If they are going to have sex......

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 25 2005, 12:17 PM'] There's a difference between being guily by association and being guilty of abetting. [/quote]
So be it, but do you not think that by giving condems to teens you are actively seconding or encouraging, or assisting or supporting an achievement of a purpose?

[quote]It's rare that people are acquitted of crimes based on the actions of their parents, unless those actions are directly involved in the crime or the people are found to be insane.  And, surely, the devil existed befor you, right? [/quote]

But it still happens does it not? Just pointing out that it isnt always black and white, people are responsible for what their actions do to others. You still have not answered my question: Do you deny that if you give someone an instrument for a crime knowing thier intent that you should be held partially accountable? A simple yes or no answer will suffice. Do you really think that you are only responsible for you actions so far as they affect you? What about how they affect others and their choices? Not everyone is a stonewall to other's suggestions, you cannot fault someone for being influenced by you, they always are one way or another. When you act you cause someone else to act in response to you, be it acceptance, rejection, or ignorance. They are all responses to you and therefore you bear some responsibility because you forced them to act in reaction to you.

[quote] But god made the devil, right?  So, surely, he's guilty by association. [/quote]

If you want to discuss the problem of evil start another thread. I really am interested in your views of it since you used to be a Christian and no longer are.

[quote]I would agree that it [i]might[/i] alter the choice.  I would, in the same breath, note that I think that number is lower than the number of teens who benefit by not getting an STI or pregnant[/quote]

Granted the number is indeed lower. Our poor society...But should we really sacrafice the few who as you said [i]might[/i] be altered for those that will do it anyway? The problem is not going to be fixed by a comprehensive education. It is going to take a lot more than that, reforming the media could be part of it but I will not go on my reformist rant. If I understand you correctly you think that we should have a full "comprehensive" education about contraceptives because it benefits teens by "protecting" them from STIs and pregnancy. You are willing to say this because you think that it outweighs it altering the choice of those that would not of decided to experiment if they were not informed about the "protection." So apparently yours boils down to a greater good arguement? You are willing to sacrafice the altering the choice of the few for those that will have sex anyway.

I believe that we should have abstinance only programs and remove much of the smut that is out there in the media because it is influencing the teens to make wrong choices. You of course disagree with me that it is wrong. Mine is also a greater good application. The greater good would be having teens remain virgins until marriage for a variety of reasons. Most of which have been brought up by others, but you disagree with them as well for your own reasons. My stance is that contraceptives allow teens to mitigate the consequences out of existence and thus remove any reason that they see not to have sex. The problem is only compounded by how our society views sex, which you appear to support. It is a choice that the individual, apparently regardless of age, should be free to make. You think that educating teens on the risks (and benefits) is a proper way to help them make thier choice. I agree, but we disagree that there are benefits outside of marriage and on the use of contraceptives. It appears as though we are going around in circles on this.

[quote]The problem is that there is no way to prove what is or is not the truth.[/quote]
I of course disagree.

[quote]Even if I believed in an objective truth I would have no way of knowing that it was correct.  Obviously, I would believe that it is, but my belief doesn't make it so.  I'm too introspective to hold both of those thoughts in my head and still hang on to that belief.  Remember, I used to be die-hard christian.
[/quote]

I am willing to discuess epistomology vs. skepticism if you wish. Simply start the thread and I can discuss correspondance and coherance truth with you. No, simply because you believe does that make it right, that is just what I am saying. I do however believe that there is such a thing as objective truth and that there is a way of knowing if it is correct or not.

[quote]
Okay, judaism and christianity, then.[/quote]

Same truth, different times and stages. Their truth is fulfilled in Christ and in His Church. Who are you going to pit us against next? Let me see....

Muslims-perversion and wilfull ignorance (those who truly know their Islam faith) of the truth....does not affect the truth itself.

Budhist- attempting to know the truth through different means but not quite making it. Not a different truth, but trying to come at it from a different slant that doesn't work. Once again it doesn't affect the truth.

Pagans- well at least the believe in the truth of a higher being, but not in the truth of one God.

As you can see I can say that each part of a belief contains at least [i]some[/i] truth to it. It is just that they are lacking, some more some less, in areas. Jews do believe in the truth of one God, but not in the truth of a Trinity... Now I think you will ask me how do I know that our belief is the truth...like I said start a thread on epistomology and skepticism and we will see.

