Abstinence Only Programs?

[1ke]

then do you think that they should learn anything about condoms? I am not saying that they should endorse them, but I am asking as others have, if you think they should learn what one is?

In what context? For what purpose?

 

[1ke]

How in the world is are you beating your wife? not a yes or no question???

The question I gave as an example was not, “Are you beating your wife?” The question I posed is, “Are you still beating your wife?”

Here is an explanatino of the logical fallacy I described above and gave an example of:

From:
fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Exposition:
A “loaded question”, like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is “loaded” with that presumption. The question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

“Yes, I have stopped beating my wife”, which entails “I was beating my wife.”
“No, I haven’t stopped beating my wife”, which entails “I am still beating my wife.”

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. **For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question. **

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for “dividing the question”, that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

“Have you ever beaten your wife?”
“If so, are you still doing so?”
In this way, 1 can be answered directly by “no”, and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

 

[Corki]

Although the Church teaches against the use of contraception, I am pretty sure they don’t lump it under adultery. You also tend not to properly cite anything and tell us where you get it from and somehow expect us to take your word for it.

Yes, the CCC defines contraception as a sin against the sixth commandment. The section on the sixth commandment is 2331-2400.

Sins against the sixth commandment are all those that offend marriage - that includes contraception.

 

[Warrior1979]

You do not state your religion. If you are a Catholic, then you know that the Church teaches infallibly in faith and morals. If you are not Catholicl, and adhere to the notion of sola scriptura, then that is another thread and not appropriate to go off on a tangent here.

One doesn’t have to be Catholic to understand the Catholic position, just as one does not have to be non-Catholic to understand a non-Catholic position.

I understand that Catholic position quite well, just as I knew exactly what your answer would be. You have to use the “infallibility in faith and morals” answer, otherwise your opinion is utterly baseless, since Christ made no comments on the matter. There are obvious problems with this, because you’ll never, ever be able to convince a non-Catholic of your position. That’s relevant because the issue includes dealing with non-Catholics.

For clarity, I would’ve used “Truth of Church,” rather than “Truth of Christ.”

 

[1ke]

Forget it I give up. I feel like I am talking to a teenager trying to be difficult.

So, you propose that contraception is **not **a violation of the Sixth Commandment, tell me I am wrong, and tell me to “prove it” by giving a citation? I do so and you are still not happy and I am being difficult?

Contraception is an intrinsic evil and a grave sin against the Sixth Commandment, please give me a Church document that says otherwise. I’ve already given you the paragraphs that show it is.

 

[1ke]

One doesn’t have to be Catholic to understand the Catholic position, just as one does not have to be non-Catholic to understand a non-Catholic position.

I understand that Catholic position quite well, just as I knew exactly what your answer would be. You have to use the “infallibility in faith and morals” answer, otherwise your opinion is utterly baseless, since Christ made no comments on the matter. There are obvious problems with this, because you’ll never, ever be able to convince a non-Catholic of your position.

It’s not my opinion. It is the teaching of the Christ, through His Church.

For clarity, I would’ve used “Truth of Church,” rather than “Truth of Christ.”

No clarity needed as they are one and the same.

 

[Debora123]

The question I gave as an example was not, “Are you beating your wife?” The question I posed is, “Are you still beating your wife?”

Here is an explanatino of the logical fallacy I described above and gave an example of:

From:
fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Exposition:
A “loaded question”, like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is “loaded” with that presumption. The question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

“Yes, I have stopped beating my wife”, which entails “I was beating my wife.”
“No, I haven’t stopped beating my wife”, which entails “I am still beating my wife.”

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. **For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question. **

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for “dividing the question”, that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

“Have you ever beaten your wife?”
“If so, are you still doing so?”
In this way, 1 can be answered directly by “no”, and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

Ok. I disagree that my questions fall into this category of not having a yes or no answer. I thought they were very straight forward, simple, yes or no questions. But we can agree to disagree. Arguing over this is silly and has gotten way off topic, so to each their own.

 

[Debora123]

NOTE:

Non abortifacient Contraceptive use between 2 unwed teenagers would NOT be considered a sin against the 6th commandment and would not be considered a sin at all - because they are not married. The only sin would be the sin of premarital sex. Contraception in this case is void.

 

[1ke]

Ok. I disagree that my questions fall into this category of not having a yes or no answer. I thought they were very straight forward, simple, yes or no questions. But we can agree to disagree. Arguing over this is silly and has gotten way off topic, so to each their own.

Ok.

 

[Corki]

NOTE:

Non abortifacient Contraceptive use between 2 unwed teenagers would NOT be considered a sin against the 6th commandment and would not be considered a sin at all - because they are not married. The only sin would be the sin of premarital sex. Contraception in this case is void.

Do you have a source for that? I believe that both are sins - one is the sin of premarital sex and the other is the sin of contracepted sex. There is no way to have contracepted sex without sin - in or out of marriage.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Do you have a source for that? I believe that both are sins - one is the sin of premarital sex and the other is the sin of contracepted sex. There is no way to have contracepted sex without sin - in or out of marriage.

