Christians Being Persecuted/discriminated Against In The Usa

[4588686]

namely, NFP-sex does not preclude the possibility of conceiving a child, right here, right now. It accepts that potential future arising from the specific sex act.
 

 

Contraception does not preclude the possibility of conceiving a child.  Neither NFP nor contraception accept any potential future since actions and objects do not possess subjectivity.  Whether the individuals deploying NFP or contraception accept the potential future arising from the specific sex act is wholly determined by the individuals in question.  There is absolutely no logical reason that a couple could not use a condom and still accept the potential future of a child arising from the sex act in which that condom was utilized.  

[Maggyie]

I would agree with this but I don't see what this has to do with your claim that contraception is objectifying. This argument only holds if the individual in question is being coerced into using contraception.

How does coercion play a role? It seems to me that objectification does not depend on whether both parties consent to it or not. I mean some people are gung-ho to be treated like things, especially when it comes to romantic relationships. They are still being towing objectified even if they are 'OK' with it. Maybe you mean something else? My brain hurts reading this thread.

[Vitamin]

How does coercion play a role? It seems to me that objectification does not depend on whether both parties consent to it or not. I mean some people are gung-ho to be treated like things, especially when it comes to romantic relationships. They are still being towing objectified even if they are 'OK' with it. Maybe you mean something else? My brain hurts reading this thread.

 

I think what people find the most mind boggling is the assertion that when couples decide their own future it's somehow objectification.

[4588686]

How does coercion play a role? It seems to me that objectification does not depend on whether both parties consent to it or not. I mean some people are gung-ho to be treated like things, especially when it comes to romantic relationships. They are still being towing objectified even if they are 'OK' with it. Maybe you mean something else? My brain hurts reading this thread.

 

 

I actually just edited my post as you responded.  I don't see how limiting somebody future possibilities is objectifying at all.  Weather that limitation is willful or not.  I do agree that limiting somebody's future possibilities against their will is wrong but it is not 'objectifying' as far as I can see.  

[4588686]

I think what people find the most mind boggling is the assertion that when couples decide their own future it's somehow objectification.

 

 

Yeah.  It's a weird and offensive series of claims.  I'm still not sure what the actual substantive argument for it is.  

[Maggyie]

Hasan I think we can agree that a couple using NFP properly is open to life in a way a couple using a condom isn't. Artificial contraception introduces an instrument of manipulation whereas NFP involves no manipulation and simply recognizes what exists.

An NFP-sex act can not be objectifying in the same way as a condom-sex act is because with "contraceptive" NFP the act does not take place. You can't objectify someone by not having sex with them. It also involves mutual sacrifice, which is the key to it qualifying as open to life. You can't compare this with someone who pops a pill, used a rubber, takes injections etc so that their bodies won't work the way they are supposed to (when not experiencing malnutrition that is).

[Lilllabettt]

Why don't we start over. How about you give your definition of "person." No metaphysics, please.

Then I will go over again how contraceptive sex turns that person into an object for use.

 

 

[Maggyie]

Vitamin "couples deciding their own future" has nothing to do with it. The model on the Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover has chosen her own future and it involves her being objectified. Again "objectified" is not a synonym for bad person, going to hell, not nice, not loving, blah blah blah. It means you are being TREATED AS AN OBJECT.

Maybe this will help. We also objectify people in the armed forces. They are meat for the war machine. Many sincerely love them for their service. We feed them into the grinder. We reduce them to props for sentimental schlock. We objectify them. Is it bad that people love the troops? And bake them cookies and write articles in People magazine about the Soldier With A Touching Story? No. It's great. But still many of these people are objectifying those in uniform.

This is far afield from the objectification that happens in a sex act. But I hope it's an example that clarifies what objectification looks like. It's not limited to child molesters and porn conglomerates. Nice people do it to each other too.

[4588686]

Why don't we start over. How about you give your definition of "person." 

 

Why?  I don't see any reason for this except you would rather this get bogged down in a debate about what is 'personhood' then have to flesh out a substantive argument about your claims about contraceptives being objectifying.  So far nobody's issue with your series of claims about contraception being 'objectifying' has hinged on a difference of definition over the tern 'person.'  So I don't see any reason to get bogged down in that.  Particularly since I think it's pretty obvious that there is not a non-metaphysical definition of 'person.'   

Edited May 9, 2014 by Hasan

[4588686]

Hasan I think we can agree that a couple using NFP properly is open to life in a way a couple using a condom isn't. Artificial contraception introduces an instrument of manipulation whereas NFP involves no manipulation and simply recognizes what exists. 