[quote]Harm, like religion, has to be self-defined.  Some things can be seen, like property damage or bruises, but when it comes to emotional and spiritual harm each individual has to define for themselves.  Then interactions have to be based on the most conservative estimate.  If you find it spiritually damaging to have pre-marital sex and I do not, we have to go with your interpretation in our interactions.  This, most likely, means that you and I would never have sex, but that's the way it has to be.  Now, if you decided to the spiritual harm was worth it to have pre-marital sex, you could consent to it and sex could ensue.
[/quote]

Umm...religion is not self defined, it is defined by the truth which is revealed to us. I believe that there are some things that cause objective emotional harm, it does not have to be defined. It also appears that you are operating on a cost-benifit analysis of the harm concept. Just curious, do you think that if someone wants to committ suicide that is ok? I mean after all they consent to the harm they are doing to themselves. Here is the snag though. The harm that one person causes is never isolated to that one person alone. [b]never[/b]. When someone does harm to his or herslf it causes harm to other indirectly, most of which do not want to consent to it. Suicide causes emotional harm to loved ones. Self infilicted pain causes harm to others who are scandalized by it, the emotional scares left of the individual influences the way he treats others, probably in a harmful way. The deal is that one person cannot cause harm to oneself and expect it to end there. We are communal beings and what one does affects all. I know you probably disagree with that, but that is life. You affect others around you, how they feel, how they act, how they respond, and you will be held accountable to an extent for that. Harm is never isolated to that one act.

So....If you believe in the harm concept based on concent then all of society would have to give concent for someone to harm himself for it affects others around him.

[quote] This, most likely, means that you and I would never have sex, but that's the way it has to be.[/quote]

Indeed that is just the way it has to be.

[quote]Hmm...I hope I didn't make that too personal.  Didn't mean to imply anything, I was just giving an example.[/quote]

Don't worry, it made me laugh. Kinda odd but funny.

[Guest AveMaria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 22 2005, 05:03 PM']"Failure to transmit human life is not the primary reason why fornication is wrong, but rather, because fornication is an attack on the dignity of the human person; it is a selfish act which uses another person to gratify your base sexual desires. A human being is a person to be loved, not used. If you really want to give yourself to someone totally, you will take their hand in marriage, and show that you want them totally. Otherwise, you are simply using them."

[/quote]
I would really encourage the couple to wait until marriage, and tell them all the great reasons why and how special it is and how much more meaningful it will be when they are husband and wife. They will Love and Respect eachother even more and will totally understand what it is to give one self out of Love for eachother. And let them know that contraception is in fact wrong, and any sexual act outside of marriage is a sin and could also lead to pregnancy. And teens i would encourage everyone to wait until marriage. I also agree the promoting of condoms just leads to promiscuity more sex outside of marriage. People put their trust and lives in some plastic that could seperate them from possible diseases. And condoms are not always 100% effective, and really just think about it, you dont know what diseases the person could have and do you really want to risk your life because they are using a condom it will be ok. Evil does exist and there are people out there that want to purposely spread std's and purposely infect others with hiv it happens and some may even trick others by using a condom and then not. Think about it God has that special person for each of us out there do you really want to take away from your future spouse? I always think like would i want my future spouse to be doing something with someone else?
Thanks for posting this I wish all men respected and appreciated women this way.
This is exactly how every woman wishes to be treated, to be honored and loved by a man. To be respected, and not forced into anything she does not wish to do. I myself have been the victim of a forced act and have been hurt by someone that i know.
A woman is naturally kind and trusting, at least i am and have never had an experience quite like this. I am very nice and trusting and I tend to believe everyone is the same way, I have a hard time seeing bad in people, I try to think everyone is nice and just like anyone trusts their friends. But i did trust the wrong person. I have been waiting for marriage and made this person very aware that i wanted nothing to do with them and did not want any of their advances. I dont believe it is right to pressure and manipulate and force another person for one's own gratification and also the intent to hurt another human being. A person should never ever pressure and force another person into sexual activity, especially when they make it known they are waiting for marriage. God made sex to be shared between a married man and woman to show Love for eachother and to create life. This is the way it should be and I myself was waiting for my husband that God has for me. I just wish that I saw that bad in this person and didnt trust too much, but he is the one that shouldnt act that way. All men should show love and respect for women. And i know there are many out there that do, i have very good christian friends that would make perfect husbands, but there are of course those that just view us as objects. I just wanted to share because sex really is a gift from God and it is intended for married men and women. It is the purpose to unite a man and woman that are in Love and devote themselves to eachother for the rest of their lives.