Of course, teen who has “unprotected sex” has one sin to confess…teen who used a condom should confess 2 sins.

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s not my opinion. It is the teaching of the Christ, through His Church.

It’s also not my opinion that Christ is silent on the matter…it’s a fact.

No clarity needed as they are one and the same.

To certain Catholics. I can accept the authority and respect the Church, but when it comes to stamping infallibility on moral matters that Christ was silent on, and those matters have contradictions (though often subtle), my state of being will continue to be like Schrodinger’s cat…both in a state of acceptance and nonacceptance.

As a practical matter, “Truth in Church” is more appropriate if the audience includes non-Catholics, in particular non-Catholic Christians, as this issue does. “Truth in Christ” is the equivalent of stating “we’re right, you’re wrong.”

 

[Mimi20]

Personally I’ve always thought the term “safe sex” was an oxymoron.

Anyways, my vote would be an unlisted option of the morality of sex ed is the job of parents to teach their children, and when schools give any sex education, they should give the facts, about *everything. *

With birth control and the availability of abortion pregnancy is no longer the purpose/result of sex; its become part of an unwanted after affect. Especially since, condoms and birth control are also falsely advertized how ‘protected’ one is when using them. While abstinence is the only guarantee of avoiding pregnancy, knowledge of the facts and risks of ‘safe sex’ shouldn’t be kept from students.

**The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.
…
**Condoms can be expected to provide different levels of protection for various STDs, depending on differences in how the diseases are transmitted.

I always cite my sources
:http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Edit,
In addition to what I’ve already stated I think sex ed should be a required course for students to take, but should be revamped to apply both abstinence and the facts of the efficiency of condoms, symptoms and different types of of STDs, how they’re transmitted, and why condoms/birth control aren’t effective in preventing certain types etc.

 

[Debora123]

Do you have a source for that? I believe that both are sins - one is the sin of premarital sex and the other is the sin of contracepted sex. There is no way to have contracepted sex without sin - in or out of marriage.

I don’t have a source for it, but I’ve come across threads here on CAF where people were explaining why contraception is not sinful in premarital sex. (for one, it’s not against the 6th commandment, because it doesn’t “violate marriage,” as you explained.)

I think what people were rationalizing is that unmarried sex is not sacred and holy anyway, so “not giving yourself to the other person fully”, doesn’t apply, and neither does “not being open to life.” Which makes sense when 2 people are engaging in sex that isn’t marital anyway.

 

[Debora123]

I don’t have a source for it, but I’ve come across threads here on CAF where people were explaining why contraception is not sinful in premarital sex. (for one, it’s not against the 6th commandment, because it doesn’t “violate marriage,” as you explained.)

I think what people were rationalizing is that unmarried sex is not sacred and holy anyway, so “not giving yourself to the other person fully”, doesn’t apply, and neither does “not being open to life.” Which makes sense when 2 people are engaging in sex that isn’t marital anyway.

I’d like to add to this:

It’s like how the pope said prostitutes using condoms would be a step in the right direction, it wouldn’t be an extra sin added to the premarital sex. Because sex in their case isn’t the “marital embrace,” and therefore isn’t meant to be *open to life *or self giving anyway.

 

[1ke]

I don’t have a source for it, but I’ve come across threads here on CAF where people were explaining why contraception is not sinful in premarital sex. (for one, it’s not against the 6th commandment, because it doesn’t “violate marriage,” as you explained.)

I think what people were rationalizing is that unmarried sex is not sacred and holy anyway, so “not giving yourself to the other person fully”, doesn’t apply, and neither does “not being open to life.” Which makes sense when 2 people are engaging in sex that isn’t marital anyway.

Take the Catechism together with Humanae Vitae and documents such as The Truth And Meaning Of Human Sexuality (which is directed at unmarried children/adolescents) and you will see that the Church consistently teaches the intrinsic evil (a.k.a. grave matter) of contraception.

There are certainly those who would put forth the argument that contraception is not a sin between unmarried couples. However, that contradicts **everything **the Church teaches including the Church’s rejection of condom use in the name of HIV prevention.

 

[1ke]

I’d like to add to this:

It’s like how the pope said prostitutes using condoms would be a step in the right direction, it wouldn’t be an extra sin added to the premarital sex. Because sex in their case isn’t the “marital embrace,” and therefore isn’t meant to be *open to life *or self giving anyway.

That is NOT what the Pope said.

 

[Debora123]

There are certainly those who would put forth the argument that contraception is not a sin between unmarried couples. However, that contradicts **everything **the Church teaches including the Church’s rejection of condom use in the name of HIV prevention.

Well according to the POPE it is not intrinsically evil for a prostitute to use a condom to protect the other person from diseases.

Using a condom in this case wouldn’t be “an extra sin” added to the premarital sex taking place, it would be “a step in the right direction.”

 

[Debora123]

That is NOT what the Pope said.

He didn’t say it would be a step in the right direction??

 

[1ke]

He didn’t say it would be a step in the right direction??

No. He did not say that.