Catholic apologist: America will never again be a pro-life nation
There are some brave, noble souls fighting the good fight, hoping against hope that the current situation can be salvaged, but it cannot.
It is unreasonable and naive to conclude that in the West all of a sudden there is going to be this great pro-life, anti-same sex marriage, anti-contraception movement. In short, an anti-selfish movement. After multiple generations have been fed on a non-stop diet of self-satisfaction as the highest ideal – read it – Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
Because the culture is immoral, the economy will reflect that. Decades of contraception, decades of abortion, have lit the fuse to a demographic/economic time bomb nearly set to blow up the whole rotten mess.
No economy that has become a welfare state can sustain an aging population by draining the resources of the young, particularly when there are less and less young people who can have their resources drained.
~ Michael Voris, making the case for a grim view of the future of Western society, Church Militant.tv, June 21
[Photo courtesy of National Interest.org]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Voris is a man without hope. He lost it a long time ago. Even the prophets who predicted the worst doom and gloom always, always had hope. No true Christian would say such a thing. Disgraceful.
With God all things are possible!
Augustine wrote City of God after the barbarians had sacked Rome. Out of the wreckage of the Roman Empire rose the Church. Monks preserved learning during the Dark Ages.
The West is no more essential to the survival of the Church than the Roman Empire was. The American Peace will end just as the Pax Romana did. Despite wars and rumours of wars, the Lord Jesus Christ continues on His throne, and His people are preparing for His return. He is alive, and He will return!
Confederates prior to 1865: Slavery is here for good.
Racists on Plessy vs. Ferguson: Segregation is settled law.
Leftists on the evil Soviet empire: The Berlin Wall is here to stay.
In short, it is one thing to (rightly) claim our fight will be long and hard. Indeed, the worldview that makes abortion plausible in the first place is deeply entrenched in American culture. It’s quite another, however, to say our fight is hopeless.
Surrender is not an option.
I like Michael Voris, but he’s wrong about this. Maybe he’s right that America as we know it will never outlaw abortion – meaning there will have to be a significant societal shift or regime change to make it happen, but I don’t know if he meant it that way or not.
One thing I do agree on: we have a lot of evil to undo. But it will happen; one way or another.
It’s sad that Voris has accepted defeat. Well, sit down and shut up then. Let the rest of us carry on. I’m not some short sighted idiot who only wants to be on the winning side. We fight because it’s the right thing to do. Nobody is expecting a big parade and massive thank you from society later on. And we don’t need the traditional signs of victory. Our victories are small, but they grow and grow.
America was once a great Culture of Life. We can do it again.
America has warmly embraced the Culture of Death for a while. We can undo it.
The pro-aborts frequently assert that “we won’t go back” and talk about how terrible the ’40’s and ’50’s and ’60’s were. Meanwhile, our young people are recognizing the good culture that past generations enjoyed, and they want it back. They want the marriages and the children and less of this shallow, materialistic life.
Like all of the devout liberals, Voris believes that the government-school indoctrination cannot be overcome. 2.04 million homeschooled children disagree.
http://www.nheri.org/research/nheri-news/homeschool-population-report-2010.html
Relax.
.
Voris is materialistic and lamenting the end of prosperity and a certain way of life.
.
There was this idea of utopia through social spending to help people. Now that won’t work due to demographic reality. I don’t see anything particularly spiritual in all this.
Voris is no liberal, for sure. But it is sad to see that he can not yet see that Christ can work miracles – even in unsuspecting ways.
It is in Him (Christ) that we have our hope. And in Him that we have our peace, even in the midst of a struggle.
Keep praying. Keep doing. Love big.
hippie: Voris is listing the symptoms of a spiritual disease that afflicts our culture. Voris is saying that the disease is terminal, and our culture will die — like so many of the great cultures have disappeared before us.
If Voris is right: In a few centuries, “America” will be an interesting highlight of history, alongside the Soviet Empire and the European Union. You can read about us in a textbook at your Catholic school. It will be written in Spanish.
hippie, you clearly know nothing about Michael Voris and completely misunderstood his quote above…
Comtraception and same-sex marriage are not selfish. I think this guy should look at some polls though, if he thinks its impossible for people to turn away from abortion. Younger generations are more anti-abortion than ever.
‘There’s a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse and everybody in the village says, “how wonderful. The boy got a horse” And the Zen master says, “we’ll see.” Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, “How terrible.” And the Zen master says, “We’ll see.” Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight, except the boy can’t ’cause his leg’s all messed up. and everybody in the village says, “How wonderful”…Now the Zen master says, “We’ll see.”‘ – from Charlie Wilson’s War
Jack says:
June 24, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Comtraception and same-sex marriage are not selfish.
Contraception and homosexual acts are self-serving. Likewise for heterosexual activity outside of marriage. These are about gratifying one’s own urges and using other people to do so, while avoiding the risk of self-sacrifice.
Same-sex marriage is not a real thing. It is neither selfish nor self-giving. It is a facade of legal permission to a particular sort of friendship. At best, it hopes to be “BFF’s for realsies.”
Natural marriage is about total self-giving of one to a spouse and being open to new life. Contraception, adultery, and divorce frustrate real marriage.
Never give up, as Dylan Thomas told us:
DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO
THAT GOOD NIGHT
” Contraception and homosexual acts are self-serving. Likewise for heterosexual activity outside of marriage. These are about gratifying one’s own urges and using other people to do so, while avoiding the risk of self-sacrifice.”
Yes, yes, yes, I realize that using contraception while you’re married to avoid having another child you can’t take care of is the world’s most selfish act. And don’t forget that it’s impossible for gay people to care about each other. Nope, they simply selfishly use each other and don’t do anything self-sacrificial for each other. Ever.
It’s possible to think something is morally wrong and not ascribe motives to people without even knowing them or anything about them. If it’s impossible to have a “pro-life” (the way you all have defined that) nation, then I would wager that’s one of the main reasons. It’s possibly to disagree without degrading people’s relationships and how much they care about each other.
http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/i-am-sorry/
Here we go…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RVO0-OOPZA
Yes, yes, yes, I realize that using contraception while you’re married to avoid having another child you can’t take care of is the world’s most selfish act.
That’s a strawman argument, Jack. Avoiding pregnancy due to serious financial reasons is not selfish. Contraception, however, is a selfish means to a morally neutral end because it causes the spouses to reject and deny an integral part of one another.
or it’s a neutral (not “selfish”) means to a morally neutral end because couples who practice contraception no more “reject” or “deny” their significant other than couples who don’t practice contraception.
But yeah, the paranoid fantasies of how the world is circling the drain and it will never be the “better” way that you all want it…that’s cool too.
‘Jesus IS the alpha and omega – the beginning and the end’
I can’t blame Vorris for reading ‘the end’ as doom and gloom for America’s embrace of death into its culture’ but hasn’t the US always been marked ‘as the land of dreams’ or hope = fantasy (Hollywood)/miracles is-a-coming. Very soon America will be ‘the land of nightmares …. because we know ‘ThE Godfather’ , and know nelther God nor Abba. Death is not punishment for wrongdoing or is it sacrificial, as in Christ? Is America’s predicted death, a new beginning?
TIME TO GROW-UP…..isn’t it?
We have spent years and years (often decades ‘doin’ pro-life, or have we. I am very disabled – no doubts there … yet I get a very rare visit from my Church ,,…. community? why because I am nearer to death = nearer to Christ? and yet they wish to know Christ …. without being intimate with His Cross.
We in PL-land have little difficulty pointing out the faults (usually reason) of PC, but do we LOVE BIG [as Joy (above) phrases it]?
x, not only is contraception a less-effective way to avoid pregnancy, study after study shows that contraception makes couples bored with sex and reduces communication.
That’s probably why married couples who contracept are far more likely to get divorced than those using natural methods of birth regulation.
Anyway, if you believe beings are created for a purpose (whether by God or nature), there’s a very good argument to be made that contraception is unhealthy for individuals and society because it violates natural law.
Jack:
The reason that we have abortion and infanticide in our culture is because we think contraception is okay.
The reason we have epidemic divorce and illegitimacy in our culture is because we think contraception is okay.
These are the symptoms of the contraception mentality.
People may have all sorts of good motives for using contraception and misconceptions about the goodness of contraception. Lots of good people use contraception. The kindest thing that one can do is to teach the hard truth against those errors.
Michael Voris is full of gloom and despair because our culture has overwhelmingly refused to listen to the truth. Recent generations of Catholics, in particular, use contraception and get divorced at the same rate as the rest of the culture. Voris’s point is that Jesus founded His Church to convert the world, and we cannot convert the world if we are living just like the world. And he is right.
Knowing this, I have only two choices: I can slump in despair, like Voris. Or I can trust in Jesus, and evangelize to the world where I am — right here, in this little corner of the Internet.
You seem especially fascinated with homosexual love. Well… of course, gay friends can be truly loving and self-giving in their relationships. The hard truth for our age is this: The best way to love a friend (whether straight or gay) is to curb one’s desire to fondle that friend’s genitals. Even if that friend “consents” to some mutual pleasuring.
Our current culture worships sex. And so it is difficult for us to see that disordered sex (contracepted, homosexual, or outside of marriage) is not good for either partner. It does damage to the ones we ought to love.
Oops… the first link in my reply to x is bad. In lieux of a similar summary of that point (I can’t find one), here’s my own summary of research along those lines, which I recently sent to someone else online:
According to a study published in Human Reproduction, two thirds of unintended pregnancies occur among women using contraception. According to the CDC, 58% of women who undergo abortion “reported that they ‘currently used’ contraception during the month of their last menstrual period.” That means they were using contraception when they got pregnant.
In 2011, the CDC also reported that, despite the near-universal use of contraception, 49% of pregnancies are unplanned. It has also noted that out-of-wedlock pregnancies have increased – right along side the increased use of contraception – from 89,500 in 1940 to 1,240,172 in 1993.
Clearly contraceptives are not helping to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies. This is because of Habit Persistence and Risk Compensation.
The 2011 Duke study Habit Persistence and Teen Sex concluded that “programs that increase access to contraception are found to decrease teen pregnancies in the short run but increase teen pregnancies in the long run.”
The condom’s use-effectiveness rate is 85%. That means a woman (or teen girl) whose boyfriend uses condoms for every single act of intercourse has a 15% chance of becoming pregnant within a year. Oral contraception has a better use-effectiveness rate – at 95% – but comes with it’s own risks.
And I didn’t even mention STDs…
Hey mods, I have two comments awaiting moderation (because of the links). Could you help me out? Thanks.
“That’s a strawman argument, Jack. Avoiding pregnancy due to serious financial reasons is not selfish. Contraception, however, is a selfish means to a morally neutral end because it causes the spouses to reject and deny an integral part of one another.”
Oh, totally. But making sure that the sperm lands on a uterus that is in the time of month where it’s hostile to life is totally accepting of the other person’s fertility. You guys always want to talk about how NFP is so much more effective than condoms and the like, so I would have to say that condoms are more open to life and accepting because you at least know there’s a chance for them to break or fail. I see no real difference between NFP and barrier methods, really, and I think it’s ridiculous to approve of one and not the other, and look at NFP users as some self-sacrificial loving couple and those who use contraception as selfish and hostile to life.
Yes, Jack, it is. I’m not denying my husband’s fertility, nor is he denying mine, whenever we make love. If I happen to be in an infertile phase of my menstrual cycle, that’s not due to any deliberate action on my part – it’s the way my body was designed to work, and it’s a wonderful design!
But if I ingest carcinogens or mutilate my reproductive organs or ask my husband to put a barrier of latex around himself, then yes, I’m rejecting his fertility and he’s rejecting mine.
I was on the Pill for the first two years of my marriage. I’ve been contraception free for a decade now, and I can tell you the difference is night and day.
” The reason that we have abortion and infanticide in our culture is because we think contraception is okay.