[Theoketos]

I would not answer the question but instead recomend them to not have sex

[MichaelFilo]

If they are completly set on doing it then I wouldn't condone the use of contraception. Mortal sins add up, and make it harder for people to get out of. That is why taking the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is a mortal sin, because you sin against God again,a nd so puts you even deeper in a muck. It's not just mortal sin - state of grace. Totally not that black and white, so no I wouldn't say use a condomn. When the abortion question comes up, then a resounding no. This might actually sound like a situation I'd end up in... how awkward...

God bless,
Mikey

[thessalonian]

One cannot recommend grave moral evils under any circumstances. Further, the least of their worries is a pregnancy. They may well have STD's that they don't even know they have. This is a greater concern for the woman as HPV can cause cervical cancer and sterilizatoin. The man is not likely to know he has it. I don't recall a pill being able to help this. And the condom is a poor remedy as well because genital contact prior to use of one can spread it.

Thess

[CarpeDiem88]

Out of wedlock... no I don't recommend any sexual relations.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 26 2005, 12:40 PM'] So be it, but do you not think that by giving condems to teens you are actively seconding or encouraging, or assisting or supporting an achievement of a purpose? [/quote]
Meh, different argument. You said guilty by association, with which I disagreed. Abetting is generally used in reference to crimes...it would be absurd to say that one has abetted in reference to consensual sex.

[quote]But it still happens does it not? Just pointing out that it isnt always black and white, people are responsible for what their actions do to others.[/quote]

I don't know. I've never heard of it happening. I thought you had examples. Don't you?

[quote]You still have not answered my question: Do you deny that if you give someone an instrument for a crime knowing thier intent that you should be held partially accountable? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.[/quote]

Yes. However, it's still a false analogy.

[quote]Do you really think that you are only responsible for you actions so far as they affect you? What about how they affect others and their choices?[/quote]

I am responsible for my actions and the results of my actions. Others are responsible for their actions and the results thereof. Putting blame on those who provide birth control is misplacing it. A condom is worthless without the intent, and opportunity to have sex.

[quote]Not everyone is a stonewall to other's suggestions, you cannot fault someone for being influenced by you, they always are one way or another. When you act you cause someone else to act in response to you, be it acceptance, rejection, or ignorance. They are all responses to you and therefore you bear some responsibility because you forced them to act in reaction to you. [/quote]

See, here we get to the real meat of the thread. In this situation, I am forced to respond to others. I ground my response in reality, while yours is based on idealism. That's fine, just don't be surprised when more people come to me than you.

[quote]Granted the number is indeed lower. Our poor society...But should we really sacrafice the few who as you said [i]might[/i] be altered for those that will do it anyway?[/quote]

Absolutely. If you can't see why, I'll find it troubling.

[quote]The problem is not going to be fixed by a comprehensive education. [/quote]

I'm not sure of the "problem" to which you are referring.

[quote]It is going to take a lot more than that, reforming the media could be part of it but I will not go on my reformist rant. If I understand you correctly you think that we should have a full "comprehensive" education about contraceptives because it benefits teens by "protecting" them from STIs and pregnancy. You are willing to say this because you think that it outweighs it altering the choice of those that would not of decided to experiment if they were not informed about the "protection." So apparently yours boils down to a greater good arguement? You are willing to sacrafice the altering the choice of the few for those that will have sex anyway.[/quote]

Since studies have found that comprehensive programs do not hasten the onset of first sexual intercourse, I can't see where the problem is. There's a subset of teens who won't have sex, there's one that will, and there's one that is undecided. With comprehensive education a few members of 'undecided' will move to either side, but the number is statistically insignificant. Yes, it is for the 'greater good' (as much as I loathe that term) as well as for the 'individual good' that we should offer comprehensive education.

[quote]I believe that we should have abstinance only programs and remove much of the smut that is out there in the media because it is influencing the teens to make wrong choices. You of course disagree with me that it is wrong. Mine is also a greater good application. The greater good would be having teens remain virgins until marriage for a variety of reasons.  [/quote]

Those reasons being?

