About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke wrote: 

Two people have voted on an Objectivist site that they oppose contraception in any form.

I would really like to see them attempt to justify their position on any grounds.  It would be as superb a demonstration of sophistry as I could ever imagine.
Yes, I am that "mystical dummy" who voted in opposition to contraception in any form.  You want to know why.  Well, it's complicated.  Let me begin by saying (and I will say much more) that, within Catholicism, the sexual act is sacramental, i.e. sexual intercourse is an activity in which the grace of God is especially present, when undertaken by a married couple. 

A married couple is joined in the sacrament of matrimony, but this particular sacrament is unlike some of the other sacraments in that the priest is not a presider, or he who effects the sacrament (as is the case in the Holy Communion, for example), but rather an observer.  In Roman Catholicism, marriage creates a 'bond of love' between the man and woman which is ratified by the approval of God as ministered through the Church.  However, the marriage ceremony itself does not bring about this union, for the sacrament is only completed in the act of sexual intercourse, in which the two (both physically and spiritually) are "made one flesh".         

Thus, contraception is understood within the context of this normative conception of marriage.  And, from this perspective, you may ask as to why it is proscribed.  I have to go now... 


Post 1

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 12:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gottfried confessed:

Yes, I am that "mystical dummy" who voted in opposition to contraception in any form.

As I suspected.  Thank you for your confession.

I suspect I know the name of the other culprit, but perhaps he would like to step forward and follow Gottfried's lead of confession.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The sexual act is sacramental, i.e. sexual intercourse is an activity in which the grace of God is especially present, when undertaken by a married couple."

I hope that also implies God isn't present for us fornicators.

Damn supernatural voyeur.

Post 3

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gottfried confessed:

Yes, I am that "mystical dummy" who voted in opposition to contraception in any form.

As I suspected.  Thank you for your confession.

I suspect I know the name of the other culprit, but perhaps he would like to step forward and follow Gottfried's lead of confession.

I didn't know this was a witch-hunt.  :)

Anyhow, I'd like to expand a bit on what I said earlier.  Discussion over contraception inevitably raises a number of other important questions pertaining to the nature of (and distinction between) the male and female sexes, human dignity, the effects of sex, the purpose of sex, child-rearing, the place of marriage in society, the place of children in marriage, etc.

Just to start us off, I'd like to talk about societal changes that have occurred over the last century.  Before 1930, every Christian denomination condemned birth control, as did the mainstream public as a whole.  The Anglican Church became the first to condone birth control in their 1930 Lambeth Conference, which propounded that: 
...[I]n those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception-control for motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

Only 10 years before the Anglican Church had categorically condemned birth control, saying: 
In opposition to the teaching which in the name of science and religion encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing consideration of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists — namely, the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. 
When the Federal Council of Churches followed suit in 1931 (by permitting the "careful and restrained use of contraceptives by married people"), the Washington Post (!) responded:   
Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous.
Wow.  Look how far we've come.  Consider the following, while keeping in mind that we've been a chemically contraceptive culture for the last 47 years, since the pill became cheap and widely available in the 1960s.   

- In 1960, six percent of white babies were born out of wedlock.  In 1992, 22% were born out of wedlock. 

-In 1960, twenty-two percent of black babies were born out of wedlock.  In 1992, sixty-eight percent were. 

-Currently "50% of all women aged 40-44 who practice contraception have been sterilized, and another 18% have a partner who has had a vasectomy." (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html)
-Overall, 27% of women who practice contraception are sterilized.
    -So it's come to self-mutilation

-"In 2001, 6.7 million women, including 1.9 million teenagers, received contraceptive services from publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States." (ibid.)
     -So folks like me have to pay for condoms so that women and teenagers who have been taught by society/parents that pre-marital sex is "OK" won't get pregnant.  There's something wrong with this picture. 

-"21 states now have laws in place requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage if they cover other prescription drugs" (ibid.)
    -So now contraceptives are treated as medicinal.  Unbelievable. 

-58% of children in the U.S. are born out of wedlock or to divorced parents. 
      Note:  That's both sad and pathetic

-Between the late 1970s and early 1990s, the number of Americans with genital herpes infection increased 30%

-Every country in the world has a declining fertility rate. 

-Now 50% of couples get divorced; in the 1960s, it was 25%. 

-Almost no couples (<1%) who use Natural Family Planning (instead of birth control) get divorced.

-85% of couples cohabitate before marriage

-Studies show that delay in sexual activity leads to greater marital stability

-Studies show that delay in sexual activity is linked to greater happiness.

-10% of pregnancies had by married women are conceived by a man other than the husband.   

