<p>Baelor could you outline for me why you believe contraceptives are bad? I am very curious.</p>
<p>Morality and empiricism are unrelated, in my opinion. That connection gets dangerously close to the naturalistic fallacy. I guess I can agree with Baelor in that regard.</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, I don’t dislike christians at all. I feel that, pretty much, no one has a choice in whether they are a christian or an atheist, or whatever. Your experiences lead you to one position, and you can’t just “decide” to change your entire worldview internally. Because it is your worldview that influences your perception and analysis of incoming information and argument. Only some profound influence will change one to the other. And frankly, I don’t care what people believe - as long as we don’t start basing public policy on Noah’s Ark.</p>
<p>But most Christians I know - the ones I like, anyhow - they believe in God, and Jesus, and are generally morally upstanding people. They believe in the general story and themes of the life of Christ, and God’s purpose, their purpose on earth, and the idea of heaven and hell. </p>
<p>BUT - most of these normal, likeable people actually don’t really care about premarital sex, the evil nature of contraceptives, arguments about transubstantiation, hating gay people, people who get divorced, eating shellfish on the wrong day, or coveting thy neightbor’s goods, etc, etc, etc, etc. Some of this is archaic, outdated lunacy - they’ll live by Christ but they won’t grow a full length beard to prove it.</p>
<p>Almost everybody just chooses what rules of the Bible they’d like to follow anyway. This random charge against contraceptives is just something you like doing to feel holier than thou.</p>
<p>I believe the Bible didn’t forbid contraceptives explicitly, but forbid having sex for any purpose other than procreation.</p>
<p>So everytime you masturbate, that’s a sin. Everytime you (or your son) has unprotected sex, for pleasure rather than procreation, that’s a sin.</p>
<p>Wedding night? Honeymoon? Unless the sole purpose is procreation (not tradition, not pleasure, not emotional connection) that is one Almighty Sin.</p>
<p>So, if you do ever get married, how long do you plan on sleeping (I mean procreating) with your wife? For a good 20, 30 years?</p>
<p>I hope you like watching the Duggers on TV, because that will be your family and lifestyle if every time you have sex it is for procreation.</p>
<p>It also means the man MUST climax inside his wife every time they have sex. No oral sex allowed by anyone. NO having sex when she’s not ovulating.</p>
<p>Oh, and the best part? After your wife gets pregnant, NO SEX ALLOWED. It’s impossible to impregnante her again until after the baby is born. Ipso facto, any sex is not for procreation but pleasure.</p>
<p>Basically, no one follows the above, period. And they all logic it away to themselves, oh well God meant this, that is interpreted as this, that ‘rule’ is just a guideline, that story is just a parable. And if you DO believe all the bull I just posted above, you are beyond saving by anyone, including Jesus. Bottom line: contraceptives aren’t evil. contraceptive opponents are.</p>
<p>" And if you DO believe all the bull I just posted above, you are beyond saving by anyone, including Jesus."</p>
<p>that was my favorite line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you talking to me? My morality is not based solely on the Bible, so none of this entire post even applies. So I hope that you are in fact talking to someone who would make your claims relevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That holds about the same rhetorical weight as my claim that you are picking religion in order to single out the ignorant followers thereof in order to boost your self-esteem due to some repressed low self-confidence. See? I can make totally unsubstantiated claims about other people too! How about…proving it.</p>
<p>The rest of the post is totally inapplicable to anyone who is not a Biblical literalist, a category into which I do not fall by any means. I will therefore justifiably ignore it.</p>
<p>That is because the only people against contraceptives are Biblical literalists.</p>
<p>If you think you have some other valid reason (I can’t think of one), then please share it - otherwise why are you even discussing the matter on this thread?</p>
<p>If you want to keep it a secret, I can only assume you hate contraceptives because they will drain your thetan levels and displease Lord Zenu. Which might be the case.</p>
<p>Baelor, please take that large leap into modern times. I didn’t know we were still in the 16th century.</p>
<p>Ethics has nothing to do with whether we live in “modern times” or the 16th century.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. Lies. And many Biblical literalists, i.e. fundies, are NOT against contraception.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here you go: [Humanae</a> Vitae](<a href=“Humanae Vitae: de propagatione humanae prolis recte ordinanda, die XXV mensis Iulii, anno MCMLXVIII - Paulus VI | Paulus PP. VI”>Humanae Vitae: de propagatione humanae prolis recte ordinanda, die XXV mensis Iulii, anno MCMLXVIII - Paulus VI | Paulus PP. VI)</p>
<p>I am not here to discuss the merits of contraception; I started into this thread simply by saying that some religious people are against contraception. I have no interest whatsoever in debating whether this position is valid; only that people hold it. </p>
<p>The above link is from a Papal Encyclical dealing with contraception, which reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s consistent and timeless ban on any artificial contraception. The Church is far from a literal interpreter of the Bible; a frequent fundie claim is that the Catholic Church completely ignores the Bible. In other words, there is a “valid” reason for opposing contraception. Just read the encyclical, although you may need to find an English version unless your command of Latin is exemplary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My morality is not dependent on the century, nor on the uninformed whims of the vulgus.</p>