[quote]Most of which have been brought up by others, but you disagree with them as well for your own reasons. My stance is that contraceptives allow teens to mitigate the consequences out of existence and thus remove any reason that they see not to have sex. The problem is only compounded by how our society views sex, which you appear to support. It is a choice that the individual, apparently regardless of age, should be free to make. You think that educating teens on the risks (and benefits) is a proper way to help them make thier choice. I agree, but we disagree that there are benefits outside of marriage and on the use of contraceptives. It appears as though we are going around in circles on this. [/quote]

Indeed we are.

[quote]I of course disagree. [/quote]

As you are free to do. It doesn't change the truth of the statement.

[quote]I am willing to discuess epistomology vs. skepticism if you wish. Simply start the thread and I can discuss correspondance and coherance truth with you. No, simply because you believe does that make it right, that is just what I am saying. I do however believe that there is such a thing as objective truth and that there is a way of knowing if it is correct or not. [/quote]

Knowing vs Proof

[quote]Same truth, different times and stages. Their truth is fulfilled in Christ and in His Church. Who are you going to pit us against next? Let me see....[/quote]

Except, of course, that it doesn't work like that. You believe that they are wrong and they believe that you are wrong. Yet you believe in a similar Truth.

[quote]Muslims-perversion and wilfull ignorance (those who truly know their Islam faith) of the truth....does not affect the truth itself.

Budhist- attempting to know the truth through different means but not quite making it. Not a different truth, but trying to come at it from a different slant that doesn't work. Once again it doesn't affect the truth.

Pagans- well at least the believe in the truth of a higher being, but not in the truth of one God. [/quote]

1) It's easy to call it that when it isn't your truth.
2) You must not know much about pagans.
3) You left out hinduism.

[quote]As you can see I can say that each part of a belief contains at least [i]some[/i] truth to it. It is just that they are lacking, some more some less, in areas. Jews do believe in the truth of one God, but not in the truth of a Trinity... Now I think you will ask me how do I know that our belief is the truth...like I said start a thread on epistomology and skepticism and we will see.[/quote]

Uh, yeah, that's my point. You believe that you have absolute truth, as do others, and yet you all coexist. Someone has to be wrong...don't think it isn't you.

[quote]Umm...religion is not self defined, it is defined by the truth which is revealed to us. [/quote]

You choose your religion whether you like to believe it or not. The fact that you are free to reject it at any time means that you choose to keep it. It is self defined because you can't tell somone else what religion they are -- you can say what religion their beliefs most closely resemble, but if they disagree there isn't much you can say.

[quote]I believe that there are some things that cause objective emotional harm, it does not have to be defined. It also appears that you are operating on a cost-benifit analysis of the harm concept. Just curious, do you think that if someone wants to committ suicide that is ok? I mean after all they consent to the harm they are doing to themselves.[/quote]

I'd really prefer not to get into that here. I'll just leave it at my belief in bodily integrity; which is to say that everyone has it and no one has the right to take it away.

[quote]Here is the snag though. The harm that one person causes is never isolated to that one person alone. [b]never[/b]. When someone does harm to his or herslf it causes harm to other indirectly, most of which do not want to consent to it. [/quote]

Not likely. When a person participates in 'cutting' it is very unlikely that anyone else is harmed.

[quote]Suicide causes emotional harm to loved ones. [/quote]

As does any death.

[quote]Self infilicted pain causes harm to others who are scandalized by it, the emotional scares left of the individual influences the way he treats others, probably in a harmful way.[/quote]

You're making assumptions here without basis.

[quote]The deal is that one person cannot cause harm to oneself and expect it to end there. [/quote]

For the most part, yes, one can.

[quote]We are communal beings and what one does affects all. I know you probably disagree with that, but that is life. You affect others around you, how they feel, how they act, how they respond, and you will be held accountable to an extent for that. Harm is never isolated to that one act. [/quote]

Sometimes it is. And, for that matter, not all harm is the same. Rejecting someone when asked on a date harms them, but not to the extent that it should be considered wrong or illegal. It's a very grey area and I like it that way. There shouldn't really be bright lines of delineation...maybe sometimes, but mostly not.

[quote]So....If you believe in the harm concept based on concent then all of society would have to give concent for someone to harm himself for it affects others around him. [/quote]

See above.

[quote]Indeed that is just the way it has to be. 

