimately up to the individual and God to know what their intentions are.

When someone is using NFP they intend to have the pleasure of sex without conception.

The Church is not as narrow and rigid as you want to make her out to be. She sets the guidelines. Her job is to help people know/recognize what is right and good and true. The Church presents the commandments – the laws (which are wonderful guidelines), but ultimately expects/hopes its members rise above the law.

OK.

Are you married? Do you need a commandment to tell you not to cheat on your spouse? Adultery is immoral, but many of us have risen above the law and don’t simply remain faithful because it is a law.

I don't think people should break promises.  That is where my feelings on adultery begin and end.  Obviously people do break promises...even catholics.  For me, it has nothing to do with sex, or even marriage.

When it comes to birth control, the teaching is artificial contraception is immoral. The Church hopes that spouses will rise above the law. I don’t practice contraception in my marriage, because my Church says not to, but because of the love I have for my spouse.

What would happen to your love for each other if you went on the pill?

Because I realize that only when we follow what is right and good and true are we really free. I have no desire to place the limitations on myself that contraception would. It would be beneath my dignity of human being to do so.

Contraception is right and good.

You think contraception is immoral and you have stated your reasons, we don't have to agree, but you have made your position clear.  Your stance on NFP, however, is full of holes and on a very shaky foundation. .

What holes? That it can be abused? Uhhh, alcohol can be abused, shall we then declare it immoral? Sex can be abused, should we consider sex bad?

Not that it can be abused.  That it is contraception meant to allow for sex without conception or at least reduced likelihood of conception just like the pill or condoms.

If you want to talk about shaky foundations, perhaps you should take a look at marriages that contracept. Now that’s a shaky foundation!

It reveals your desperation to follow what the church has taught you and not acknowledge any problems in the doctrine.

What do I have to be desperate about? Perhaps, you need to find holes in my church’s teachings because you desperately need to feel good about your behavior?

What do you know about my behavior?  Oh yeah, you know EVERYTHING.

And what problems are there in my Church’s doctrine? I see no problems.

Visit the Sudan.

How do you handle it when the church changes it's position on issues?  Do you just change yours too?  I wonder if the church will change it's position on birth control some day and how you would react.

Hee, hee. I’m not too worried. I am quite confident in the wisdom of the Church.

How will you react when the truth regarding these issues becomes more apparent?

I adjust to credible information as I receive it.

Thanks for the dialogue, but you have a misunderstanding of the Church, of NFP, of marriage, and of freedom.

I can see why you would think so.

[Agent40]

I rather die than to be unable to please myself, i rather die than to be unable to freely fantasize sexy thoughts,

Wow!

Perhaps you should share your thoughts with a paraplegic.

The couple who practices NFP is not engaging in the sexual act and then trying to thwart what might be inevitable from said act. The couple is having sex and letting what may naturally occur occur. See the difference?

No, I don't see a difference, really. The couple who plots out days on a calendar when they can have intercourse is doing it precisely so they can engage in sex with the intention of not conceiving.

The couple who practices NFP is allowing the body to do what the body normally does. If you have sex, then you should allow the natural consequence of that sexual act. If the act does not result in conception whether that is because the woman is not ovulating or because she was ovulating but conception just didn’t occur, or because she is infertile, or because she is 50 years old then there is no wrong in that. The act was still performed and nothing was done to change the natural consequences that may result from that sexual act. When you use artificial contraception, you are altering the act itself. You are changing the inherent nature of the act.

The intention is exactly the same as if they used a condom.

Not at all. The couple who knows the woman is ovulating that day and so uses a condom engages in the sexual act and thwarts the results of that act. The couple that knows the woman is ovulating that day and is practicing NFP, does not engage in the sexual act that day! Get it? They don’t have sex! They abstain from sex! You can’t be guilty of not engaging in the sexual act properly if you don’t have sex!

In fact, NFP advocates like to argue that their method is just as effective as artificial means when practiced correctly. Why would they make that argument? Doesn't it run counter to your justification for the practice?

Not at all. Like I said the risk of failure is NOT my justification – it is your projection of what you think my justification is. Artificial contraception is not immoral because it does not allow for the possibility of pregnancy. Artificial contraception is immoral because it does not allow for the inherent nature of the sexual act to occur.

