Christians Being Persecuted/discriminated Against In The Usa

[CrossCuT]

So a married couple who uses contraceptives to avoid pregnancy due to financial issues are horrid, objectifying heathens out to eat each others souls?

But a married couple who uses NFP to avoid pregnancy due to financial issues are saints?

 

o where is the distinct diference in the two? Could you explain your stance and support your claims?

 

One is a religious sanctioned method of avoiding pregnancy and the other is a psychoactive drug that turns people into crazies?

[Lilllabettt]

I don't really have any interest in people's explanations for their use of contraception. I am not interested in deciding whether their reasons are "good" enough.

 

My view of contraception as inherently objectifying does not have anything to do with religion or Christian morality. Whenever sex becomes a meeting of things, we are objectifying people. A person is the individual composed of their unique memories, present experiences, and future possibilities.  (Please note that I am deliberately refusing to use a metaphysical definition of person. Because I am not making a metaphysical, theological or religious argument.) Contraception is an effort to have sex with someone while foreclosing one dimension of that person's future possibilities (the possibility that they might conceive a child with you.) Contraceptive sex is by its very nature an act of objectification. 

 

Now, people objectify each other all the time. Some people feel a little bit of objectification is "okay" especially if there are other benefits. I personally think that objectification is a big enough problem that a little bit is not okay. But whether people think it is okay or it isn't, whether their reasons are "good enough" or not, they cannot help but objectify their partner when they have contraceptive sex.

 

And if I was an employer of ANY RELIGION or NONE I would not be really interested in being forced to provide my employees with addition opportunities to build the structure of oppression that is rotting humanity. Thank you very much.

 

p.s. I'd suggest a phorum search if you'd like to know the differences between NFP and contraception. It's been discussed ad nauseam.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[CrossCuT]

 Contraception is an effort to have sex with someone while foreclosing one dimension of that person's future possibilities 

 

Is this something you know people feel/do when using contraception? 

[Norseman82]

 

A majority of the time, the exact same reasons for contraceptive use is identical for the use of Fertility Awareness (NFP).

 

 

So a married couple who uses contraceptives to avoid pregnancy due to financial issues are horrid, objectifying heathens out to eat each others souls?

But a married couple who uses NFP to avoid pregnancy due to financial issues are saints?

 

o where is the distinct diference in the two? Could you explain your stance and support your claims?

 

One is a religious sanctioned method of avoiding pregnancy and the other is a psychoactive drug that turns people into crazies?

 

When used to avoid pregnancy, artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral; NFP is not.  Case closed. 

 

Additionally, NFP is more environmentally-friendly than artificial contraception: 

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMN0SO3SHZ8[/media]

[CrossCuT]

When used to avoid pregnancy, artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral; NFP is not.  Case closed. 

 

Additionally, NFP is more environmentally-friendly than artificial contraception: 

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMN0SO3SHZ8[/media]

 

Intrinsically immoral as in...the potential loss of life?

 

This is the only logical argument I can entertain for the ban of contraception.

 

Ps. Props for using a Doctor Who video :)

Edited May 7, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Lilllabettt]

Is this something you know people feel/do when using contraception? 

 

 

Did you read?

This is what I said:

Contraception is an effort to have sex with someone while foreclosing one dimension of that person's future possibilities (the possibility that they might conceive a child with you.) 

 

 

 

Or are you having a problem with definitions? Let me be clearer, just in case.

Contraceptives are devices or medications used for the purpose of contracepting (e.g.,  not for other purposes, e.g., hormonal treatment)

 

They are devices or medications used for the purpose of foreclosing the possibility that your partner might become a parent of your child.

They are devices or medications used for the purpose of foreclosing that dimension of your partner's possible futures. 

They are devices or medications used for the purpose of facilitating sex with your partner as an object, not as a person (with their full range of memories, present experiences and future possibilities.) 

[Norseman82]

Intrinsically immoral as in...the potential loss of life?

 

This is the only logical argument I can entertain for the ban of contraception.

 

Ps. Props for using a Doctor Who video :)

 

Yes, many forms of artificial contraception work as abortifacients, so you can argue on that basis in a secular venue for their banning. 

 

However, on a theological level, the purpose of sex is both unitive and procreative (which is why our organs are referred to as the reproductive system, not the recreational system).  Artificial contraception violates the procreative aspect. 

[Anastasia13]

If you are using birth control to contracept i.e, you are using contraception, you are participating in objectification.

That's the reality of the situation. 

People who do it might have "reasons." I guess thats between them and the Lord.

The psychosocial consequences of objectifying/giving permission to another to objectify are the same regardless of all the warm fuzzy intentions. This has nothing to do with Christian religion, btw. 

Dehumanization: it stinks. 

See below. Written by a college educated female and posted on the website of an organization  that is supposed to encourage conversations about what it means to be a "good man."

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/you-can-get-laid-without-being-a-jerk/

 

And sometimes those reasons are between them, the Lord, the doctor who says it endangers life for them to bring forth life through pregnancy, and their priest who says in this case they can use non-abortificant contraception.