The reason we have epidemic divorce and illegitimacy in our culture is because we think contraception is okay.
These are the symptoms of the contraception mentality.”
There was no such thing as abortion and infanticide before the event of the Pill? I’d love to see your sources and proof (causation, not correlation, and no Humanae Vitae is not a scientific document proving the causation of contraception —-> all these other things). Infanticide and abortion have a long and varied history over generations and hundreds of cultures, some were even worse than ours, especially on the infanticide front. Divorce wasn’t always a popular option in western culture for many reasons, not the least in that single women, especially with children, had much difficulty supporting themselves and their kids without a male. There’s a lot of reasons other than that for the divorce rate. To boil it all down to contraception is just.. ridiculous is the word I think I’m looking for.
” You seem especially fascinated with homosexual love. Well… of course, gay friends can be truly loving and self-giving in their relationships. The hard truth for our age is this: The best way to love a friend (whether straight or gay) is to curb one’s desire to fondle that friend’s genitals. Even if that friend “consents” to some mutual pleasuring.
Our current culture worships sex. And so it is difficult for us to see that disordered sex (contracepted, homosexual, or outside of marriage) is not good for either partner. It does damage to the ones we ought to love. ”
Well, I’m not the one fascinated by it if Catholics and Christians are the ones constantly bringing it up, lol.
Agree to disagree on this one, people aren’t “selfish” or “using” each other by being in a caring monogamous relationship, regardless of the gender of the partners.
“I was on the Pill for the first two years of my marriage. I’ve been contraception free for a decade now, and I can tell you the difference is night and day.”
Well, that’s good for you. Other people have had different experiences.
And like I said, I can totally see how throwing a condom on is circumventing fertility, but carefully and daily planning out sexual activity (taking temps, examining cervical mucus, etc) to make sure you don’t make a baby is not rejecting fertility.
Actually, Jack, NFP can be used to achieve pregnancy too. I’ve used it for that purpose, several times, so it’s not used solely “to make sure you don’t make a baby.” When used for that purpose, it’s respecting a woman’s natural cycle and her healthy fertility by abstaining from the activity that creates babies if you have serious reasons to do so. When you abstain from sex, you’re not rendering the sex act itself sterile (as contraception does), you’re choosing not to engage in the act at all. It’s like choosing not to gain weight by abstaining from unhealthy foods instead of choosing not to gain weight by binging on chocolate cake and then throwing it all up.
All NFP provides is information about a woman’s body and cycle (information that can be valuable to use to diagnose medical problems as well, especially those associated with infertility) – it’s up to the couple to decide how to use that information (whether to abstain or engage).
I’m on pregnancy #7 right now, and during the cycle s/he was conceived we were avoiding. But midway through we reevaluated our reasons and decided not to avoid (but we weren’t intentionally trying to conceive, either — we were open to either outcome). Two weeks later, positive pregnancy test. :) The information I’d obtained about my body came in very handy, because it allowed me to know that pregnancy was a possibility so I could prepare for it and know when to test even though we weren’t intentionally trying to conceive. We were just enjoying the marital embrace as husband and wife, and we happily accepted the natural consequences of the biological act in which we chose to engage.
“When used for that purpose, it’s respecting a woman’s natural cycle and her healthy fertility by abstaining from the activity that creates babies if you have serious reasons to do so. When you abstain from sex, you’re not rendering the sex act itself sterile (as contraception does), you’re choosing not to engage in the act at all. It’s like choosing not to gain weight by abstaining from unhealthy foods instead of choosing not to gain weight by binging on chocolate cake and then throwing it all up.”
Nah, it’s still choosing the render the sex act sterile if you deliberately plan on only having sex when the sex act is… sterile. It’s not rocket science, if you’re deliberately only having sex when you know that pregnancy is very, very unlikely, you’re rendering the sex act sterile. I see no more “selfishness” in a couple deciding to use a condom to reduce the risk of pregnancy than planning around fertile periods (I’m not talking about using the natural cycle to get pregnant, I’m talking about using it to avoid pregnancy).
I’m not bashing NFP, btw. I think it’s great for those couples who want to use it, and I’m kinda a hippie so I don’t think synthetic hormones are the greatest idea. I’d advise my daughter against hormonal methods and suggest she use barrier or natural methods. I just don’t see any moral difference between using contraception through artificial means and natural means.
“In 2011, the CDC also reported that, despite the near-universal use of contraception, 49% of pregnancies are unplanned. It has also noted that out-of-wedlock pregnancies have increased – right along side the increased use of contraception – from 89,500 in 1940 to 1,240,172 in 1993.”
Raw numbers aren’t helpful, you want the rate of unwed pregnancy, not the amount. The rate of unwed pregnancy went from I believe around 4% to 30% in that time, due to more unwed pregnancy and married people having less kids. However, that rate hasn’t gone up since 1991, which is two decades of no increase.
You also have to look at the populations that are seeing this increase in unwed pregnancy, it’s right there in the report. It’s high among low income, uneducated, and minority women. You also have to look at the average age of first marriages in the US, I think we’re up to 26 for women and even older for men. If everyone is getting married in their late teens, early twenties like they did in the forties, of course you’re going to have less young people get pregnant when they are unmarried.
And anyway, if you guys are so worried about being open to life, you shouldn’t complain about the failure rates of contraceptives.
Jack, that was only one of many points I made. What about the fact that two thirds of unplanned pregnancies and abortions occur among women who were using contraception when they got pregnant?
Sure you can blame the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate on other things, but clearly, whatever contraception is doing, it isn’t helping. Did you consider why people are waiting longer to get married? Is it perhaps because sex has become so casual and is no longer revered as a bond to be shared only by two people in a lifelong commitment?
Also, did you see my earlier post about the divorce rate and natural law?
And anyway, if you guys are so worried about being open to life, you shouldn’t complain about the failure rates of contraceptives.
I can’t tell if this is a joke or not. It should be clear that no one here is complaining about more people being alive. It’s about respecting each life and the way that he/she comes into being.
I wasn’t complaining at all. I was merely pointing out that, if someone wants to avoid getting pregnant, understanding the woman’s cycle and communicating (i.e. NFP) is probably their best bet.
“Jack, that was only one of many points I made. What about the fact that two thirds of unplanned pregnancies and abortions occur among women who were using contraception when they got pregnant?”
Well, the majority of people use some form of contraception at one time or another, and people rarely even use antibiotics correctly, so it doesn’t surprise me that a large percentage of pregnancies and abortions happen to people who use contraception at some point. People need to be educated about the failure rate, risks, and proper usage of all forms of contraception (including NFP), so they can make educated decisions on what they would like to use in their own lives. And of course, abortion shouldn’t be a legal option at all to deal with contraception mishaps.
People who oppose contraception and things like sex ed really, really like to ignore the higher rates of teen pregnancies in areas like Mississippi and such. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s a fly in the ointment of “pushing abstinence only will make less kids have sex”!
“Sure you can blame the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate on other things, but clearly, whatever contraception is doing, it isn’t helping. Did you consider why people are waiting longer to get married? Is it perhaps because sex has become so casual and is no longer revered as a bond to be shared only by two people in a lifelong commitment?”
Well, that may be part of it. A lot of it also likely has to do with our economic structure. It’s far more difficult (like, near impossible) to support a family on a job that doesn’t require education past high school. Education and setting up a career are real reasons that some people delay marriage and child-bearing. If you don’t like that then… I don’t know. Fix it, I guess.
“I can’t tell if this is a joke or not.”
I was being flippant.
There is a distinct difference between working with your body and working against it.
And without experiencing the benefits of NFP, you really cannot comprehend how completely different it is from contracepting. BUT I can present some data which argues to the legitimacy to the statement. NFP practicing couples have a divorce rate of .02% which is pretty drastically different from the national average. They report a happier marital life and better communication with their spouse than non-NFP users.
These findings were a result of a survey conducted by Dr. Robert Lerner, a Sociologist at the University of Chicago. He evaluated his findings and compared them with the following surveys:
The National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by the gov’ts National Center for Health Statistics
and
The General Social Survey, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center
The survey questions were designed to resemble those on the surveys I mentioned above as closely as possible, and had an unusually high response rate of 74% (505 respondents)
Interestingly, they also reported having more sex rather than less, as one might expect (considering that there are fewer days of the month during which it is feasible to use NFP and postpone pregnancy).
Personally, I was living a life in direct contradiction with my faith prior to turning to NFP for a few reasons. I began to engage in sexual behavior with my then-boyfriend now-husband when I was 17 years old. We did a lot of “sneaking around” as teens and young adults, primarily relying on condoms for about 6 months before I turned to PP for birth control. We used HBC for 2 1/2 years, during which time we got pregnant twice (one miscarriage and the second resulting in my handsome and intelligent 4-year-old). Since then, we have not turned back to contraceptives. The benefits of our choice to turn from contracepting to working with our natural selves have been fairly notable.
I will comment that what I found most beneficial about NFP was the way that it brought my husband more fully into our family planning conversations. Rather than having the burden of our fertility, my husband became an equal partner, which was empowering for both of us. We’ve also been more communicative, more attracted to one another, and more generally giving in our lives with one another. Mistakes are more easily forgiven and love more easily offered.
Well, the majority of people use some form of contraception at one time or another, and people rarely even use antibiotics correctly, so it doesn’t surprise me that a large percentage of pregnancies and abortions happen to people who use contraception at some point.
Read it again. Both links showed – and I emphasized in my paraphrase – that the women were using contraception when they got pregnant. Not, “they used contraception at some point, but didn’t when they got pregnant.” And, I provided links to thorough studies that explain why this occurs – why contraception is so ineffective.
Also, NFP is not contraception. It does not work against (contra) conception.
And of course, abortion shouldn’t be a legal option at all to deal with contraception mishaps.
At least we agree on that. But can’t you see that that’s where contraception logically leads, especially with such high failure rates? “Well, the pill didn’t work. Guess I need an abortion now.”
Also, Jack, still waiting for a response to the divorce rate and natural law.
“Read it again. Both links showed – and I emphasized in my paraphrase – that the women were using contraception when they got pregnant. Not, “they used contraception at some point, but didn’t when they got pregnant.” And, I provided links to thorough studies that explain why this occurs – why contraception is so ineffective.”
Yes, and I don’t see the breakdown in the studies you linked that explained what type of contraceptives these people who got pregnant were using, if they used it properly (typical use versus perfect use, most people, like I said, don’t use many medications and other things correctly, contraception is not special in this regard). Which is why, like I said, if people are going to use contraceptives they need to be properly educated on their usage, including failure rates and risks, so they can be prepared to double up, use contraception along with avoiding fertile periods, or whatever they feel is best to avoid pregnancy.
And in regards to why contraception is “so ineffective”, if you’re talking about the “risk compensation” wiki article you linked, that’s correlation, not cause and it’s not proven that the overall negative effect negates the overall positive effect. There could also be other factors there (are people engaging in riskier sexual behaviors because the have access to condoms, or are people who are engaging in risky sexual behaviors just more likely to use them? That’s why it’s a correlation, not causation).
“Also, NFP is not contraception. It does not work against (contra) conception.”
Yes it does, if it’s used to not get pregnant.
“At least we agree on that. But can’t you see that that’s where contraception logically leads, especially with such high failure rates? “Well, the pill didn’t work. Guess I need an abortion now.””
No, you haven’t proven this at all. You’re making an educated guess based on what stats you think support your opinion. You also should look at the fact that MOST young people support contraception (and same-sex marriage, for that matter), but the majority also oppose abortion. You’ll need to make a stronger linkage to support your viewpoint that the majority of those who use contraception see abortion as the solution when it fails.
“Also, Jack, still waiting for a response to the divorce rate and natural law.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here?
Jack, how exactly does NFP work to actively thwart a person’s fertility? Pills/shots prevent ovulation/implantation, condoms prevent sperm from reaching the fallopian tubes, IUDs make the uterus inhospitable to implantation. What does NFP do?