Don't worry, it made me laugh. Kinda odd but funny.[/quote]

Okay, good. I never quite know how what I'm saying is going to come off, so I'm glad it was amusing.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='AveMaria' date='Mar 26 2005, 10:28 PM'] Thanks for posting this I wish all men respected and appreciated women this way.
[/quote]
I wish all people respected and appreciated all other people.

[quote]This is exactly how every woman wishes to be treated, to be honored and loved by a man.[/quote]

Not every woman.

[quote]To be respected, and not forced into anything she does not wish to do. I myself have been the victim of a forced act and have been hurt by someone that i know.[/quote]

You are right, and as I said above, it should apply not only for men toward women (though that particular relationship dynamic has the farthest to go) but for people amongst themselves in general. Men are raped by both men and women and women can be raped by women. It's unacceptable violence, harm and invasion of bodily integrity.

[quote]A woman is naturally kind and trusting, at least i am and have never had an experience quite like this. I am very nice and trusting and I tend to believe everyone is the same way, I have a hard time seeing bad in people, I try to think everyone is nice and just like anyone trusts their friends. But i did trust the wrong person. I have been waiting for marriage and made this person very aware that i wanted nothing to do with them and did not want any of their advances. I dont believe it is right to pressure and manipulate and force another person for one's own gratification and also the intent to hurt another human being.  [/quote]

I know that I'm not naturally kind and trusting (though I may have been once upon a time), but it's just bad practice to assume this of others. I'm terribly sorry for you and I sincerely hope you seek some form of therapy...even if it's just keeping a diary or journal. If you need someone to talk to, someone who has been through similar experience, perhaps, let me know. You should know, however, that rape generally isn't about sex. It's about power -- and it manifests as forced sex. It's the most heinous act that can be perpetrated against another person.

[quote]A person should never ever pressure and force another person into sexual activity, especially when they make it known they are waiting for marriage.[/quote]

Or ever.

[quote]God made sex to be shared between a married man and woman to show Love for eachother and to create life. This is the way it should be and I myself was waiting for my husband that God has for me. I just wish that I saw that bad in this person and didnt trust too much, but he is the one that shouldnt act that way. All men should show love and respect for women. And i know there are many out there that do, i have very good christian friends that would make perfect husbands, but there are of course those that just view us as objects. I just wanted to share because sex really is a gift from God and it is intended for married men and women. It is the purpose to unite a man and woman that are in Love and devote themselves to eachother for the rest of their lives.[/quote]

It seems like you needed to share and I'm glad that you have. I wish you all the best in your recovery.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 28 2005, 03:05 PM'] Abetting is generally used in reference to crimes...it would be absurd to say that one has abetted in reference to consensual sex. [/quote]
My, I thought I had long posts. Congrats on pulling ahead.

I do not think so, because it is the same concept applied to a different situation crime or not. You support an act so it ties you to the consequences.

[quote] I thought you had examples.  Don't you? [/quote]

Not off of the top of my head. I will look some up for the next post.

[quote]Yes.  However, it's still a false analogy.[/quote]

Ok I am confused. Did you deny the supplying of the firearm ties you to the crime? Because it sounds like you are denying that but attack the analogy anyway. For relevance of analogy see above please.

[quote] A condom is worthless without the intent, and opportunity to have sex.
[/quote]

In this situation the intent is known.

[quote]See, here we get to the real meat of the thread.  In this situation, I am forced to respond to others.  I ground my response in reality, while yours is based on idealism.  That's fine, just don't be surprised when more people come to me than you.[/quote]

The reality is that you support their choice and encourage it therefore you should be held partially accountable for the outcome.

[quote]I'm not sure of the "problem" to which you are referring. [/quote]

Problem of sexual sin (I already know your feelings on that so we can drop that).

[quote]but the number is statistically insignificant. [/quote]

Please lets not reduce people to numbers here.

[quote]Those reasons being?[/quote]

I thought you would know them since you are aware of my being Catholic and all. Pointless to go into them point by point because we do not recongize a common authority or even world view so... You deny natural law and my religioin of course.

[quote]You choose your religion whether you like to believe it or not.  The fact that you are free to reject it at any time means that you choose to keep it.  It is self defined because you can't tell somone else what religion they are -- you can say what religion their beliefs most closely resemble, but if they disagree there isn't much you can say.[/quote]

Sorry I am not following you here. Anyway I dropped the points about truth, because like I said if you want to discuss that elsewhere that is fine, but not here.