If you don’t want the calories from a Krispy Kreme donut and so don’t eat the donut – that’s not immoral. If you don’t want the calories from a Krispy Kreme donut, but eat it and then make yourself throw up – that would be immoral and wrong.

If a girl decided she did not want to gain weight and thought she would limit her calorie intake by skipping in between snacks or eating late at night because research shows that if you eat late at night you are more likely to gain weight, most people would commend her on her discipline and will power. Her actions would be virtuous as they show self-control and restraint and are in fact quite healthy and good for her. However if the girl said she had decided to eat as much as she wanted, but then after certain meals make herself throw up, what would we think of her behavior? Would we not consider it disordered? Would she not be engaging in an improper use of the body? Would it be in her best interest and the healthiest course for her to take? Would we consider such behavior beneath her dignity as a human person?

A couple that gets married and plans to never have children and plans to practice NFP in order to avoid ever having children would most certainly be immoral.

Really? What if they feel they are not equipped to raise children properly, that for some reason they couldn't be good parents?

If they don’t feel they are equipped to raise children, they should not be having sex. If you can’t handle or don’t want kids, don’t be selfish – practice abstinence.

Must they swear to a life of celibacy?

Well, at least a moment of celibacy if they don’t want children right now, don’t have sex right now. They can always change their mind, and when they are ready and capable of handling children, they can do so.

And again, what about elderly or infertile couples? Are they denied the right to a physical relationship because they cannot procreate?

Silly argument that’s been raised a million times by those who have no concept of why artificial contraception is immoral. The fact that an elderly couple is most likely not going to be able to conceive only means nature has determined it as such. They are not altering the nature of the sexual act. Besides, it isn’t always easy to know when an “old” person is no longer capable of creating new life – Larry King still does it.

This also applies to your attitude towards homosexuals. You say the person is not wrong, but the ACT always is. Do you realize that you've just condemned an entire group of people to live their entire lives without the love and physical companionship of another person, something that you probably take for granted?

I’m not sure why you think not having sex means a person would live their life without love or companionship? There are a great many people in the world who experience love that are not having sex.

Is it easy for you to sit there and decide that someone else must remain celibate or never know more than platonic friendship for a lifetime, all because of some characteristic they didn't choose?

I did not decide anything. Life decided. The natural order decided.

Did pedophiles choose to be attracted to children? And yet you condemn them to living a life that comes natural to them? How dare you deny their feelings. How dare you deny their right to love.


I

can understand the church's moral disapproval of casual sex, gay or otherwise, but when it condemns people for trying to have a committed, loving relationship and would prevent it if they could, I don't find that moral at all. It's downright evil, because it's led to a trail of broken and damaged lives.

I could argue pursuing a homosexual lifestyle leads to a trail of broken and damaged lives. Homosexuals are more likely to suffer depression, abuse drugs or alcohol, be in abusive relationships.


 

It even hurts your own church, because countless Catholic men who were confused and tormented by the church's condemnation of their sexuality turned to the priesthood, where it wouldn't become an issue (in theory.) It's well-known that a very high percentage of priests are homosexual, as high as 50% in the US by some estimates. For many, this is no problem and they function just as a celibate heterosexual priest. For others who were confused, repressed or in denial, it led to problems later.

I applaud you for being honest regarding the sex abuse scandal in the Church. You are right in that much of the priestly abuse scandal was from homosexual priests and not necessarily pedophiles. And certainly not from straight priests being denied the right to be sexually active.

Homosexuals often sought the priesthood to hide or not want to face their problem. And yet, as we see, they are not usually successful. It isn’t the Church that turned normal men into pedophiles. It was homosexual men who crossed the line as is often the case in sexual deviance. How is it the Church’s fault? Did the Church force these men to become priests? As I recall, the priesthood is voluntary.

[Agent40]

Quote
Isn’t it interesting that the Church has not simply changed her position to better roll with the times? What is the current position today, Jedweber, of the Church and artificial contraception? Oh, that’s right – it remains that it is immoral. Hmmmm? Could it be the Holy Spirit at work here? Could it be that the Holy Spirit has refused to allow the Pope to change this teaching? Could it be that it hasn't changed because truth doesn't change? Just something to think about.

The Holy Spirit? Or the fact that the hierarchy is an institution composed of like-minded men who perpetuate themselves by appointing similarly-minded men to leadership positions?