“Jack, how exactly does NFP work to actively thwart a person’s fertility? Pills/shots prevent ovulation/implantation, condoms prevent sperm from reaching the fallopian tubes, IUDs make the uterus inhospitable to implantation. What does NFP do?”
If used as contraception, deliberately thwarts pregnancy by making sure sperm only enters into the female reproductive system when it is not biologically ready to host a pregnancy.
“Also, Jack, still waiting for a response to the divorce rate and natural law.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here?
I’m referring to this:
Andrew Ensley | June 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm
x, not only is contraception a less-effective way to avoid pregnancy, study after study shows that contraception makes couples bored with sex and reduces communication.
That’s probably why married couples who contracept are far more likely to get divorced than those using natural methods of birth regulation.
Anyway, if you believe beings are created for a purpose (whether by God or nature), there’s a very good argument to be made that contraception is unhealthy for individuals and society because it violates natural law.
———–
Andrew Ensley | June 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Jack, that was only one of many points I made.
…did you see my earlier post about the divorce rate and natural law?
———–
See my original comment at 1:53pm for relevant links. I didn’t feel like getting this comment held for moderation again…
But, Jack… NFP doesn’t do that. The woman’s body cycles through fertile/infertile phases on its own. NFP doesn’t cause the infertile phase or work to prevent the fertile phase.
NFP only gives information about the current phase of the woman’s menstrual cycle. The couple makes the decision as to whether or not to have intercourse at that particular time.
How does abstaining from an act = thwarting an act? Does that mean that abstaining from chocolate cake and ingesting chocolate cake but throwing it up later are the exact same thing, since they have the same purpose (preventing cake from entering the digestive system)?
Also, imagine a couple who waits until marriage to have sex. Are they contracepting before they get married?
“x, not only is contraception a less-effective way to avoid pregnancy, study after study shows that contraception makes couples bored with sex and reduces communication.
That’s probably why married couples who contracept are far more likely to get divorced than those using natural methods of birth regulation.”
“Probably” so you can’t show me causation, just correlation? And it has nothing to do that the same religions that forbid contraception are usually the ones that also very much forbid divorce and attach a stigma to it?
“Anyway, if you believe beings are created for a purpose (whether by God or nature), there’s a very good argument to be made that contraception is unhealthy for individuals and society because it violates natural law.”
I don’t have a ton of patience with natural law arguments, to be honest.
And it has nothing to do that the same religions that forbid contraception are usually the ones that also very much forbid divorce and attach a stigma to it?
Ok, now I know why it seems like we’re speaking different languages. Apparently, you and I have very different definitions of what marriage is and what sex is for.
And yes, the divorce rate stat merely shows correlation. But come on, Jack, you have to admit that a 0.2% divorce rate among NFP couples is compelling to say the least; divorce stigma and all.
I knew you won’t listen to a religious argument, but now you’ve rejected my stats and my natural law argument. Is there anything left but opinions?
“But, Jack… NFP doesn’t do that. The woman’s body cycles through fertile/infertile phases on its own. NFP doesn’t cause the infertile phase or work to prevent the fertile phase.
NFP only gives information about the current phase of the woman’s menstrual cycle. The couple makes the decision as to whether or not to have intercourse at that particular time.”
Yes, and you’re deliberately using this knowledge to thwart pregnancy (if like I’ve been talking about, the couple is using NFP for contraceptive purposes).The only difference is that sperm is getting to a uterus that’s naturally hostile to new life, rather than artificially hostile (like if tubes were tied or hormonal contraceptives were used).
“How does abstaining from an act = thwarting an act? Does that mean that abstaining from chocolate cake and ingesting chocolate cake but throwing it up later are the exact same thing, since they have the same purpose (preventing cake from entering the digestive system)?”
It’s more analogous to either not eating chocolate cake because you know you’re going to gain weight if you do (NFP), or eating the cake but going for an hour jog to ensure you don’t gain the weight (using a condom, etc). I don’t see either as morally superior or “right”, if your goal is to not gain weight.
It’s more analogous to either not eating chocolate cake because you know you’re going to gain weight if you do (NFP), or eating the cake but going for an hour jog to ensure you don’t gain the weight (using a condom, etc).
Yeah… I don’t see that at all. In your analogy, you’re still ingesting cake, and then doing something else to balance it (like getting a second job to pay for another baby…).
A better analogy would be putting a condom in your throat to ensure the cake doesn’t reach your stomach. What a pleasant thought.
Jack, Andrew brings up an interesting point. By your logic, engaged couples abstaining from sex prior to marriage are contracepting. Do you think that is accurate?
How is pregnancy being thwarted if the act meant to create babies is not being performed? How can you thwart an action that isn’t taking place?
Going for an hour run to burn off calories ingested is working WITH your body, not against it, so that’s not analogous to contraception. The entire purpose of any form of contraception is to take a normal, natural function of the body — healthy fertility — and render it non-functional through chemical or artificial means.
NFP does not change the nature, structure, or function of a man or a woman’s healthy fertility.
“And yes, the divorce rate stat merely shows correlation. But come on, Jack, you have to admit that a 0.2% divorce rate among NFP couples is compelling to say the least; divorce stigma and all.”
I think it says a lot about strict Catholicism (or, I suppose, Evangelical denominations that have the same restrictions on divorce, contraception, etc). I just don’t think you can take a very particular way of living and apply it to people who have very different goals and wishes for their lives. I also think you guys focus a lot on NFP vs contraception when it’s pretty obviously a lot more that’s going into that lower divorce rate.
“I knew you won’t listen to a religious argument, but now you’ve rejected my statsand my natural law argument. Is there anything left but opinions?”
I haven’t rejected your stats, I reject (parts of) your interpretation of them.
And yeah, it all really does come down to opinion in the end. We both have stats and interpretations of the evidence for why we believe what we do.
Okay I have to actually get some work done lol, I’ll try to return to the discussion later.
I also think you guys focus a lot on NFP vs contraception when it’s pretty obviously a lot more that’s going into that lower divorce rate.
I agree. Thanks Jack. I’ll take that as a compliment. :-)
It’s more analogous to either not eating chocolate cake because you know you’re going to gain weight if you do (NFP), or eating the cake but going for an hour jog to ensure you don’t gain the weight (using a condom, etc). I don’t see either as morally superior or “right”, if your goal is to not gain weight.
Perhaps, although I still think the “throwing up” alternative is more applicable, but one is better for your overall health than the other, and one has other notable and significant drawbacks. I can eat chocolate cake and then spend the whole day working out and it still isn’t as good for me as eating a balanced diet and then doing 30min of moderate exercise. Similarly, I am capable of contracepting, and it’s likely to decrease my chances of getting pregnant over having sex without any method of postponing pregnancy, but the contraception can still have a negative effect on the communication and health of my marriage, whereas the option of NFP gives my marriage a better success rate, even compared with others who do live within the same stigmatized groups (the divorce rate was much lower for NFP-practicing persons than practicing Catholics in general, as well).
You can’t go around eating cake every day and then feel sorry for yourself when you develop diabetes, or can’t seem to get that six-pack, or are diagnosed with high blood pressure, etc etc etc
This debate I read in the comments above is precisely the kind of attitude that has Voris discouraged enough to quit. Many pro-lifers who dislike abortion do not see the logical line that leads from artificial contraception to abortion. And when pressed, they admit they’re not interested in being convinced because they have no patience for our rationale.
Last week I made some humorous comparisons to primates to kind of prod Reality into really thinking about his beliefs. I will return to a primate comparison today:
Bonobos are nice as monkeys goes, they’re large and clever like chimps, and they use sexual contact as a way to say hello, and to bond with each other with no intellectual understanding that sex between males and females makes baby bonobos. Sexually liberal humans see themselves in a similar light: “Our sex is harmless, we’re just relating to each other, what’s your big problem with it???”
I don’t have a big problem with it per se, but observe: Bonobos are on their way to extinction.
You could just refer to me by name, ninek.
“And when pressed, they admit they’re not interested in being convinced because they have no patience for our rationale.”
I have no patience for a belief system I don’t believe in. Seems legit enough. And I actually do understand how you guys see it, I just think it’s ridiculous. Like… humans are naturally omnivorous (much as I hate to admit it), but I still don’t chow down on dead animals. I don’t see why something we’re “naturally” oriented for is morally superior just because.
And I love it when people who claim we’re better than animals dehumanize people they disagree with by comparing them to animals.
Also, Jack, I’ll agree that the general mindset of NFP users prior-to actually beginning to use NFP has a strong effect on the success or failure of their marriage. However, I feel that you are greatly underestimating the significance of the successful communication in NFP-using couples. Considering that a breakdown in communication is the most commonly referenced cause for divorce, I’d say that you have a good case for causation right there.
(A) Divorced couples cite poor communication as the most frequent cause for divorce
(B) NFP-using couples report greater satisfaction with the communication in their marriage than nationally
(C) NFP-using couples have a divorce rate of .02%
(D) The national divorce rate is approx. 50%
The usage of NFP increases healthy communication in marriage. It also decreases the divorce rate. And trying to put it all on social stigma of strict Christian groups is foolish, although as I have stated, I’m sure that the significance of marriage and the way that it is presented going into the marriage has an effect (for instance, I was not allowed to get married without completing pre-marriage counseling “Pre-Cana” courses). Divorce for me has never been an option. Not because of my parents’ potential response, or community backlash, but because I know that I made this commitment to my husband and to God, and because I know that there are always Graces available to help me succeed in my marriage, if I turn to them. But I assure you, my mule-headed stubbornness about my marriage has little to nothing to do with fear from any backlash. You could argue that my religious and social background made it easier for me to turn to NFP for pregnancy postponement.
Regardless of how I entered this marriage, though, my relationship with my husband has been strengthened through NFP, and we discuss things like our stress levels over household chores, parenting, time alone, finances, etc regularly because we are constantly reminded that pregnancy is a possibility. When we were contracepting, pregnancy was completely out of our minds, and the stresses that we felt over finances, our time alone and our time together, household chores, etc were mostly unspoken. We never considered that a child could come along unexpectedly.
I can only speak from my experience and the experiences of those surveyed, and compare them with the national averages, but I’d say that is fairly compelling.
What we need to remember is that Voris is one of those who do what they do because on a personal level they are ‘materialistic and lamenting the end of prosperity and a certain way of life.’
I find it interesting when the claim pops up that there is a particular ‘natural law’ which would dictate that we should ignore certain aspects of human development, specifically the elements the claimant doesn’t agree with.
Bonobos have successfully existed for a lot longer that homo sapiens. If they are facing extinction it is because of the actions of homo sapiens, not because of the bonobos socio-sexual behavior.
Jack, I don’t need to pick on you by name, Tyler pretty much covers that, lol!
What one person takes the time to comment is the same as what several people may think that don’t take the time to comment. So, I didn’t want to pick on you for thinking the same thing as many of our readers.
I wasn’t dehumanizing you or anyone else. You know, it’s ok to use humor and comparison without it being dehumanizing. Reality is our best and most prolific dehumanizer, aren’t you, R?
According to Reality only certain humans are people. The rest are cannula-fodder.
I’m with Michael on this one. He isn’t full of gloom and doom, nor is he some false prophet as some have asserted here. Nor does Michael despair of God’s grace and power.
God will permit evil to occur so that a greater good might come of it. He will also abandon us to our own perversity, as Paul says in his letter to the Romans. That’s what Michael is pointing out. Can God work a miracle and turn things around? Absolutely. Michael doesn’t doubt that for a moment. But is it reasonable to expect God to “make” us change against our well-cultivated appetites?
Will God work a miracle? In the 2,000+ years of Christianity, several great civilizations and empires have imploded, along with countless nations. Reading the Book of Revelation, the seven letters to the seven churches admonish them to return to God, or their lampstand will be removed from them. They didn’t, and today there isn’t any evidence that those churches existed. God will not be mocked.