-"75% of those who live together before marriage, not just have sex together before marriage, but live together before marriage, get divorced within the first three years" (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html)

Now, assuredly the trends I've cited are not entirely due to contraception, though it is obvious that many of them, at least to a certain extent, are.  Such is what happens when the sexual act is divorced from the intention to procreate. 

(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 3/05, 2:46pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Don't ignore the benefits this science has bestowed on women's health.  Lower infant mortality rates and longer life spans for females.

Science has provided a choice for women.

Just why the Catholic church still refuses to recognize the benefits of science is an utter mystery to me. I can only conclude that this draconian body of MEN still wants to subjugate the lives of free women, while embracing the non-value of death.  

Shoot, studies show that arranged marriages last longer than those not arranged by families.  Couples in arranged marriages are terrified of disappointing their parents. so, they stay together, often unhappily.   

Shame and guilt cause a whole bunch of long lasting marriages, just as the Catholic Church desires.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/05, 3:59pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shame and guilt cause a whole bunch of long lasting marriages, just as the Catholic Church desires
to say nothing of the issue of forbidding divorce......


Post 6

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 4:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't get that one either, Rev. 

What a monstrous destroyer of life the Catholic religion is. 


Post 7

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Life", for that church, is the 'after LIFE'....  the rest is a vale-of-tears passage......
[but, then, such is the same for virtually all religions]


Post 8

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Don't ignore the benefits this science has bestowed on women's health.  Lower infant mortality rates and longer life spans for females.
Contraception is not responsible for either of these scientific benefits. 
Science has provided a choice for women.
Women have a choice:  they can either choose to have sex, or choose not to have sex. 
Just why the Catholic church still refuses to recognize the benefits of science is an utter mystery to me.
There are no benefits to contraception.  But there are risks:  apparently the use of oral contraceptives increases the risk of breast cancer.  It also causes female hormonal imbalance.   
 I can only conclude that this draconian body of MEN still wants to subjugate the lives of free women, while embracing the non-value of death.  
Consider:  "The history of many great female saints attests both to their womanliness and to their extraordinary power. They recognized that their power had been lent to them and was not theirs; thus, they remained feminine. We need think only of Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux-and many others whom history may not have noted but God has.  Indeed, there is nothing equivalent to the great tradition of female saints in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. In no other religious or secular tradition in the world do we find so many examples of women who were both truly holy, truly powerful, and truly women—and honored by men for being all three." -Paul Vitz 

And how does the Catholic Church embrace death?  Certainly not by opposing abortion, euthenasia, suicide, and unjust war--all of which it does. 

Shoot, studies show that arranged marriages last longer than those not arranged by families.  Couples in arranged marriages are terrified of disappointing their parents. so, they stay together, often unhappily.   

I'd like to see the statistics here.  In any case, this has nothing to do with what I've said, which is that married couples who stay together are happier.  (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/03/17/marriage.poll.reut/)

Shame and guilt cause a whole bunch of long lasting marriages, just as the Catholic Church desires.

Life isn't one big pleasure trip.  Married couples face trials, but, through love, they very often get through them.  And, as was said before, longer-lasting marriages tend to be happier. 
What a monstrous destroyer of life the Catholic religion is. 
 Examples please. 


Post 9

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Imagine how many broken lives could be avoided if people were to just exercise some sexual self-restraint.     

Post 10

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 3:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Contraception is not responsible for either of these scientific benefits.
Infants born to very young women, under the age of 16, are at much higher risk.  Contraception reduces the number of at risk births. 

What you're really against is pre-marital sex, not contraception.

Women have a choice:  they can either choose to have sex, or choose not to have sex. 

  I don't know many, if any, couples who don't practice birth control even after they're married. Is it the chruch's position that women who do not wish to have children abstain from sexual relations with their husbands?  Ridiculous.

You'll have to provide a good argument against practicing artificial birth control after marriage for any of this to make sense.

There are no benefits to contraception.  But there are risks:  apparently the use of oral contraceptives increases the risk of breast cancer.  It also causes female hormonal imbalance. 
Condoms, coupled with spermicidal aids, present none of these risks. None. Same with the good old fashioned diaphragm, and the coil. No risks.

 Life isn't one big pleasure trip. 
It should be one big happiness trip.  Pleasure is impossible without happiness.
Pleasure is associated with values, which are inherently connected to life.  

 



Post 11

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 5:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have read that the sponge is a courtesan's best friend.  Alas, nowadays you have to order it online as it is practically impossible to find in stores.  As for the coil, I have seen it get mixed reviews with at least one woman saying it caused horrible problems resulting in a hysterectomy.  But I have never seen such complaints about the sponge.  Used in conjunction with condoms -- a standard practice in Nevada brothels according to my research -- pregnancy becomes virtually impossible.