<p>Oh hey lemme back up my point with an article nobody can read</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s available in English, you just have to do a google search. Your laziness is not my problem.</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t you just provide the English link in the first place
?</p>
<p>You can address irrelevant questions to me by PM so as not to distract from the thread.</p>
<p>I practice celibacy at least 1 night per semester.</p>
<p>[Humanae</a> Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968](<a href=“Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) | Paul VI”>Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) | Paul VI)</p>
<p>Basically marriage comes from god, and his purpose of marriage would forbid contraceptives. </p>
<p>"“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.”</p>
<p>That quote (from bible presumably, it was in quotes) provides the basis for the argument. However I do not find their conclusions logical from there. Having protected sex does not stop you from having children, but allows you to have them when you have create a good healthy environment for them. Protected sex also allows you to expel the sexual urges while waiting for the perfect time to procreate and provide the “education of children”.</p>
<p>I assume that comment was directed to people in general, but in the case that it was at least somewhat directed toward me, I reiterate that I have absolutely no interest in debating the morality of contraception and therefore will not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I only read pages 6-11 so maybe I didn’t read an important point–I’d need to make some assumptions here because I don’t have empirical evidence on hand. Tell me which assumption you disagree with:</p>
<p>If a red state is a state with Republicans, and on average more Republicans are social conservatives, and on average more social conservatives are religious <em>gasp for air</em></p>
<p>and we assume there’s no strange skewed distribution where a majority of the religious, socially conservative Republicans are in blue states while a majority of the atheist Republicans are in red states</p>
<p>then it’s safe to say that red states house more religiously devout persons. By definition, there are less atheists that are Catholics then there are religiously devout that are Catholics. Again, disregarding strange distributions among the blue vs red states, this would imply that there are more Catholics in red states. </p>
<p>Then, perhaps the most questionable assumption, is that more Catholics oppose contraception than the population at large. </p>
<p>All else equal, of course. After all, Catholics only represent one segment that opposes contraception–if they are a minority, then their distribution among the states becomes irrelevant.</p>
<p>Are there assumptions. TONS–some verifiable I’m sure. Which assumptions do you disagree with?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…
I too posted a link. And said more could be found with a google search. You chose to ignore it, and claim I didn’t offer up anything to my claim. Yet I did. Big shock.</p>
<p>First of all, I question the assumption that there are more Catholics in the South than in the U.S. The Vatican is clearly more religious per capita than the U.S., but there are many more Muslims in the U.S. than in the Vatican. Not saying the assumption is wrong, but rather that I’m not willing to accept it that easily.</p>
<p>Furthermore, one would need to demonstrate that the per capita difference (once shown to exist) in belief on contraception would indeed lead to the massive teenage pregnancy alluded to in that post.</p>
<p>In other words, the following need to be concretely shown:</p>
<p>1) South has more opposition to contraception
2) This opposition leads to increases in teenage pregnancy</p>
<p>“Unprotected sex” is not a proxy for “opposes contraception” – the former does not imply moral overtones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you on crack? I did read the blurb. I also read the other posted article. I read a lot about sex ed programs.</p>
<p>NOTHING in ANY of those articles, posted here or elsewhere, suggests that people in the South have significantly more opposition to contraception, and that this difference leads to increases in pregnancy by a significant margin.</p>
<p>Your article might as well have been posted in the thread about posters on dorm walls because it’s just as relevant there as it is here.</p>
<p>^My post had little to do about a belief regarding contraception. It had more to do with abstinence only education, that does not teach teenagers how to use contraception should they choose to have sex. Hence higher rates of teen pregnancy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, I put the distribution disclaimer in there. To bypass this you’d need to assume either:
- The ratio of Catholics:religiously devout is similar in blue and red states (in your example, the ratio of Catholics:religious devout in Vatican >> than Catholics:religiously devout in USA)</p>
<p>or </p>
<p>2) Bypass this assumption: we could simply assume that the percentage of social conservatives that are Catholics is greater than the percentage of the total population that is Catholic.</p>
<p>^^^BTW, these are all assumptions, of course, but keep in mind that you’re pressing an issue that’s simply tough to quantify. The Census Bureau doesn’t get info on Catholics, unfortunately. Sometimes you need to have a little faith, hehe. Fortunately (or unfortunately if I’m wrong), my faith could easily be tested by sampling the population. Yours is more resilient.</p>
<p>1) South has more opposition to contraception –> You gotta tell me if you don’t agree to either assumption above, because otherwise we’d simply add that more Southern states are red. </p>
<p>2) This opposition leads to increases in teenage pregnancy –> I have no idea what post you’re referring to; I haven’t read it. I’m simply responding to the post I quoted above.</p>