Michael and I were seminary classmates in the 1980’s (ask him). He is a good and decent man with a profound spirituality that is rooted in a deep love of God and uncommon scriptural literacy. Having been young men together, living, working, studying, and praying together; one gets to know a man’s character. That said, the characterizations of him here miss the mark by a mile. I’ve been saying for five years that Western civilization has utterly imploded. It’s already over. Every pillar of civilization has been corroded: Politics, family, marriage, education, science, medicine, and the churches.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
I appreciate Michael Voris. He is speaking directly to Catholics, and telling us that we must live the faith of Jesus Christ in its fullness, just like the early Christians did. We must be biblical. We must be counter-cultural. We must be generous and self-sacrificial. We must be bold in our witness, and yet be ready to accept persecution and martyrdom for being meek in our defense.
But if Catholics contracept and divorce and vote for pro-abortion and anti-Catholic candidates at the same rate as the rest nation — then we are irrelevant, and the culture will spiral into oblivion. this is the wide and easy way to Hell.
Jesus established His Church to be light and leaven for the world. It is our turn in our age to live this.
“How is pregnancy being thwarted if the act meant to create babies is not being performed?”
Splitting hairs, moving goalposts, etc. First you talk about the immorality of “rejecting” your partner’s fertility. And then when Jack points out the obvious — that there is no difference in the intent behind using a condom and restricting sex to one’s infertile period–you start hand-wringing about the MEANS of carrying out that intent. Suddenly it’s not avoiding pregnancy that’s the issue, but the “unnaturalness” of using some kind of contraceptive assistance.
This all comes down to a difference in taste and mechanics, not morality. A piece of latex is no more “unnatural” than a thermometer and a calendar dictating that a woman can’t be intimate during the time when she’s likely to want to the most.
Megan, avoiding pregnancy has never been an issue. It can be perfectly moral and licit to avoid pregnancy. Can you please indicate where I ever said otherwise?
How does a thermometer and a calendar (or a fertility monitor, which I also use when I’m charting) place a physical, chemical, or artificial barrier between my husband and I? If we choose not to have sex, then we are making a mutual decision not to do so for reasons we have discerned.
Yes, sometimes sacrifice (not doing something we really want to do) is involved. That’s why NFP is the polar opposite of selfishness — we don’t use physical, chemical, or artificial barriers in our marriage just so we can indulge our sexual desires at our whims. Plus, it makes coming together after a time of abstaining that much sweeter. :)
Again, what you just described is a matter of preference rather than morality. I think there are more meaningful ways to practice self-abnegation in a relationship than merely avoiding intimacy during pre-determined periods (caring for a sick parent, supporting a partner’s career ambitions at the expense of your own, etc etc). But I wouldn’t claim moral superiority because of that belief.
Let us recall that by natural, we do not mean “found in nature” or something with a similar connotation. We are talking about about “acting in accordance with the essence or nature or proper function of an agent.” For example, a tumor would not be natural on this understanding since it acts against the proper function of the body, while a prosthetic limb would be natural since it acts in accordance with the proper function or nature of the body.
Let’s go back to the cake analogy. Oral contraception is like taking a theoretical mother of all antacids that forces your stomach to never produce digestive acids. So the cake goes in, just sits there, and is never digested. That’s what OC does.
Tell me again how that’s exactly like not eating cake in the first place.
Also, there’s still been no response to my question about couples who wait to have sex until they are married. Are you telling me they are doing the exact same thing (contracepting) as couples who have sex every day but use condoms?
Thought-provoking comments, Dr. Nadal.
Perhaps I should refrain from attempts at simian humor on the internet. OK, just one more… Even a horseback-riding, prop-gun toting, fictional gorilla has the moral compass to know that ape shall never kill ape.
Megan, it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. Being unselfish and sacrificial in my conjugal life naturally extends to other areas of my life as well. I’m not saying I’m Mother Teresa or anything, mind you, but I think I’m a more unselfish person than I was 10 years ago.
I find it sad that you believe it’s only possible to be unselfish and sacrificial in one aspect, and ONLY one aspect, of an intimate relationship.
Of course I believe my moral system to be the best one (more specifically, I believe it to be objectively true). Why else would I live according to it?
Do you live according to a belief system that you find false, substandard and unfulfilling, Megan? Why?
Please – Michael without hope? Yes, that’s why he constantly evangelizes and does all he can to win souls for Christ. That’s a man without hope, surely!
I would posit that he is speaking of these matters on a level much more deeply than many of you are comprehending.
Christ did not promise us that we would win our earthly battles. He did not promise that the USA would survive to the end of time. He did not promise that those things which are really important to us – like ending abortion – would be resolved to our satisfaction. He did not promise that the Church would not be a tiny remnant when He returned. Oh, wait, in fact he DID promise that – “When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on earth?” The Church Fathers almost universally held that that statement portended a great falling away from the Faith before the Second Coming. Hello, 21st century!
Michael is arguing to be realistic. Don’t put your stock in earthly victories, Don’t make your faithiness be about wins or losses in the pro-life or gay marriage or church funding or whatever battles. He’s saying that we must focus our lives on serving Christ even when all is against us, even when we lose again and again, even when the culture turns implacably, violently anti-Chrisitan (from which, we are not far). He’s saying, we had better be very certain we’re doing all we can to assure our own salvation.
None of which is to say that miracles don’t happen. They assuredly do. But, generally, miracles are more personal than the sudden changing of the life patterns of tens of millions of people. Christ could not work miracles in Nazareth due to the lack of faith he found there.
This is also not to say that pro-life efforts are doomed, wasted. I know Michael doesn’t believe that. But looking at the broad cultural trends, I share his opinion that it is borderline ludicrous to believe that there will be some sudden re-embrace of morality and virtue.
I know Michael personally. He is very full of hope. But it’s hope primarily not for this life. It’s hope for the next. That is the classic Catholic belief, and I pray I share it.
I have to agree with what Tantumblogo said. Just watch the latest episode and you will too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0CmJxSo1nA&t=35s
“We are talking about about ‘acting in accordance with the essence or nature or proper function of an agent.'”
Well, I suppose you believe that women are supposed to feel pain during childbirth and shouldn’t take any pain meds.
“I find it sad that you believe it’s only possible to be unselfish and sacrificial in one aspect, and ONLY one aspect, of an intimate relationship.”
No, I just don’t think that practicing “conjugal sacrifice” is a prerequisite to being unselfish in other capacities. I don’t even think the kind of sacrifice you’re talking about is selfless in any meaningful way. It’s just another form of birth control — and one that I do support, though not with the force of a moral conviction. In fact, I think it’s rather selfish to deny one’s partner pleasure and intimacy.
“Do you live according to a belief system that you find false, substandard and unfulfilling, Megan? Why?”
No, I live according to a belief system in which ritual sexual denial holds no importance.
“Let us recall that by natural, we do not mean “found in nature” or something with a similar connotation. We are talking about about “acting in accordance with the essence or nature or proper function of an agent.” – so would you be prepared to undergo heart surgery if it was needed? How about using medication to alleviate hypertension? Or a painkiller when you have a headache?
“Well, I suppose you believe that women are supposed to feel pain during childbirth and shouldn’t take any pain meds.”
So what you need to demonstrate here is that the essence of child birth is to feel pain and that to not feel pain during child birth thwarts the final ends of child birth. In other words, you need to argue that the raison d’ętre of child birth is feeling pain. No serious natural lawyer has ever argued this. This is only given as a “counterexample” by those who do not care to take the time to understand natural law.
In either case, the point still stands that the main problem we have with contraception as opposed to NFP is indeed in the means (not the ends) and that a thermometer and calendar in no way undermine our understanding of what is meant by natural.
“so would you be prepared to undergo heart surgery if it was needed? How about using medication to alleviate hypertension? Or a painkiller when you have a headache? ”
Yes, that is all consistent with what I have said. In fact, didn’t I use the example of a prosthetic limb in that very post you quoted as an example of something that is natural?
Thanks Bobby, I just wanted to clarify.
You also stated – “For example, a tumor would not be natural on this understanding since it acts against the proper function of the body, while a prosthetic limb would be natural since it acts in accordance with the proper function or nature of the body” – does that mean that someone who is born missing a limb is ‘unnatural’ and that creating a prosthetic for them is ‘natural’? What about someone who is born without an essential part of their reproductive system, are they ‘unnatural’ too?
And if a tumor is unnatural, yet it isn’t ‘introduced’ but is part of the body’s system not maintaining 100% accuracy, wouldn’t ageing, arthritis, wrinkles etc. also be ‘unnatural’?
No, because when we use the term natural in natural law theory, it presupposes a rational agent making a willful decision to engage in an action that acts directly contrary to its final ends. So there is no “decision” or “act” being made when one is born with some sort of defect like a missing limb or organ. Removing a limb or organ (unless needed for the good of the whole body) would be an unnatural act but simply being born without them isn’t. Again, the whole paradigm presupposes willful action undertaken by a (rational) agent, something that I know isn’t always clear in these contexts. People aren’t natural or unnatural (in this context anyway). Actions are.
“So there is no “decision” or “act” being made when one is born with some sort of defect like a missing limb or organ.” – so what is the ‘decision’ or ‘act’ in regard to a tumor?
So viagra concurs with ‘natural’?
No, I just don’t think that practicing “conjugal sacrifice” is a prerequisite to being unselfish in other capacities.
We agree! I never said otherwise so I’m confused where you got that from — can you quote where I claimed that abstaining from sex was a prerequisite for being unselfish in other capacities?
I don’t even think the kind of sacrifice you’re talking about is selfless in any meaningful way. It’s just another form of birth control.
It can be a form of spacing or avoiding pregnancy, yes, as well as a form of achieving pregnancy and gather info to aid in the diagnosis of medical problems.
Although “contraception” and “birth control” are used interchangeably, they’re really not the same thing. Not to mention that those who use contraception believe in neither birth (since that’s what they seek to prevent) nor control (since their desire is to NOT have to control themselves, but to have sex whenever they choose without taking healthy fertility into account).
Why don’t you think that abstaining from something pleasurable for the greater good of your family is not selfless? It seems pretty selfless to me. Perhaps we have different definitions of the word?
In fact, I think it’s rather <em>selfish </em>to deny one’s partner pleasure and intimacy.
As do I! That’s why any decision to abstain or not abstain when using NFP must be a mutual decision upon which both partners agree.
I’m curious, though – are you saying that it’s selfish for a woman who is, say, three days postpartum to telll her husband that she’d really prefer not to have sex? I don’t think that’s selfish at all — in fact, I think it’s selfish for the husband not to voluntarily abstain during his wife’s postpartum period.
No, I live according to a belief system in which ritual sexual denial holds no importance.
Wow, we agree AGAIN! In my belief system, ritual sexual denial is not mandatory. Abstinence from sex is permitted as long as it is a mutual decision made by both partners, but it is neither encouraged nor forbidden. If a couple chooses, they can go their whole married life without utilizing NFP, and just have sex whenever they want, no abstaining necessary (although sometimes abstinence just makes common sense, such as the weeks following childbirth).
And there’s no “ritual” about it, if by “ritual” you mean “a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order.” I assure you, none of that is necessary in NFP or FAM (FAM = Fertility Awareness Method, which is basically the secular version of NFP).
It’s funny how much we agree on — or maybe the problem is that you fundamentally misunderstand my belief system. You might want to take the time to learn exactly what it is you disagree with, instead of constantly trying to knock down a strawman.
Looks like this discussion is still going — down a new rabbit hole, but still….
Reality: It is in accord with human nature to seek and maintain “good health.” When a body suffers some disease or disorder, it is “natural” to seek healing. Heart surgery, treating cancerous tumors, fitting prosthetics, even viagra for erectile dysfunction — these are all attempts to remediate disease and restore health. Everyone agrees that this is good, and we ought to do so whenever we can.