 

An NFP-sex act can not be objectifying in the same way as a condom-sex act is because with "contraceptive" NFP the act does not take place. You can't objectify someone by not having sex with them. It also involves mutual sacrifice, which is the key to it qualifying as open to life. You can't compare this with someone who pops a pill, used a rubber, takes injections etc so that their bodies won't work the way they are supposed to (when not experiencing malnutrition that is).

 

I absolutely do not agree with your first sentence and I don't see any reason to assume it is true absent a prejudice against people who use contraceptives.  

[4588686]

Rather than get into a bitter argument with two of my favorite phatmassers ima take a break to go back to laming up open mic and trolling.  

[Anastasia13]

Hasan I think we can agree that a couple using NFP properly is open to life in a way a couple using a condom isn't. Artificial contraception introduces an instrument of manipulation whereas NFP involves no manipulation and simply recognizes what exists.

 

Condoms manipulate material to reduce likelihood of conception.*

 

NFP manipulates timing to reduce likelihood of conception.*

 

*This is presuming a case of a couple where they cannot conceive and keep everyone (mom/child) alive.

 

An NFP-sex act can not be objectifying in the same way as a condom-sex act is because with "contraceptive" NFP the act does not take place.

 

Would the timing really make any difference if they used a condom at the same time that NFP should allow them to have sex without conceiving and not other times?

 

A condom is still not a 100% guarantee of preventing conception if they use a condom and thus does not completely block conception but might add security to a couple that medically cannot handle a pregnancy.

 

You can't objectify someone by not having sex with them. It also involves mutual sacrifice, which is the key to it qualifying as open to life.

"I'm sorry husband, I can't be physically intimate with you because my body can't handle your sperm in my from sex right now." Objectifies part of the husband.

 

It also involves mutual sacrifice, which is the key to it qualifying as open to life. You can't compare this with someone who pops a pill, used a rubber, takes injections etc so that their bodies won't work the way they are supposed to (when not experiencing malnutrition that is).

But you can ask them to not let their bodies do what married couples are supposed to let their bodies do in marriage-be intimate, be one flesh, experience the unification aspect of sex which 1 Cor. 7 so that the married are not tempted to cheat and the unmarried who burn with passion can act within the proper place of marriage. I'm talking about over the course of years, not every week or something.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Light and Truth

[Maggyie]

Condoms manipulate material to reduce likelihood of conception.*

NFP manipulates timing to reduce likelihood of conception.*

"I'm sorry husband, I can't be physically intimate with you because my body can't handle your sperm in my from sex right now." Objectifies part of the husband.
.

I'm not sure you understand how NFP works. The wife doesn't turn to her husband and explain that btw we can't do it because my body can't handle your sperm.

NFP is observational. It does not involve outside manipulation or interference. It's observing the human body, it does not involve covering parts in plastic, ingesting pharmaceuticals, cutting parts of the body, administering chemicals or having plastic devices inserted. What is so hard to get here? Can you really not tell the difference? I am really not the best cheerleader for NFP as I said, but at a certain point this is ludicrous. Why don't you find a non-religious feminist who uses fertility awareness to explain the difference to you. That's the other main category of people who use NFP.

Can you explain to me how a human being "manipulates time" or how a woman is supposed to use this magic skill to manipulate her cycle? You do know a woman can't make herself ovulate or prevent ovulation by thinking real hard about it or by observing how her body works? I'm just... Speechless.

[Anastasia13]

I'm not sure you understand how NFP works. The wife doesn't turn to her husband and explain that btw we can't do it because my body can't handle your sperm.

NFP is observational. It does not involve outside manipulation or interference. It's observing the human body, it does not involve covering parts in plastic, ingesting pharmaceuticals, cutting parts of the body, administering chemicals or having plastic devices inserted. What is so hard to get here? Can you really not tell the difference? I am really not the best cheerleader for NFP as I said, but at a certain point this is ludicrous. Why don't you find a non-religious feminist who uses fertility awareness to explain the difference to you. That's the other main category of people who use NFP.

Can you explain to me how a human being "manipulates time" or how a woman is supposed to use this magic skill to manipulate her cycle? You do know a woman can't make herself ovulate or prevent ovulation by thinking real hard about it or by observing how her body works? I'm just... Speechless.

 

Perhaps timing would be a better word.

 

And would there not be times when a woman cannot have sex with her husband because she would get pregnant if they had sex that day? I'm sure the wording would be a little different, but it's kind along the lines of what some would be thinking.

 

NFP is still not 100% effective.

 

If I was married, I would have had a 1% chance of poisoning my child this afternoon when I took medication (something that might not change for years) and you would be ok with that.

 

I've seen my cycle shift in length by almost 10 days within a year as a post-adolescent adult.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Light and Truth

[Socrates]

Is this what Phatmass is now? Catholics being torn down by other Catholics simply for reiterating Catholic morality?

 

Yes.