[quote]I'd really prefer not to get into that here.  I'll just leave it at my belief in bodily integrity; which is to say that everyone has it and no one has the right to take it away. [/quote]

I think that you have to ask yourself that. If you do not want to answer me that is fine, but recongize that it is a neccesary consequence of your world view. If someone wants to committ suicide, they can and you have to let them. If people want to do a mass suicide, you have to let them. Your harm concept doesnt make for a very happy place.

[quote]Not likely.  When a person participates in 'cutting' it is very unlikely that anyone else is harmed.[/quote]

Save for those that care about them, those that are harmed by such acts.

[quote]As does any death.[/quote]

But this one is intentional and sought out by a person. According to you concept that person should be able to because they give concent to it, but what about those affected by it?

[quote]You're making assumptions here without basis.[/quote]

No, I have a friend in high school is involved in cutting, and believe me it alters the way he responds to others. Often in a negative way. Just speaking from my experience of course.

[quote]Sometimes it is.  And, for that matter, not all harm is the same.  Rejecting someone when asked on a date harms them, but not to the extent that it should be considered wrong or illegal.  It's a very grey area and I like it that way.  There shouldn't really be bright lines of delineation...maybe sometimes, but mostly not.
[/quote]

Then what are the boundaries of your harm concept? I agree sometimes one must do what is "right." Like rejecting someone on a date. Your concept, though, would mean (at least as you have explained it) that the person would have to ask concent from the dumpee to harm that person in that way. So is there objective right and wrong in your concept as well? There is an objective good harm, or at least permissable, and a non-permissable one? How does one know? What proof? Where do you draw the lines?

It seems like the waters on this have gone stagnite. It was fun though. If you want to talk about objective truth just let me know. I will let you know this now though, I firmly believe that it does come down to faith when believing in Christianity. That I can explain as to why. I do not see at as a defeat for us being wrong, so much as why it makes it so much precious to us. I would be able to talk about objective morality though. A different thread though. I am still interested about your answer about suicide though, because it does seem to draw some clear lines in your concept that is based on the individual. I guess you didnt like the problem of evil invitation either. Oh well. It was fun and thanks.

I will pray for you.

Edited March 28, 2005 by Paphnutius

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 28 2005, 03:37 PM'] I do not think so, because it is the same concept applied to a different situation crime or not. You support an act so it ties you to the consequences. [/quote]
It ties you to the consequenses, perhaps, but the responsibility not so much. However, the tie doesn't work the way you're thinking. I support bodily integrity however that does not make me responsible for imprisoning a rapist or murderer.

[quote]Ok I am confused. Did you deny the supplying of the firearm ties you to the crime? Because it sounds like you are denying that but attack the analogy anyway. For relevance of analogy see above please. [/quote]

So how's that new analogy coming?

[quote]In this situation the intent is known. [/quote]

Yep, and you've been told that the minds are made up and there's nothing you can do to change it. So, instead of compounding the problem, I offer to make the situation safer.

[quote]The reality is that you support their choice and encourage it therefore you should be held partially accountable for the outcome.[/quote]

The reality is that I support the right of people to make their own, informed decisions. You should be responsible for every person who goes uneducated and contracts an STI.

[quote]Please lets not reduce people to numbers here. [/quote]

When we talk about the greater good that's what we are doing.

[quote]I think that you have to ask yourself that. If you do not want to answer me that is fine, but recongize that it is a neccesary consequence of your world view. If someone wants to committ suicide, they can and you have to let them. If people want to do a mass suicide, you have to let them. Your harm concept doesnt make for a very happy place. [/quote]

Actually, my harm concept makes for a very happy place. I have thought about this issue, but I'd rather not go into it here. This is the wrong thread, after all.

[quote]Save for those that care about them, those that are harmed by such acts.[/quote]

Who gets the greater benefit? Whose harm is greater?

[quote]But this one is intentional and sought out by a person. According to you concept that person should be able to because they give concent to it, but what about those affected by it?[/quote]

It is still a death and most people don't get to consent to death for themselves or for others. Bodily integrity has to go hand in hand with harm based morality.