This is why the pro-aborts use language like “women’s health” when they talk about abortion, and even contraception. They attempt to liken the child developing in the womb to a “tumor.” This is, of course, pure sophistry. It is dishonest.
There is nothing about a healthy reproductive system that needs to be shut down. There is nothing about a developing child that needs to be killed. The desire to frustrate good health is the opposite of healthcare. It is poisoning and murder.
What people really want, with regards to contraception and abortion, is control. They want mastery over their natural health, the way that a rapist wants mastery over a woman’s body. Or perhaps more like the way a drug addict wants mastery over his misery. The point is that, instead of working within our human nature, there is a desire to achieve some easy “improvement” over reality. The result of this desire is that someone gets hurt or dies.
Wow, just… wow. I was going to avoid commenting further on this thread because it was just annoying, but stuff like this is just offensive:
“Although “contraception” and “birth control” are used interchangeably, they’re really not the same thing. Not to mention that those who use contraception believe in neither birth (since that’s what they seek to prevent) nor control (since their desire is to NOT have to control themselves, but to have sex whenever they choose without taking healthy fertility into account).”
Ridiculous. Just, stupid. And you’re not a stupid person, JoAnna, so I’m honestly surprised you made such a stupid argument. People who use contraception (for the most part), do believe in birth, maybe not at the time they are contracepting, but most of them have/will have children at some point. I’ve been known to use condoms a time or two and I have two children! Jeez. You realize that plenty of people who are anti-abortion, pro-family are okay with at least barrier methods, right? So those people “don’t believe in birth”, I guess. *snort*.
About “control”, using contraception is a way of CONTROLLING when you get pregnant, and a way to have responsible, enjoyable sex without irresponsibly having a child you aren’t ready for. Unless you’re going to tell a woman who got her tubes tied because she didn’t want her abusive husband to impregnate her again that she just wants to screw and doesn’t have any self-control? Or the dude in an unhappy marriage that is not healthy to bring more children into, and his wife refuses natural methods but still wants sex, you’re going to tell him he selfishly wants to have sex whenever, with no “control” or anything? Ridiculous. And self-righteous, for that matter.
Ugh, and I guess I could say that anyone who uses NFP to avoid fertile periods “doesn’t believe in birth” either, since that’s exactly what they are seeking to prevent. Ridiculous.
Well Del. First we hear of this ‘natural law’ concept. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not specifically disagreeing with the idea. We do have to ponder whose derivation, whose interpretation though.
Then we came to what is ‘natural’. A lost limb is unnatural so fitting a prosthetic is natural but when a limb is missing at birth its natural. Ageing and wrinkles are natural but a tumor isn’t even though it wasn’t a ‘decision’ or an ‘act’.
Now you introduce ‘human nature’. Talk about muddying the waters! It is self-evident that human nature in and of itself means that not everyone agrees with what you claim it indicates is right or wrong.
Pandora’s box suddenly fades into insignificance!
This is where your “convenience principle” comes into play, Reality.
Unless you’re going to tell a woman who got her tubes tied because she didn’t want her abusive husband to impregnate her again that she just wants to screw and doesn’t have any self-control? Or the dude in an unhappy marriage that is not healthy to bring more children into, and his wife refuses natural methods but still wants sex, you’re going to tell him he selfishly wants to have sex whenever, with no “control” or anything? Ridiculous. And self-righteous, for that matter.
Jack,
I’m not sure what you’re saying. I know that you are a more compassionate person than this. You would not wish that this woman stay in this relationship, giving her abusive husband sex freely thanks to birth control? Or that the man in an unhappy relationship is doing right by his family to continue to engage in the sexual act, which leaves an indelible mark on both parties in the relationship?
In the first example, the best choice would be separation and prayer. I think you would find yourself hard-pressed to find a good NFP-practicing individual on this blog who would argue that the woman should stay with her abusive husband. We may not be quick to jump on the “divorce” bandwagon, but we’re also not going to encourage her to remain in a dangerous and unhealthy circumstance.
In the second example, the best option seems to me that it would be for the couple to discuss their struggles and refrain from engaging in sexual behavior for pleasure itself. Any reasonable spouse should want you to be emotionally present in every single sexual encounter.
No, contraception is not an acceptable solution to either of these problems. In both scenarios, contraception can actually compound the problems severely.
” I’m not sure what you’re saying. I know that you are a more compassionate person than this. You would not wish that this woman stay in this relationship, giving her abusive husband sex freely thanks to birth control? Or that the man in an unhappy relationship is doing right by his family to continue to engage in the sexual act, which leaves an indelible mark on both parties in the relationship?”
Actually they’re both real situations that happened to real people (of course, very simplified and no details), that’s why I used them. I obviously think it best if they left their marriages, but in both cases that was simply not an option for a while. The people in those situations made the best decisions they had available to them, and they included teh evil contraception.
Anyway, my beef was JoAnna thinking she knows the motivation and reasoning and thought process behind people using contraception, which is (I don’t have another word for it) stupid. I don’t like it when people accuse women who have abortions of simply being selfish, cruel people (as much as I hate abortion), because it’s, again, STUPID to think that you know people’s motivations and reasoning unless they tell you. Same thing when some of you go on about contracepting couples. It’s ridiculous.
Possibly on three fronts rather than just one Jack. Complexitae!
Jack,
First, I’m so sorry that your friends have had these experiences. It sounds like both of them tried very much to do what they thought was the best course at the time, but I truly do believe that contraception compounds the problem. What if pregnancy had been a result of the relations in either of these circumstances? Then the parents would be closer and more directly connected than ever before.
I will also point out that JoAnna was discussing your average contracepting individual. Neither of these cases is the average. But still, both cases involved an individual desiring to have sex without the natural consequence of a baby. Perhaps the abused woman did not desire sex, but she did desire to stay with her abuser, knowing that sex would be a demand. I have a great deal of love and compassion and sympathy for her, and I wish she hadn’t chosen to destroy a natural part of her body in order to stay in an unhealthy and damaging situation.
Contraception-not the individual but the purpose of the actual form of birth control-desires to do two things. First: to deny the possibility of birth. Second: to remove the need for control (one can say self-control or control of the situation).
Alternatively, NFP seeks to work within the natural function of a woman’s body (and a man’s) to postpone pregnancy, but as we all know, the human body is complex. While NFP (the Sympto-Thermal Method, at least) is incredibly effective, it does not refuse the body the opportunity to perform its natural functions. The defining separation between the two options is that, if God (or Mother Nature, if you choose to see it that way) sees fit to cause ovulation sooner or later than your body symptoms are indicating (which is possible), the possibility of implantation is incredibly real. NFP seeks not to manipulate the functions of the woman’s body, but to understand them and to work with them. It seeks to prevent the meeting of the two potential life components, but it does not force the separation or alter the body’s natural course.
Honestly, every young woman should learn these things about her body, whether she uses NFP as it relates to sex and pregnancy or not. It is incredibly educational and empowering. Every young woman should understand what basal body temperature is, and how it pertains to her cycle. She should be able to tell you what symptoms indicate what part of her cycle she is in, and how that can affect her, physically and mentally. I have been able to teach friends and coworkers a number of things about their own bodies simply from discussing the natural course of a woman’s cycle and how her body can tell her things.
Anyway, my beef was JoAnna thinking she knows the motivation and reasoning and thought process behind people using contraception, which is (I don’t have another word for it) stupid. I don’t like it when people accuse women who have abortions of simply being selfish, cruel people (as much as I hate abortion), because it’s, again, STUPID to think that you know people’s motivations and reasoning unless they tell you. Same thing when some of you go on about contracepting couples. It’s ridiculous.
I can see from the way you wrote it that you don’t love using the term stupid. As my four-year-old would say, “There is never a good reason to say stupid.” Try ignorant, or foolish, or arrogant, or hurtful. Stupid is a term we honestly try to avoid in my home because it is an uninventive term which fails to actually address the subject matter and it is offensive to those with low IQ. “Stupid” is a word which debases and frequently fails as an apt adjective.
” First, I’m so sorry that your friends have had these experiences. It sounds like both of them tried very much to do what they thought was the best course at the time, but I truly do believe that contraception compounds the problem. What if pregnancy had been a result of the relations in either of these circumstances? Then the parents would be closer and more directly connected than ever before.”
Well you can believe as you please, and I’m not saying you don’t have some valid points, but the fact remains that none of you anti-contraception people were there, none of you knew what those people were going through or what options they had available, and I think it’s ridiculous when people make sweeping judgements about certain groups of people (those who use contraception, those who abort, those who do drugs, whatever the issue is).
” I will also point out that JoAnna was discussing your average contracepting individual. Neither of these cases is the average. But still, both cases involved an individual desiring to have sex without the natural consequence of a baby. Perhaps the abused woman did not desire sex, but she did desire to stay with her abuser, knowing that sex would be a demand. I have a great deal of love and compassion and sympathy for her, and I wish she hadn’t chosen to destroy a natural part of her body in order to stay in an unhealthy and damaging situation. ”
Lol and NFP couples who are using NFP to avoid pregnancy aren’t desiring sex without the natural consequence of a baby? Do you all ever listen to yourselves? That’s literally the point of using NFP to avoid pregnancy.
You’ve never been in an abusive/toxic relationship, have you, btw? Sometimes, especially when you already have kids involved, you have to please your abuser until you can get away safely with your children, you can’t let them know you’re leaving. You all are never going to convince me it’s wrong to protect yourself from pregnancy/takes steps to prevent yourself from impregnating someone until you can get away. We obviously aren’t going to agree on this, but that’s my take.
And anyway, with the “average contracepting individual”, you have no idea what’s going on in their homes/lives/heads, and I won’t ever find it acceptable when people sit on their little high horses and judge other people’s motivations when they have no idea (not directed at you personally MaryRose).
Anyway, I am mostly done with the NFP vs contraception business. It’s obviously not something anyone is going to change their mind on. I’m just going to chime in when people say ridiculous and foolish things to support their ideas.
” I can see from the way you wrote it that you don’t love using the term stupid. As my four-year-old would say, “There is never a good reason to say stupid.” Try ignorant, or foolish, or arrogant, or hurtful. Stupid is a term we honestly try to avoid in my home because it is an uninventive term which fails to actually address the subject matter and it is offensive to those with low IQ. “Stupid” is a word which debases and frequently fails as an apt adjective.”
Nah, I’m not fond of the term. I really should have used self-righteous and ignorant for those particular statements (and the general idea of ascribing motivations to people when you have no idea). I just couldn’t think.
Jack says:
I just don’t see any moral difference between using contraception through artificial means and natural means.
I quote this because knowingly or not you made a point that is raised by some who hold the meaning of scripture (be fruitful and multiply) prohibits any kind of willful attempts to avoid pregnancy when engaging in sex. They would hold there is no difference between artificial bc and NFP. Some of them call natural family planning “Catholic birth control”. But Humanae Vitae only allows for NFP for serious reasons of avoiding or spacing pregnancy, not for using it at all times to avoid conceiving. And this last point is key to understanding the difference between the use of natural versus artificial bc. Even if a couple did use NFP with every intent to avoid pregnancy forever and ever, the point is they are still not interfering with nature taking its course. They may not be crazy about the outcome if they get pregnant but they are open to life nonetheless and that is what separates the method from artificial methods of bc which introduce artificial barriers to pregnancy .
For readers who may not be aware of HV the principle is that couples engaging in sexual relations should be open to both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. Every major religion in the world from time immemorial has dealt with the question of sex. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that openness to new life must accompany the unitive aspect of relations and together they are a complete meaning of sexuality as designed by the Creator.