In all fairness to GWL, I have expressed in this forum in the past my moral support for postponing sex until full legal adulthood.  I do not think anyone who cannot live as an autonomous, productive human being has any business engaging in intercourse.  That rules out virtually all minors and, sadly, a number of adults as well.  I need to write an article about this called "Stupid Horny Teenagers" to elucidate my position.  So please do not pester me for more details as I need to write the article and I do not know when that will happen.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/06, 5:46am)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Herr Leibniz presented many statistical numbers, and I assume they are pretty much correct, whatever the source they come from. I am just wondering, among those soaring incidents of adultery, divorce, herpes infection etc., how many are committed by Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Atheists, etc.? There must be a breakdown somewhere...


Post 13

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 8:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why, Hong, those Catholics are not real Catholics ... and they are going to hell for not taking their Church teachings seriously!

We need real Catholics -- Catholics who will recognize every sperm as sacred!

;-)


Post 14

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 8:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are no benefits to contraception.  But there are risks:  apparently the use of oral contraceptives increases the risk of breast cancer.  It also causes female hormonal imbalance.   
God has a lot to answer for! The cancer, death, tornados, plagues, diseases of all kinds. "Thanks" God. You are such a blood-thirsty bringer of suffering and indescriminate destruction. Darn those scientists for finding ways to thwart your joyous bloodbath!


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Consider the following, while keeping in mind that we've been a chemically contraceptive culture for the last 47 years, since the pill became cheap and widely available in the 1960s."

I'll question the validity of some of your claims and especially the assumption that they are bad. But even in the cases where I agree your figures show a bad trend, I disagree with your implication is that the figures are not only correlated with chemical contraception, but caused by it. Since the 1960s we've also endured a substantial growth of the welfare state such as Johnson's 'War on Poverty' and the creation of many new government programs which supplant the family with the State. If you want to find causality, I'd look there first.

"- In 1960, six percent of white babies were born out of wedlock. In 1992, 22% were born out of wedlock.
-In 1960, twenty-two percent of black babies were born out of wedlock. In 1992, sixty-eight percent were.
-58% of children in the U.S. are born out of wedlock or to divorced parents.
-Now 50% of couples get divorced; in the 1960s, it was 25%.
-85% of couples cohabitate before marriage
-"75% of those who live together before marriage, not just have sex together before marriage, but live together before marriage, get divorced within the first three years"

I'll assume your figures are correct, though don't agree with the assumption that deemphasis on legal marriage is a bad thing. I think that increase in divorce rate has generally been a good thing as I expect it due less to people abandoning good marriages than now being willing and able to leave negative, destructive ones.

"-Currently "50% of all women aged 40-44 who practice contraception have been sterilized, and another 18% have a partner who has had a vasectomy."
(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html)
-Overall, 27% of women who practice contraception are sterilized."

Excellent! I wasn't aware that many people have made the responsible choice of permanent and effective contraception.

"-"In 2001, 6.7 million women, including 1.9 million teenagers, received contraceptive services from publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States." (ibid.)"
"-"21 states now have laws in place requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage if they cover other prescription drugs" (ibid.)"

We'll agree that something is wrong with these being government matters instead of private.

"-Between the late 1970s and early 1990s, the number of Americans with genital herpes infection increased 30%"

More precisely, HSV2 infections in Americans over 12 went up from about 16% to 21% in that time. But it's back down to about 17% since.

"-Every country in the world has a declining fertility rate."

Great! (actually, I doubt this truly holds for every country and would want to see a cite, but in any case I don't see this as a bad thing if true)

"-Almost no couples (<1%) who use Natural Family Planning (instead of birth control) get divorced."

And no couples (0%!) who don't get married get divorced!

"-Studies show that delay in sexual activity leads to greater marital stability"

I'm tempted to make snide comments about desperation levels here, but will refrain. If you have cites, I'm mildly curious, but again don't have much concern for legal marriage.

"-10% of pregnancies had by married women are conceived by a man other than the husband."

Perhaps so - I suspect this has been more or less accurate across cultures (that even have the concept of monogamous marriage) and time for human history.

"-Studies show that delay in sexual activity is linked to greater happiness."

How would you even measure this (did those doing the study have a Jolly-Meter)? Seriously, I'd like to see references on this, but am extremely skeptical of anyone studying anything claiming to measure happiness levels.

Aaron

Post 16

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 10:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Probably referring to 'religious happiness'......

Post 17

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yep, "religious happiness" indeed.  There's a building in town that has "Happiness is Submission to God" painted on it.  That's probably what he meant.

Post 18

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Submission to God" - sounds Islamist....:-0

[but, then, almost all religions claim necessity of 'submission to a god'.....]


Post 19

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert added parenthetically:
[but, then, almost all religions claim necessity of 'submission to a god'.....]
... which usually means submission to the religious leaders.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.