contraception

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 10:01 AM'] Contraceptives are a very good thing. Sex for pleasure is not wrong at all. If you want to make love with your significant other and still not want to have to worry about getting pregnant than its the way to go. [/quote]
Didn't God say "be fruitfull and multiply"

You say it's ok to be fruitless?

God demands sacrifice, not for us to be selfish.

Birth control is the easy way out.

Plus it shows a lack of faith that God knows what you can handle.

God Bless
Jason

[Brother Adam]

I believe our friend is a non-Christian and would not follow any arguments that had to do with God. You can still nail him from a philosophical perspective, but I don't fully know how to do that yet. I have seen it done though.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Brother Adam

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 12 2005, 10:44 PM'] 'definition' as is language in the eye of the beholder. If you choose to include NFP as a 'contraceptive' then you have made up your own definition of contraception.

NFP does not prevent in any artifical way the conception of a human being through the act of intercourse. all artifical contraceptives do. Check out humane vitae. [/quote]
No, I haven't made up my own definition. I've used (and quoted above) the Merriam-Webster definition. You are the one who has created a new definition.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 13 2005, 12:23 PM'] No, I haven't made up my own definition. I've used (and quoted above) the Merriam-Webster definition.  You are the one who has created a new definition. [/quote]
lol well I guess who wrote that Webster gave the wrong info!

Bro Adam's definition is correct.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Apr 12 2005, 10:51 AM'] I pointed out how that particular definition was in error.  You have yet to correct that error, thus you have not offered a valid argument.



I read what was posted.  You are using a definition of contraception that is in contrast with the actual definition. [/quote]
conception is the beginning of life, in fact the VERY first stages of life, since it's " the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both"

Would you agree that it is the earliest stages of life?

condoms stop the first stage from starting. Would you agree or disagree?

The quoted text has meaning if you think NFP is the same as contraception. You say, "Condoms are not abortificients...etc" yet, Condoms are not even used in NFP, so if you want to state that NFP is a contraceptive, then your going to have to use something else to compare it to.

An error wasn't posted. Haven't you ever summarized something in school? To kids? Or do you always whip out webster?

It is not the definition of conception that is of error, it is your lack of understanding the definition of conception.

Edited April 14, 2005 by jmjtina

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 12:01 PM'] Contraceptives are a very good thing.  Sex for pleasure is not wrong at all. If you want to make love with your significant other and still not want to have to worry about getting pregnant than its the way to go. [/quote]
I'd think you'd view all human beings as having dignity; I'd also think that you'd view all human beings as being more than mere objects. With contraceptive sex, people are reduced to objects. If I were to have sex with my future husband for pleasure alone, I'd literally be using his body for pleasure alone. In other words, I'd be masturbating with his body. That would reduce him to an object. Not to be crude, but people derive sexual pleasure alone from inanimate objects. If one has sex with another for mere pleasure alone, one is acting towards a person how one would act towards a sex toy. Of course, you'll probably argue that there's usually love between couples who engage in contraceptive sex. Affection is one thing; love is quite another. Love, being largely a choice, entails desiring the absolute best for the recipient of one's love (for Catholics, the absolute best is salvation), and reducing someone to a vehicle of pleasure is contrary to human dignity.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 12:21 PM'] The purpose of eating is to sustain the body. Yet we like to eat foods that taste good and please our taste bud. We derive pleasure from eating.  Ssomething that is meant for the simple purpose of sustaining the body. We dont need to be satisfied with the taste of a food to have it sustain our body. Sex is no different.  It is meant to create humans,  yet much pleasure can be derived from it. Its alot like desert. I prolly wont get much nutritional value from eating a desert, I mainly eat desert for the pleasing taste. Sex for pleasure is not wrong and its actually very wonderful. Maybe contraceptives prevents you from unifying with your loved one, but not for me and many millions of people around the world. [/quote]
I'm afraid that's not quite analogous, though I can see what you're trying to say. A piece of chocolate isn't a person. To have sex, one must have another person. When one has sex, one shares a big part of oneself with another. Connections like that, connections that are usually both visceral and mutual, cannot be made with food.