I do wish you would extend to us the same courtesy which you want from us. Comments like, “Lol and NFP couples who are using NFP to avoid pregnancy aren’t desiring sex without the natural consequence of a baby? Do you all ever listen to yourselves? ” are somewhat petty and don’t serve to progress the discussion. If you’re done talking about it, just say so and I will gladly drop it.
Since you have in fact commented that you’re about done with the discussion, I will spare you my response which is likely to drag you deeper into it. Suffice it to say that, having discussed contraception in great depth with many people from many walks of life (it’s a side effect of being openly in favor of NFP. People like to discuss and defend their choices), I have a fairly good idea of the average purpose for using contraception, the average mindset, and the average concerns. Generally they involve a feeling that sex is a must in life, the belief that relationships without sex are devoid of love and meaning, and the idea that choosing abstinence is somehow destructive to your physical and/or mental wellbeing. They believe that they must engage in sex at some point in any relationship in order to know their partner on a deeper level, and because their bodies demand it. They seem, honestly, incredibly sad. I am sorry that I ever bought into it at all.
Jerry,
Thank you for bringing up Humanae Vitae. :)
Thank you, Mary Rose, I fully agree with all of your comments.
Jack, “hard cases make bad law.” We see this often when pro-aborts bring up the .01% of women or girls who seek abortion due to rape/incest, or for fetal abnormality. You’re using the same tactics now.
Are you under the impression that the vast majority of women using contraception only do so because they are in abusive relationships and being repeatedly raped by their partners? I don’t think you can support that assertion with evidence.
Women in a abusive relationship who are being raped by their partners could still get pregnant no matter what method they use. In that situation the woman should get out as soon as possible. No woman should ever stay in a relationship where her partner will force sexual relations.
I used to contracept, Jack,so I have a pretty good idea of the mindset that your average couple has when using it. Maybe you should give NFP a shot so you can experience it for yourself as well. It truly is a whole different mindset. :)
I don’t oppose birth or seek to prevent it at all. I’m 100% open to life at all times. When avoiding we (my husband and I) seek to reduce the odds of pregnancy occurring, but if it does we welcome him/her joyfully. In my experience that isn’t the case with your average contraception user who has an unplanned pregnancy.
Anyway, feel free to call me stupid if it makes you feel better. I’m secure in my beliefs and very happy with my choices. :)
“couples engaging in sexual relations should be open to both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex” – pleasure not required.
“Every major religion in the world from time immemorial (well, a little while anyway) has dealt with the question of sex” – usually appallingly and sometimes dishonestly.
“openness to new life must accompany the unitive aspect of relations and together they are a complete meaning of sexuality as designed by the Creator” – if being ‘unitive’ and being open to pregnancy are the ‘complete meaning’ then why do women have a clitoris and the ability to ejaculate?
I don’t oppose birth or seek to prevent it at all. I’m 100% open to life at all times. When avoiding we (my husband and I) seek to reduce the odds of pregnancy occurring, but if it does we welcome him/her joyfully. In my experience that isn’t the case with your average contraception user who has an unplanned pregnancy.
Joanna,
I am 100% with you on this! I would love to just have tons and tons of babies, but we prayerfully choose to space and postpone pregnancy when we believe it is our path. Finding out we are pregnant is nothing if not exciting!
“couples engaging in sexual relations should be open to both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex” – pleasure not required.
Reality,
This is incredibly ignorant. You clearly have no concept of the term “unitive” as it pertains to this discussion.
“I do wish you would extend to us the same courtesy which you want from us. Comments like, “Lol and NFP couples who are using NFP to avoid pregnancy aren’t desiring sex without the natural consequence of a baby? Do you all ever listen to yourselves? ” are somewhat petty and don’t serve to progress the discussion. If you’re done talking about it, just say so and I will gladly drop it.”
Oh, yeah it was petty. You can only be called names and accused of things you aren’t in the guise of knowing what’s best for you so many times before you get sick of it though.
“Are you under the impression that the vast majority of women using contraception only do so because they are in abusive relationships and being repeatedly raped by their partners? I don’t think you can support that assertion with evidence.”
Of course I don’t think that. You made a sweeping statement about contraception users (that YOU can’t back up with evidence) so I brought up a counterpoint.
“I used to contracept, Jack,so I have a pretty good idea of the mindset that your average couple has when using it. Maybe you should give NFP a shot so you can experience it for yourself as well. It truly is a whole different mindset. ”
Tried it, hated it, never going back. I’ve told other Catholics here the same thing but, no, NFP works for everyone.
“I don’t oppose birth or seek to prevent it at all. I’m 100% open to life at all times. When avoiding we (my husband and I) seek to reduce the odds of pregnancy occurring, but if it does we welcome him/her joyfully. In my experience that isn’t the case with your average contraception user who has an unplanned pregnancy.”
And that’s EXACTLY what I did when I was married and we used condoms. I’m sorry, you’re not better than everyone else because you’d accept your baby that occurred when you were trying to “reduce your chances of pregnancy”. So would I, and so would plenty of other contracepting couples. I’m seriously sick of you people making assumptions about other people. Contracepting couples aren’t necessarily aborting or unhappy about their unplanned or “surprise” pregnancies.
And I didn’t call you stupid, I actually literally said you’re not stupid.
Oh, yeah it was petty. You can only be called names and accused of things you aren’t in the guise of so many times before you get sick of it though.
Quote for me where I “called [you] names” or “accused [you] of things you aren’t in the guise of” … I’ll apologize if there’s something I did to that effect. However, what you did was misconstrue my words (in the quote in particular, I wasn’t even saying that what made the difference was the fact that they desired to continue having sex without the natural consequences. I was simply saying that in both cases they did utilize contraception as a method of continuing sex without babies, because you seemed to be arguing that it wasn’t the purpose of the contraception). You also laughed at your inaccurate reading of my words, and insulted my ability to reason and to analyze myself.
I’m honestly trying to be generous when speaking with you. The worst I did was gently correct your comment about JoAnna’s supposed reasoning by your interpretation being stupid. Even that was mostly me offering an alternative with a little humor. I feel that most conversations I have with you devolve into you getting angry and attacking when you can’t even point to something unkind, cruel, or insulting I’ve had to say.
How can you be both 100% open to pregnancy and prayerfully choose to space and postpone pregnancy?
Surely you’re either slightly less than 100% open or you prayerfully hope to space and postpone pregnancy.
“This is incredibly ignorant. You clearly have no concept of the term “unitive” as it pertains to this discussion” – not at all. From what a number of people here said in a similar discussion, the woman experiencing actual pleasure wasn’t a prerequisite for that ‘unitive’ stuff.
” I’m honestly trying to be generous when speaking with you. The worst I did was gently correct your comment about JoAnna’s supposed reasoning by your interpretation being stupid. Even that was mostly me offering an alternative with a little humor. I feel that most conversations I have with you devolve into you getting angry and attacking when you can’t even point to something unkind, cruel, or insulting I’ve had to say.”
Actually, I’m sorry, because I don’t think you’ve ever insulted me deliberately, I’m mostly mad at your belief system and it’s not fair to be angry with you when you’re not really the problem, and you do try to be fair and kind even when I’m not being. So I’m sorry, I really don’t know why I’m so angry. I didn’t used to be.
Apology accepted. :) I disagree with your belief system, too, and I understand why it is a struggle at times to maintain a cool head. And I have a much more fortunate past than that with which you contend.
R,
As a woman who enjoys the unitive & procreative aspects of sex, I feel the need to express that I don’t respect theologians or others who consider pleasure-female or male-to be totally irrelevant to sex. Generally, my understanding is that the unitive aspect involves a deeper joy than physical pleasure but generally includes physical pleasure. Interesting sidenote (which does not validate or invalidate any part of either side of the debate): the only times I did not experience physical pleasure occurred when the sex was not fully unitive (we were not approaching it from a desire to be united) and/or was not open to procreation. I am not confident this is everyone’s experience, but it was certainly my own.
Thank you MaryRose, that was very nicely put. For myself, it’s pretty much always been the unitive aspect, which includes um, ‘providing’ as much pleasure as I am able. Procreation only when decided upon. Hence my choice to get a vasectomy as soon as procreation was no longer desired.
“No serious natural lawyer has ever argued this.”
Sure. But this presents a very mechanistic, and rather narrow, understanding of how the body works. Why is there only ONE “raisin d’ętre” for a particular physical function? Are my legs ONLY made for walking, making it immoral to practice ballet?
“I’m 100% open to life at all times.”
Sure, especially when you deliberately avoid having sex during your fertile period to reduce the likelihood of conception. By the same standards, any couple using a form of contraception with a marginal error rate would be in the same category.
Wow, I missed a lot of the conversation. I think JoAnna and MaryRose have made some great points and have especially been very patient.
One thing I noticed: There’s still been no response to my question about couples who wait until they are married to have sex. It’s a very simple question: Are they contracepting by waiting until they are married? Are they doing the same thing as unmarried couples who have sex every day and use contraception?
P.S. Reality, you’re a guy!? All this time I thought you were a woman. I don’t know why. I just did.
“Sure. But this presents a very mechanistic, and rather narrow, understanding of how the body works. Why is there only ONE “raisin d’ętre” for a particular physical function? Are my legs ONLY made for walking, making it immoral to practice ballet?”
Oh no, certainly not. There are multiple final ends to certain processes and actions. In fact, this brings up another important point, which is that natural law only states that you can’t act CONTRARY to teh final ends of an action, but if you simply act in a way OTHER THAN their final ends, there is no problem. For example, I could have someone stand on my back while I am on all fours so taht they could reach something. This is not the final ends of the human back, but it does not act AGAINST the final ends of the human back. Same thing with legs and ballet. In fact, it is better than that because it can be argued that part of a human’s final ends is health and wellness of body. Certainly ballet contributes to this. It also contributes to entertainment for the ballerina and for those enjoying the performance. All of this is consistent with the essence of what it means to be a human person. The purpose of labor, so far as I can tell, seems primarily to be about delivering a baby (which, as if it needs to be said, is one of the many reasons why on natural law theory abortion is wrong). I can see no logical reason why the action of delivering a baby has as its reason-for-being pain for the woman. In fact, teh pain is simply an accidental property of the labor. It exists only because teh labor exists. Without the labor, that pain would not exist. This seems to show that pain in labor is only accidental, and not essential, to labor. Hence, there is no problem in undergoing actions to mitigate that pain. But again, in general, I am open to labor having other final ends in addition to delivering a baby, whatever those might be.
you prayerfully hope to space and postpone pregnancy.
I’d say it’s more that I prayerfully hope that I am interpreting things correctly and that spacing and postponing is in fact within God’s plan for my life.
Well…..it’s been a while. I was a real trouble maker during the election with my calling out Christians who were voting for a cult member just because he had the letter “R” (for Republican) out by his name. I have also argue this very point 7 years ago that America is now no longer under the protection of GOD….for we have given that up, if for nothing else, because of our pagan attitude towards infanticide.
Now with Gay rights and marriage reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, now, perhaps the rest of you will now understand and put the argument finally to bed…..America is now finished and awaits the judgement of God. And that, unfortunately as it did with the Hebrews, will affect believers and non believers alike. The best you can do now is try to secure your family and bring them up right in God’s ways and your immediate friends. Strengthen your priest or pastor….they are now not only your religious mentors….but should be considered your civic leaders as well. Your church should not just be the place you go to on Sunday and Wednesday but should be your “Town Hall” where the seditious idea of removing yourselves from the larger society take place. “Be in the world…not of it.” We are all on our own now. We do not have caves to hide in as they did in the old days in the middle east. But we have to start developing a “enclave” type mentality while still going out into the world living the Gospel if not actually preaching it.
Hard times ahead folks. Remember…..you should no longer consider yourself an American. You never were, even if you were born here. You are a member of an as of yet unseen Kingdom….that will be seen by all….sooner than anyone could possibly imagine.
Oh….and to Andrew…the very first poster on this thread…..you said…..