Your previous post contradicts yourself. If the Church is only composed of like-minded men, why do so many priests and bishops disagree with the Pope on this issue?

You might have a point if the church never changed its teachings and practices. But it has, sometimes drastically.

This ought to be good.

In the fourth century,

Love it when we need to go back to the 4th century to attempt to make a point, but sorry, I digress . . .

the church was Arian for a while. (Which meant that some sincere and devout Catholics had a slightly different view of the nature of Jesus.) Today the Arian-dominated church councils have been erased from church history, and Arianism is considered a great heresy.

Yeah, you know why that is? Because arianism was always heretical. Just like many sincere “catholics” today believe there is nothing wrong with artificial birth control and yet to believe that would be heretical. This was not a drastic change in the Church it was a clarification about what it was the Church actually believed and stood for. LOL!

 

Do you know when the infallible doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was proclaimed? In 1854. The Assumption of Mary? 1950.

Oh, this is too much. Such a typical erroneous view perpetuated yet again. The immaculate conception was ALWAYS true as was the assumoption. Either the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin or she was not, either she was assumed into heaven or she was not. She was not assumed into heaven in 1950. LOL!

Often, the Church finds it necessary to clarify certain truths (either because there are some erroneous views floating around, or whatever) so the Church will make a statement. Simply because the Church did not make this official statement until 1950 does not mean the Church changed its view. In fact, if you go back and study the teachings of the early Church and the writings of the early church fathers you would find ALL believed in the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary. I really do wish some of you would learn your church history before you bash it.

Where was the Holy Spirit for all the centuries when the church was corrupt and power-hungry?

You don’t think there were good priests during any of these centuries? You think they were all corrupt? Where was the wisdom of America when it use to enslave African Americans? Was every southerner corrupt and power-hungry? Whenever we talk about history you have to take into account historical context. You simply cannot compare the behavior of the middle ages to today, or label all priests corrupt becasue of the actions of a few.

I'm not saying the church is predominantly evil, or even any worse than any other large human institution, but I certainly don't see any evidence for consistent guidance by a holy spirit.

I beg to differ. Only the Catholic Church has the courage to stand up for truth in the world today. The Catholic Church is the leader in the Pro life movement and continually fights to defend the unborn. The Catholic Church continues to fight against many of societies gravest evils like pornography. The Catholic Church probably does more charitable work and helps more poor, homeless, hungry, and sick then any other institution in the world. You might want to look into that.

I don't have a problem with people living out their values voluntarily. But there's a real problem when the church interferes with AIDS prevention programs in Africa, or prevents access to family planning information, sex education and birth control, especially in the third world. Then they are making choices FOR people, and the consequences are often sickness, misery and death. 

Are you insane? What does the Church teach? Are you unclear on her teachings? Does she not warn people against pre-marital sex? Promiscuity? Adultery? Homosexual acts?

How do you think people get AIDS? How dare you blame the Church for AIDS. You can’t ignore what the Church says and then turn around and blame the Church because you ignored what it said. No one reaches out to people with AIDS more than the Catholic Church. You might want to get your facts straight.

I don't know what you're talking about.  Neither one of us said anything about Natural Law (whatever that is).  You said "what may naturally occur".  I am pointing out that abstaining when you otherwise want to have sex, or using a piece of sheep's bladder or latex are both natural choices made for the purpose of contraception.  The Catholic Church's disctinction in this matter is, frankly, insane.  Next I suppose I'll be hearing that the Pope advocates oral sex as a means of birth control because it is "natural".  Does it matter whether you come in a woman's mouth as opposed to a rubber balloon?

I looked up Natural Law.   It's a muddle.  Maybe if you can define it we can talk about it.  Doesn't seem relevant to this thread though.

Xphobe, you missed a great deal in this thread. I have talked about natural law and have no intention of repeating everything I’ve said. I’m sorry, but you have absoulutely no idea what you’re talking about. If the best you can do is call the Church’s teachings insane without any logic to back that up, then I have nothing to say.

And oral sex is immoral. I am amazed at the number of people who think they know what the Catholic Church teaches/believes and haven’t a clue.