 

So, if you have any medical conditions that would keep you from having a child, then you don't have any right to romance unless you are/the bride is past menopause. And if you are married when that happens, then you might be better off living as celibate single person until menopause (no need to risk temptation).

Edited May 7, 2014 by Light and Truth

[Anastasia13]

When used to avoid pregnancy, artificial contraception is intrinsically immoral; NFP is not.  Case closed.

 

So if a married woman who should not conceive (for medical reasons) has a screwy cycle, she and her husband should just give up on sex for however many years of that is what it takes?

 

(not saying that would be common, but you know, case closed and all... gotta check)

[Anastasia13]

I don't really have any interest in people's explanations for their use of contraception. I am not interested in deciding whether their reasons are "good" enough.

 

You are not interested in why, just in telling them they are wrong?

[Lilllabettt]

You are not interested in why, just in telling them they are wrong?

 

 

I mean, as a human being of course I am interested.

But their explanations for why they feel they "have to" objectify their partner don't enter into my reasoning about whether they are in fact objectifying their partner.  

Maybe they think their reasons are "good." Maybe I would think their reasons are "good."

Doesn't matter. The goodness or badness of somebody's justification for objectifying their partner does not alter the reality that they are objectifying their partner. 

[Anastasia13]

When procreation is not a safe option, sharing unification automatically equals objectification. Got it.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Light and Truth

[Socrates]

 . . . My comparison there was meant to be hyperbolic. I was using an extreme example to show that the Government does have an interest in overruling religious liberty. I was not comparing the two in any other way. 

 

Okay, fair enough.

 

Though the pedophilia example was so far removed from the actual topic on hand as to be irrelevant.

 

 

The reason party-member Catholics cannot see the other side of the issue is because they cannot see anything valuable in contraceptives. A life-changing decision such as having a baby is an extremely important issue to a woman (and the man). I think it is important enough to rival religious liberty.

 

 

One cannot morally do something objectively evil (such as contraception) in order for something good to come of it.  I can see "the other side of issue" on this and many other things - immorality is oftentimes more convenient than doing the morally good thing.

Its hard for a lot of modern people to understand the Church's consistent teaching on contraception, but if you are truly interested in understanding, I'd recommend reading up on Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

 

But temporarily setting the issue of the morality of contraception aside, why shouldn't private schools and businesses be allowed to make their own decisions regarding what insurance plans they choose to buy, rather than having it dictated to them by the federal government?  People can choose what school they wish to attend or work for freely based on this and other considerations.

 

Why should serious Catholic schools like Christendom College or FUS, where everybody is strongly opposed to contraception, be forced by government dictate to violate their conscience?

However you look at it, there's simply no need for this government mandate which prohibits free practice of religion in these cases.

People had easy to access to contraception before the mandate if they wanted it anyway - the entire issue was bogus.

[CrossCuT]

Did you read?
This is what I said:


Or are you having a problem with definitions? Let me be clearer, just in case.
Contraceptives are devices or medications used for the purpose of contracepting (e.g., not for other purposes, e.g., hormonal treatment)

They are devices or medications used for the purpose of foreclosing the possibility that your partner might become a parent of your child.
They are devices or medications used for the purpose of foreclosing that dimension of your partner's possible futures.
They are devices or medications used for the purpose of facilitating sex with your partner as an object, not as a person (with their full range of memories, present experiences and future possibilities.)

Seems like an opinion to me. I disagree with the fact you seem to think the use automatically equals "I dont want you to father/mother my child."

Im sure you have a scenario in your mind similar to something like two people meeting at the club and leave together to have sloppy sex in the back of a car.

But what about the married couples who are waiting for financial stability? How is the use of contraceptives more barrig the possibility of the partner being the parent of the child moreso than nfp if you arent arguing morality?

Obviously they have every intention of creating a baby with eachother but similar to literally every single couple in the world, they are waiting for the right time.

I can see what L&T is saying and I think its completely situational. I dont think its the contraception that cause objectification, I think its the people.

So ill ask again, how do you know? How do you know peoples intentions and situations?
But I unerstand how hard it is to think freely after being spoon fed your whole life. I was there. I was the queen of judgment! Running around gloating wih my friends how horrible and stupid everyone was.

[Socrates]

. . .  party-member Catholics . . .

 

What do you mean by "party-member Catholics"?  Do you mean orthodox Catholics, those Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches?

 

I think a major difference between us is that I regard the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church as the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and given infallible moral teaching in matters of faith and morals, while you regard it as merely another human political party like the Republicans or Democrats, whose platforms are negotiable and open to change.

 

 

If we in fact believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and given His authority to hand down His moral and religious teachings, then we'd do well to heed and believe those teachings, whether we happen to personally like them or not.

 

If, on the other hand, the Church does not possess such teaching authority from Christ as She claims, then the Catholic Church is the biggest fraud in human history, and no good, honest person should want to identify himself with it.

 

You can't have it both ways.