Voris is a man without hope. He lost it a long time ago. Even the prophets who predicted the worst doom and gloom always, always had hope. No true Christian would say such a thing. Disgraceful.
You obviously haven’t read your Bible very closely or lately for that matter. Even if there were some thread of hope in there prophecies….other than the admonitions that if the people turn from their evil ways God would postpone his wrath….in the end there was no cause for hope because the people did NOT ever turn from their evil ways permanantly and the Wrath still fell.
Even with the story of Jonah and the Ninevites proves my point. Yes they repented. Yes, Jonah bore the brunt of God’s displeasure over his displeasure over the fact that the Ninevites actually did repent….which was actually pretty rare for a prophet to actually make a difference. And yet….it did NOT stick. The Ninevites went back to their old pagan ways and God destroyed them.
Even Christ….in his role as a prophet…failed to ignite the people’s hearts for repentance.
This is the reason you have Revelation. There is no hope for humanity at all….unless God steps in with the Second Coming and stop the Anti-Christ from destroying the world.
Voris is just calling out reality. You, Andrew, on the other hand, wish to look the other way. For it would cause you to have to rethink everything you have come to worship about America.
Yeah, there is a reason I used the word worship for that’s the only appropriate term to use for the devotion that most Christians have for this now God-forsaken country (and I use that word forsaken in its proper sense as well…for it is true)
Still don’t believe me that God has forsaken this country…..after 40 years of institutionalized infanticide and now Gay rights and marriage the law of the land…..
Check this out…..
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2013/06/26/rainbow-flag-flies-at-governors-residence/
This is your country….as it stands now….forsaken by God…..and under the delusion.
And here’s some more evidence.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/26/national-cathedral-rings-bells-to-cheer-gay-marriage/
And as the military goes….so goes the country…..
(
Pentagon to extend benefits to gay service spouses
http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA75IJ981
Reality:
As usual the question is whether to edify your comments with a response or simply to ignore them. I can see that this is way above your level of comprehension. If you really understood the meaning of unitive you would know that pleasure is exactly what is being talked about. You really need to learn how to contribute to an adult conversation.
Thank you for your clarification MaryRose. Well expressed.
Your cheap shot isn’t much of a substitute as a response Jerry. It’s not that it’s ‘above my comprehension’, it’s more that you and I have differing ‘comprehensions’.
“If you really understood the meaning of unitive you would know that pleasure is exactly what is being talked about.” – myself, I find that a unitive sexual relationship is about more than just the pleasure.
Gee, that jumbotron sounds like a fun guy – or gal. I hope he/she finds somewhere to live that they feel comfortable in. Iran maybe?
“Gee, that jumbotron sounds like a fun guy – or gal. I hope he/she finds somewhere to live that they feel comfortable in. Iran maybe?”
Too many Muslims. He/she might like Russia, until their totalitarian issues turn against Christians again. Currently they are against the groups that most Christians have a problem with, so people are happy. But like always, remove rights from one set of people and you can’t be surprised when it happens to you.
Well that’s a good point Jack. I just thought he’d be happier anywhere that persecutes gays and restricts womens rights so much.
Reality said…
Gee, that jumbotron sounds like a fun guy – or gal. I hope he/she finds somewhere to live that they feel comfortable in. Iran maybe?
I am fun…and a guy. I’m sorry though. Not sure how you inferred from the truth in what I said with me feeling comfortable in Iran. Islam is a satanic lie and a cruel replacement of their long held moon goddess mythologies.
Jack said….
Too many Muslims. He/she might like Russia, until their totalitarian issues turn against Christians again. Currently they are against the groups that most Christians have a problem with, so people are happy. But like always, remove rights from one set of people and you can’t be surprised when it happens to you.
Once again….not sure how in the world you inferred from what I said with me liking Russia or its totalitarian ways….which it isn’t anymore….it’s a Fascist Oligarchy…. but let’s not pick nits, shall we. Still a nasty society. Criticizing your own country’s faults does not make the criticizer automatically a Muslim/Communist/Socialist/Totalitarian/Collectivist/or any other name you can think of. I’m sure a lot of dead boys in the rice paddies of Viet Nam would have liked for a little more of you to have criticized the state of the country….but again…I digress.
Reality said in return to Jack…..
Well that’s a good point Jack. I just thought he’d be happier anywhere that persecutes gays and restricts womens rights so much.
LOL !!! Wow….you read too fast for your own good. Never did I say A N Y T H I N G about persecuting gays or restricting women’s rights.
My displeasure at the Supreme Court ruling is based on my religious point of view….not as a Constitutional issue. Of course, gays have the right to marry. They always did…..precisely from the point in which Thomas Jefferson stated that we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. But that is part of my point about no longer looking at this country as mine or yours. If it wasn’t before…it is now illegitimate in the eyes of God. Just as every government who has opposed God’s ways. There is a place to find out if this is true or not. It’s called a library…..find the History section. It is replete with volumes of books on godless cultures and societies which are now in the dustbin of history….if not literally buried in the dust.
As far as womens’ rights. No person has the right to take another’s life. Period. Just because God or Nature physically endued a woman with the ability to mentor a life (let’s drop the pretense of creating a life….the genetic source material by the man or woman was not created by them in the first place) does not give that woman the right to kill that child….particularly seeing how it takes a man to give the egg sperm to begin the process in the first place. So if a man….who is 50% of the deal goes to jail for manslaughter in the least if he causes the death of the fetus but the woman does not if she goes to an abortion clinic….there is a fundamental disconnect with logic and truth here that cannot be denied. For the truth is and always has been….no person has the right to take another’s life. And of course that would include the pregnant woman. You cannot take away anything you did not have in the first place.
Hey…thanks for playing “NONSENSICAL AD HOMINEM ATTACKS”. Come back again tomorrow and try again….same Bat Time…same Bat Station…..LOL !!!!!!
“Islam is a satanic lie and a cruel replacement of their long held moon goddess mythologies.”
“try again….same Bat Time…same Bat Station…..LOL !!!!!!”
‘Concern Troll’ ?????
He sounds like that Danny guy (was his name Danny? I can’t remember). Lots of bold and randomness in his comments.
Swivel-eyed?
DING DING DING
Yep….busted….I’m that Danny guy. LOL !!!
One person’s randomness is another person’s connecting related dots to highlight the whole.
As far as random goes…you guys are in the lead. I mean…I’m for Islam…then Russia and then I’m suddenly powerful enough to take away a woman’s right to kill an innocent life when I do not hold that kind of elected power nor could I take away a right that no one has in the first place.
Seems you guys have the swivel eyes…you simply can’t lock on to exactly what I am.
But that’s what happens when you get hit upside the head with the truth stick….it makes you a little wobbly. LOL !!!
But don’t worry. The truth stick doesn’t kill. For as the Joker told Batman…..” I don’t want to kill you….you’re simply too much fun ! “ LOL !!!!
“One person’s randomness is another person’s connecting related dots to highlight the whole.” – so that’s how you came up with a picture of an elephant!!!
“you simply can’t lock on to exactly what I am.” – and you think we are concerned with doing so because…
“get hit upside the head with the truth stick….it makes you a little wobbly” – what sort of stick did you get hit with then?
Oh, you certainly are fun. Maybe not in the way you might like to think though :-)
Doesn’t matter what I think of myself or what you think. Only the truth matters.
And the truth is….since I’ve come back tonight, you have not refuted one thing I said other than to post common 5th grader school yard taunts. Same goes for Jack.
So…<snap…snap> focus….focus…..look at my hand…how many fingers am I holding up? Ok…good. Now that I’ve got your attention….answer these questions.
1: Where in natural law does anyone have the right to take innocent life?
2: Where in the 13 billion year evolutionary history has life begotten life from a homosexual union (and no….asexual reproduction does not count). So if Darwinian evolution does not naturally approve of such a condition to promote and enhance nature’s Prime Directive which is Life must beget Life, what makes you think that the promotion of homosexuality is a good thing for the social organism as Social Sciences call it?
And please…..seriously….enough with the childish name calling. Really. You’re embarrassing yourself in front of the people here who oppose you and worse still you are embarrassing those people who may hold the same viewpoints as you…..but back them up with at least a modicum of logic and evidence. The fact that i am still talking to you simply shows that I have at least some confidence that you are capable of some rational thought. But that confidence has a time limit.
There’s no arguing with you Danny, no matter what you’re just going to post screeds. I wish you well.
“you have not refuted one thing I said” – was there any need to?
“Where in natural law does anyone have the right to take innocent life?” – whose version are you referring to?
“So if Darwinian evolution does not naturally approve of such a condition to promote and enhance nature’s Prime Directive which is Life must beget Life” – are you sure about that? I think you’ll find the whole thing a little more complex than that.
“what makes you think that the promotion of homosexuality” – promotion?
“The fact that i am still talking to you simply shows that I have at least some confidence that you are capable of some rational thought.” – nah, you’re just hoping that you can find something to do a bit more giggling behind your hand about.
“But that confidence has a time limit.” – read ‘limited attention span’
Sure, especially when you deliberately avoid having sex during your fertile period to reduce the likelihood of conception. By the same standards, any couple using a form of contraception with a marginal error rate would be in the same category.
Not at all, because the couple using contraception is seeking to have their cake and eat it, too — that is, they’re attempting to have sex during the fertile period of the cycle but using some sort of chemical, artificial, or physical barrier to render the act infertile.
In contrast, my husband and I do nothing at all to change the nature of the sex act. We are 100% open to the sex act working as intended, completely unhindered and unchanged. If a new baby results because we engaged in the act meant to create babies, then great! If not, we’re open to that outcome as well. If I am in the infertile phase of my cycle at the time, it is because that is the natural state of my body at that time (that is, I’ve done nothing at all to change or thwart my body’s natural, biological cycle).
Jack – if I may ask, what method did you use? What was your main source of frustration with it?
Reality – “Anatomically, arousal occurs in the same way in women and in men (the locus of excitement is in the cerebro-spinal system at S2-S3). The female organism, as was mentioned above, reacts more easily to excitation in various parts of the body, which to some extent compensates for the fact that the woman’s excitement grows more slowly than that of the man. The man must take this difference into account, not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons. There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously. The subjective happiness which they then share has the clear characteristic of the enjoyment which we have called ‘frui’, of the joy which flows from harmony between one’s own actions and the objective order of nature. Egoism on the other hand—and in this context it is obviously more likely to be egoism on the part of the man—is inseparable from the ‘uti’ in which one party seeks only his own pleasure at the expense of the other.” – Love And Responsibility by Karol Wojty?a (later known as Pope John Paul II), 1960
So you see, the Church has long taught that pleasure is an integral component of sex within marriage, specifically in the context of being unitive.
Oh goody, sex lessons from a celibate.
Hey, I agree it’s a valid target, but I kinda doubt that too many catholics are “doin’ it right” ;-)
“So you see, the Church has long taught that pleasure is an integral component of sex within marriage, specifically in the context of being unitive.”
Reality was talking about pleasure being unnecessary because there was some conversation with Tyler where Tyler said he wasn’t certain that female orgasm was necessarily licit. Or something like that, Tyler was hard to follow.
“Jack – if I may ask, what method did you use? What was your main source of frustration with it?”
I dislike any form of birth control I have to trust someone else with.
“you have not refuted one thing I said” – was there any need to?
Once you made the accusation that based on what I said ….
I hope he/she finds somewhere to live that they feel comfortable in. Iran maybe?
and…..
I just thought he’d be happier anywhere that persecutes gays and restricts womens rights so much.
…yes…you need to. And you have shown you are incapable of doing so to everyone here. Congrats. Same for you Jack…..but I proved that during the run up to the election last year.