Do you know what sucks, though? If you're a good Catholic and you've been saving yourself for the OneTruePartnerTM and you somehow end up separated? Loss of life, or just general unhappiness followed by a divorce. What then? Are you going to find new love again knowing you'll be unable to give him/her your SuperProofOfTrueLoveTM anymore?

Good Gravy are you people clueless? You really have absoulutely no concept of love. It’s unreal.

What would happen to your love for each other if you went on the pill?

It would indicate a false love. How can I claim to love my husband and say everything that I have is his if I withhold something? I love him, but not enough to have his child? I love him, but not quite that much? That’s not love.

Contraception is right and good.

Prove it.

Contraception means contra (against) life. How can that be good?

[Agent40]

Look boys and girls this has been fun, but I believe it is time for me to go. If I haven’t addressed many of you personally, I apologize. You have to believe me that I really do love all of my atheists equally. It simply gets too hard to respond to everything. For every one of your posts I have 20 to reply to and within those 20 posts, I have to correct 20 misconceptions you all spout about me or the Catholic Church before I can even address the topic at hand. I simply am not sure I can continue. It is going nowhere.

 Most of you are so far away from truth, I feel like I’m talking to a bunch of amoeba. I just can’t relate to being that blind/clueless. And please don’t take that personally. My 8 year old can be clueless at times too, but I still love her. You all are sweet, just a little lost. I wish you well. The hardest part is I’m sure you’ll respond with yet even more erroneous claims that I will want to comment on, but I am going to try to abstain. For this simply appears to be never-ending.

P.S. Pinkmilk, it seems like you are quite pleased with yourself that you think you are capable of claiming truth exists, but not moral truth. I’m sorry, but there are a great many excellent arguments out there that in fact argue that there are moral absolutes and in fact that it is illogical to believe otherwise.

This would be an awesome topic for another thread. One which would force you to confront your moral relativism, because it is quite obvious that that’s all you are hanging onto. Because if moral truth exists – your world-view is pretty much “up the creek. . . “ so to speak. I do hope you’ll research the topic some day, Pink. I have grown quite fond of you. Take care. -Agent40

[Timtheskeptic]

*Hits head on keyboard dozens of times*

So if we don't want children, we should not be having sex? f**k you.

[CutePuppy]

Agent40

I'm going to have to respond regardless of whether you come back or not. It may seem a bit unfair, but I do think I earned that right after repeatedly calling you out and your complete and utter failure to refute the points or admit you're wrong.

Since you switched your argument on reproduction morality from "intentionally separating the unitive aspect of sex" to "the way it is naturally intended to be...natural law blablabla" can I assume that the former motive is no longer valid? That the act of intentionally separating the unitive aspect is not immoral? Is that because you've realized that NFP is in fact contraception? That NFP does exactly that: intentionally separate the "unitive act" of sex? Or is it just because you're unable to refute it?

I've noticed you've been ignoring me for quite some time now. You've switched arguments and you're kinda hoping nobody would catch you doing that? Shame on you Agent40. A more mature person would have simply acknowledged they were unable to refute the points.

[Timtheskeptic]

I agree cutepuppy.

Right now, from what i can see, Agent40 has never refuted anything, never even addressed the very valid argument we presented, and ignored many of our posts.

If people shouldn't have sex if they didn't want to have children, then what about infertile couples? what about homosexual couples? People should be allowed to have sex even if they don't want children and even if they can't have children. I know it's hard for Agent40 to even comprehend this, but people often have sex most of the time without a desire to have children. Why shouldn't they? Agent40 has made baseless assertions that sex without making babies affects couples or something. What Agent40 makes of this argument was like we should go to every single person who is preparing to have sex and say, "If you're going to have sex and no desire to make any babies, we should arrest you." It's not anybody's business on what people do behind close door (Unless a child is involved in sexual activity with an adult or sexual abuse of sorts of course)

She didn't try to refute my about homosexuals either when i told her that calling homosexual acts bad is to called homosexuals bad. The very sad thing is, it's still no one's business but Agent40 still thinks it is.

Using contraception is always looked down on by RCC and some other religious fruitcakes. But why should they care if i use a condom? Why should they care if we use any other contraception? Should we call in the police squad to every house to check for birth control pills and such?

Agent40 has had put on blindfolds and pretends she is winning all of the arguments in this thread. Much like a fly thinking it has tipped over dogs successfully.