[quote]No, I have a friend in high school is involved in cutting, and believe me it alters the way he responds to others. Often in a negative way. Just speaking from my experience of course. [/quote]

Okay, so you are basing it on a single case of anecdotal evidence. I know a cutter or two and haven't found the same reactions as you. Anecdotal evidence doesn't show much.

[quote]Then what are the boundaries of your harm concept? I agree sometimes one must do what is "right." Like rejecting someone on a date. Your concept, though, would mean (at least as you have explained it) that the person would have to ask concent from the dumpee to harm that person in that way. So is there objective right and wrong in your concept as well? There is an objective good harm, or at least permissable, and a non-permissable one? How does one know? What proof? Where do you draw the lines?[/quote]

As I said above bodily integrity must go hand in hand with harm concept morality. Personal integrity is a good way to think of it. I'm responsible first for myself and second for others; however, if I maintain myself then I will maintain others. Sometimes both options are harmful but we must choose the one that works for us. Right and wrong are just words that we use to give meaning to actions or thoughts. They hold no objective value.

For example, I was recently discriminated against by someone who felt that she was doing what was right. I understand that she has to do what is right for her, but that doesn't make me less angry. Should she have harmed herself and her personal integrity in order to avoid harming me? What was the right action and what was the wrong one?

People don't have the right to not be harmed in any way, ever. I think that's where we're going off track here. The concept is that people have a duty to avoid harming others [i]if possible[/i]. Maybe even [i]if feasible[/i] or [i]if realistic[/i]. If people had the right to never be harmed we would have to outlaw death.

[quote]It seems like the waters on this have gone stagnite. It was fun though. If you want to talk about objective truth just let me know. I will let you know this now though, I firmly believe that it does come down to faith when believing in Christianity. That I can explain as to why. I do not see at as a defeat for us being wrong, so much as why it makes it so much precious to us. I would be able to talk about objective morality though. A different thread though. I am still interested about your answer about suicide though, because it does seem to draw some clear lines in your concept that is based on the individual. I guess you didnt like the problem of evil invitation either. Oh well. It was fun and thanks.  [/quote]

That it comes down to faith shows that it lacks proof. This was all that my point was in the first place. Actually, I wouldn't mind getting into any of these topics, just not here. I'd also prefer to not start the thread, if possible, but if I see one I'll most likely respond.

[Monoxide]

Sorry im too lazy to read if this has been said yet but:

If someone is willing to put themselves into a situation like this, they probably can justify it to themself, what is to stop them from when they get pregnant from justifying murdering the baby? If they are weak enough to have to have sex, then they are quite possible weak enough to commit murder..

[Thy Geekdom Come]

*sits back and watches his old friend duke it out*

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Monoxide' date='Mar 30 2005, 12:27 AM'] Sorry im too lazy to read if this has been said yet but:

If someone is willing to put themselves into a situation like this, they probably can justify it to themself, what is to stop them from when they get pregnant from justifying murdering the baby? If they are weak enough to have to have sex, then they are quite possible weak enough to commit murder.. [/quote]
Ah, but isn't it everyone's goal to prevent as many abortions as possible?

[thatmanjose]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 05:06 PM']
Its part of how we express our love for each other and if you cannot understand that because the thought of sex makes you squemish than thats not my problem. [/quote]
Mel...
You show a level of maturity in your understanding of human sexuality. The Church would agree with your respect for marriage and your desire to not use your wife for pleasure. The Church's view of sexuality goes a step furthur though and that is where i believe the issue at the heart of this forum thread lies.
The Holy Father taught in his Theology of the Body that all love must be Free, Total, Faithful, and Fruitful. This is especially true of married love because these four traits mirror Christ's Love for the Church (see Ephesians 5). If the first 3 traits are present, then why would we withhold the fruitful part of our sexuality. That above all other traits is where, to paraphrase Archbishop Fulton Sheen, a married couple invite the 3rd Person into the marriage.
The stage is set, God is present and the couples love can so mirror Christ's love that it can bring new life into the world. So for a Catholic, especially one who has been taught by Pope John Paul II, it seems an afront to God to withhold our fruitfulness through artificial means from sex.
pax et bonum

[thatmanjose]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 24 2005, 10:31 AM'] Condoms don't make it any easier for teens to have sex -- they simply reduce the risk of pregnancy and STI's.
[/quote]
Thus making it easier to have sex... if you remove moral barriers, ie. self-defense, but still leave the moral evil, you merely serve to deaden the conscience.