As far as my taking about Darwinian Evolution and the promotion of life….I am playing a bit in the role of devil’s advocate. Since most people who don’t believe that God created all things shut down critical thinking when one brings that up in discussions about origins…..then I just flip it around and make my point using conventional scientific thought. And of course, the march of life throughout history no matter how it was created, either by accident, fate or God is complex. But you obfiscate with a silly statement about not being sure about life begetting life. There was an origin, from insanely small quantum matter arose the building blocks of life that eventually led to you and me and life that you have seen from the time you were able to be aware of your surroundings. So don’t be cute….it doesn’t suit you. Nor did it refute anything i said about the metaphysically true fact that no one has the right to take innocent life…..and that homosexuality, and homosexual marriage…..no matter if given legitimacy by the imprimatur of the state backed by an opinion of a court, is good for the long term health of a society or that it is a historically proven marker to properly diagnose the diseased state of said society.
I might be running out of Troll Kibble tonight, but I will come back tomorrow with a fresh bag. In the mean time…..there are a lot of people here reading this……why don’t you respect their intellect and give reasons why a woman has a right to kill….and that homosexuality is good for society…..particularly homosexual marriage and how…..without knowing a thing about me you think I would persecute anyone. I mean….as someone as smart as you….that should be easy. Facts shut me up. Ad hominem attacks simply makes me want to embarrass you as I have done with excrutionary detail.
Reality – Your ad hominems aside, JPII’s observations are entirely correct, are they not?
Jack – NFP is very much a mutual effort. My husband helps me record my data and interpret my charts, for example. If it’s wholly one-sided, then it’s not being used properly or effectively.
That may be Tyler’s private opinion, but it certainly isn’t a teaching of the Church. Quite the contrary.
“Once you made the accusation that based on what I said ….” – that was not an ‘accusation’, I expressed hope for you and asked a question.
“and…..” – ‘I just thought’. That would be what I made of what you had said. Again, not an ‘accusation’.
“…yes…you need to.” – self-evidently not.
“And you have shown you are incapable of doing so to everyone here.” – I think you’re doing a good job of showing what it is that you are incapable of.
“But you obfiscate with a silly statement about not being sure about life begetting life.” – no, I don’t ‘obfiscate’. Evolution and survival of species is more complex than you appear to grasp.
“I might be running out of Troll Kibble tonight” – aw, are you getting hungry?
You’ve obviously missed a lot of conversations/debates/arguments here.
“without knowing a thing about me you think I would persecute anyone” – so you’re happy with the rainbow flag flying, bell ringing and provision of equal benefits; and you support them all.
“Ad hominem attacks simply makes me want to embarrass you as I have done with excrutionary detail.” – BWAHAHAHAHA! – ‘excrutionary’? Well, something has been a bit excruciating.
Does your mom know you’re still on the computer?
“Jack – NFP is very much a mutual effort. My husband helps me record my data and interpret my charts, for example. If it’s wholly one-sided, then it’s not being used properly or effectively.”
Actually I’ll give you that one, I assume you don’t lie to your husband and record false data to try and get pregnant when he’s not ready for another kid lol. My personal issue with NFP might more be an issue with my ex, honestly. But still, didn’t work for me and didn’t help our marriage. And I also seriously disliked being expected to have sex because it was a safe day, that was not something I enjoyed at all.
and just to be clear, I didn’t state, accuse or claim that you would persecute anyone :-)
It wasn’t ad hominem JoAnna.
Which is why, while he has the fundamentals pretty much right, he demonstrates limited understanding of how different people might achieve their maximum pleasure from the unitive act. Simultaneous orgasm is not necessarily the peak (excuse the pun) for some people.
Jack – no, I would never do that to my husband. It’s be a flagrant violation of my wedding vows.
Reality – it was absolutely ad hominem. You were criticizing JPII as a person (a celibate person) as opposed to criticizing the information presented.
If you read the excerpt again, you’ll see that JPII says climaxing together is preferable, but not mandatory. The most important point of the excerpt (which is from page 272 of the book) is that it is the responsibility of both partners to make sure that they both derive pleasure from sex – it shouldn’t be one-sided. That effectively rebuts your assertion about Catholics believing that pleasure is not an integral aspect of sex, no?
“it was absolutely ad hominem.” – rubbish. I criticized the fact that a celibate person was dishing out sex instructions and explained how this was demonstrated by their less than complete understanding.
“The man must take this difference into account…..There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.” – he is stating that that is the main aim of the game when for some people it is not the way to derive maximum pleasure.
“rebuts your assertion about Catholics believing that pleasure is not an integral aspect of sex” – if you read the relevant section of thread you’ll find that that is not exactly what I asserted.
LOL !!!
Hey folks….just leave Reality alone. Obviously not someone who is serious. He (or) she can’t even answer a simple question. The mark of a coward is one who in a debate constantly asks another question as an answer to a simple question posed to them.
So in answer to my questions…..
1: Where in natural law (any one’s interpretation Reality) does any one have the right to take innocent life including a pregnant mother.
2: Is Homosexuality and homosexual marriage a historically proven marker for a diseased society and not good in and of itself for same said society.
we get from Reality that I am perhaps more comfortable living in Iran or Russia or a persecutor or a tyrant who takes away rights.
*Snicker*…ok…Reality. Fine…you win. You’ve proven to everyone here that you are an intellectual coward….you probably already know there is no right….God given….nature given…or otherwise for a woman to kill her child…..and you also know that deviant behavior whether hetero or homo (but homo since that is the story of the day now) is not good for the larger society and is a marker for a society in decline.
Here ya go….boy. Have a nice Troll snack. They not only freshen your breath but they make your teeth whiter as well.
Oh….and by the way….the little bit of snark about does my mother know I’m still on the computer based on a misspelling of one word at near midnight after a 15 hour work day and still trying to respect you enough to give you the time to not only rebut my statements but to provide evidence for your own beliefs is simply more proof that you have no conviction of the legitimacy of your beliefs…..if you have any at all. You’re just simply a weak minded person swayed by popular culture and conventional wisdom.
But hey….good for you….you’re a great spell checker. So go forth into the world and feel good about yourself. It’s all about self-esteem isn’t it.
ROTFLMBO !!!!
A whole lot of conversation and still no response to my question. Am I typing into a black hole?
Jack, Reality, anyone?
Ok…Andrew. I’ll bite. I had to go WAY back and reread some of your posts and others. I don’t feel like getting way off into this other than to respect your request for an answer.
Of course the end result of celibacy between a couple as opposed to the couple using contraceptives is exactly identical…..namely….no new life is produced.
However, the difference is a matter of passive vs. active. Celibacy is passive contraception. All other forms are active. You have to insert something, you have to swallow something, you have to put something on….etc.
I would tender this thought as well. Contraception, to me, connotes something active in and of itself. Since celibacy is the absence of sexual activity, it could be hard to define a celibate’s inaction with the possible connotation that contraception is an act. After all, Contra means to oppose…to actively resist.
To muddy the waters further….what if the celibates don’t engage in sex not because of the desire to NOT procreate….but simply the sexual union between the two of them is felt to be a non-issue…..that it would not add anything to the relationship? Therefore, in this case, celibacy is not contraceptive at all, simply from the context in which the choice was made. They are not ACTIVELY taking steps to prevent life from their celibacy because that’s not the root issue behind their choice.
But of course….in the end…..no new life is produced. So it seems to me to be a fine line looking for a distinction.
Not that I am supporting whatever thought you may have in agreement or opposition to whomever you’re debating with. Just simply trying to be respectful and answer your question the best I can.
*Snicker*….you are an intellectual fool….
I stated that you may perhaps be more comfortable living in Iran or Russia well before you asked questions 1 and 2.
Nor did I state that you are a persecutor or a tyrant who takes away rights. You’ve repreated your mistake.
“1: Where in natural law (any one’s interpretation Reality) does any one have the right to take innocent life including a pregnant mother.” – in which one does it say otherwise?
“2: Is Homosexuality and homosexual marriage a historically proven marker for a diseased society and not good in and of itself for same said society.” – no.
“does my mother know I’m still on the computer based on a misspelling of one word” – believe me, that’s not what it was based on :-)
“rebut my statements” – I think they do a pretty good job of that themselves.
“provide evidence for your own beliefs is simply more proof that you have no conviction of the legitimacy of your beliefs” – uhu, where is yours.
“You’re just simply a weak minded person swayed by popular culture and conventional wisdom.” – whose popular culture? ‘Conventional wisdom’ is a misnomer.
Hm, comment awaiting moderation.
The claim that “America will never again be a pro-life nation.” is wrong anyway. America has never been a pro-life nation and never will be until the death penalty no longer exists.
“Hm, comment awaiting moderation.”
I think I got it now, yah?
yah :-)
merci beaucoup
Is Homosexuality and homosexual marriage a historically proven marker for a diseased society and not good in and of itself for same said society.” – no.
Wow…you just keep proving to everyone how pathetic you are, Reality. Secular history as well as the historical record in the Bible prove you to be the liar that you are. You lied about my comfort with Iran. You lied about me being happy where they persecute gays and take away women’s rights. You lied by proxy by agreeing with Jack that I would be happy in Russia.
Anything you have to say from here on out is null and void. Once one outs himself in public as a congenital and proven liar the prudent course of action for the rest of us is to, by default, no longer believe anything that comes out of the liar’s mouth. It also proves that you are stupid. You don’t even try to hide the fact, in a public forum, that you are liar.
I’ve had enough Whack a Mole with you. Your persona non grata….as all liars should be.
Jeez. Is there something in the Bible that says “thou shalt make sweeping statements without backing them up with anything factual and then mock people when they don’t take thy dubious word for it”?
For such a small percentage of the population you guys seriously give gays a lot of credit. Maybe Marvel can make a comic book about the LGBT community and their amazing power to destroy entire cultures while being like 4-8% of the population. Lol.
“Secular history as well as the historical record in the Bible prove you to be the liar that you are.” – prove it.
“You lied about my comfort with Iran.” – no I didn’t.
“You lied about me being happy where they persecute gays and take away women’s rights.” – no I didn’t.
“You lied by proxy by agreeing with Jack that I would be happy in Russia.” – no I didn’t.
English isn’t your first language is it. Or your favorite subject.
“Anything you have to say from here on out is null and void” – that’d be about twelve steps behind you then.
“Once one outs himself in public as a congenital and proven liar” – it could be a little bit useful if you could come up with something to explain why you say this. And who you say it about.
“It also proves that you are stupid.” – but not as stupid as you are hilarious.
“You don’t even try to hide the fact, in a public forum, that you are liar.” – don’t need to hide what isn’t there.
“I’ve had enough Whack a Mole with you.” – you’ve certainly had enough of something.
“Your persona non grata….as all liars should be.” – that’d be “you’re”. Now go finish your homework.
‘Delusions chapter 6 verse 14’ Jack.
Consider this your gentle reminder that there are a lot of us Christians who honestly attempt to debate with facts as well as Scripture and who don’t put great value on being lumped together with those who don’t, nor do we appreciate the deprecatory and sacrilegious humor.
Even if you don’t believe, you shouldn’t toy with matters of religion and spirituality lightly.
Well I guess you are right that it’s unfair to you who are kinder.
But I really, really hope you never know what if feels like to have to, everyday of your life, try to respect beliefs that consider you deviant, and disordered, and perverted, etc etc etc. That’s actually pretty difficult, imo. I think a lot of what you all see as anger and sarcasm from people who hear your stuff is hurt feelings.
Read and acknowledged. If I’d thought Jumbotron was much more than trolling, I’d have called him out a while ago. I’m honestly surprised you’re both responding so much to him. Have peace.
As I’ve mentioned, I find a lot of my desires (normal, driving, everyday desires) to be equally disordered. I do not believe that “perverted” is a term which should be used lightly and I see it done frequently. My best to you.
Eh, I’m almost as bad at ignoring trolls as JDC is. :)
Best to you to.
for what its worth. The church doesn’t recognize Mr. Voris views. They have made an open statement on this