[KNOX]

The intention is exactly the same as if they used a condom.

Not at all. The couple who knows the woman is ovulating that day and so uses a condom engages in the sexual act and thwarts the results of that act. The couple that knows the woman is ovulating that day and is practicing NFP, does not engage in the sexual act that day! Get it? They don’t have sex! They abstain from sex! You can’t be guilty of not engaging in the sexual act properly if you don’t have sex!

They abstain until...THEY CAN HAVE SEX FOR PLEASURE ONLY!!!!!!  THAT'S IMMORAL, AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT!

(Refraining from insults)

[Agga]

In the fourth century,

Love it when we need to go back to the 4th century to attempt to make a point, but sorry, I digress . . .

Oh right, you mean how like we love it when you need to go back to BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS EVEN CREATED in an attempt to make yours?


HYPOCRITE WARNING
UNDERHANDED TACTICS WARNING

[Timtheskeptic]

In the fourth century,

Love it when we need to go back to the 4th century to attempt to make a point, but sorry, I digress . . .

Oh right, you mean how like we love it when you need to go back to BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS EVEN CREATED in an attempt to make yours?


HYPOCRITE WARNING
UNDERHANDED TACTICS WARNING

indeed.

[Agga]

I'm going to come back later on and challenge the other mass of hypocrisies and deceits that's been collating while Agent40's been posting, but this one really stood out to me when I saw it.

It's almost unbelievable isn't it!


By the way, you probably don't need to quote my post if yours is the next in line.

If nothing else it pisses off Nam if I use too many scrolling marquees

[Timtheskeptic]

ok Agnastic.

[Gnu Ordure]

NoGods:

I looked into that natural law stuff and it is a lot of bs.

I beg to differ, NoGods. The difficulty is that there are two versions of Natural Law, one secular and one religious. Obviously most atheists reject the religious version out of hand, for obvious reasons, but the secular version has provided a philosophical basis for morality and law for hundreds of years.

Natural Law was originally secular; it was co-opted by Christianity in the thirteenth century by Thomas Aquinas, who introduced the teleological components previously lacking. This produced the definition now used by Catholics. From The Modern Catholic Dictionary :

As distinct from revealed law, it is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1a 2ae,). As coming from God, the natural law is what God has produced in the world of creation; as coming to human beings, it is what they know (or can know) of what God has created.

However, the secular interpretation continued to exist alongside the religious one, and provided the philosophical basis for, amongst other things, the Magna Carta (1215), the english Bill of Rights (1689), the US Bill of Rights (1789), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

So, Nogods, I rather feel the concept does not deserve to be dismissed as BS.  

Anyway, this division has been a source of confusion all through this thread. Agent40 has occasionally asked people to explain the basis for their morality, and people have naturally been reluctant to accept her suggestion of Natural Law - because when she says Natural Law, she means the religious version. No-one has suggested the secular version as an answer, yet it is a reasonable response, which answers her implied criticism that atheists are amoral.

So where do we find an example of this secular Natural Law ? One starting point would be the Laws of Nature set out by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651). From Wiki :

As used by Thomas Hobbes in his treatises Leviathan and De Cive, natural law is "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same."

If you look at Hobbes' Laws, you can see that there is no mention of divinity, and there is no mention of design or purpose ie teleology is rejected. So there is nothing there for atheists/agnostics to object to in principle. Obviously one would amend or add to the list to take account of modern times, but many of the Laws are still acceptable as written:


The first Law of nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.

The second Law of nature is that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.

The third Law is that men perform their covenants made. In this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice... when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just.

The fourth Law is that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. Breach of this law is called ingratitude.

The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.
 
The sixth Law is that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.

The seventh Law is that in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.

The eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.

The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.

The tenth law is that at the entrance into the conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. The breach of this precept is arrogance, and observers of the precept are called modest.

The eleventh law is that if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, that he deal equally between them.

The twelfth law is that such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right.

The thirteenth law is that those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.

The fourteenth law is that all men that mediate peace be allowed safe conduct.

The fifteenth law is that they that are at controversy submit their right to the judgment of an arbitrator.

The sixteenth law is that no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause.


In my opinion, Hobbes provides a solid starting point for atheist morality/law. No gods, no design, no innate purpose - what's not to like, Nogods ?  

Gnu.