I understand the wording but birth control is birth control regardless of the method used. What makes natural birth control acceptable and artificial not acceptable? I would think the intent is where the moral issue is actually framed and not the method.
ABC is an attempt to separate the act from the natural consequences. It’s like bulimia, when a person overeats and then induces vomiting. Weight gain is the natural consequence of overeating. Pregnancy is a possible natural consequence of sex. ABC is sexual bulimia.
That statistic is equivalent to one unexpected pregnancy per 500 women per year. Nothing short of complete abstinence (or sterilization) is that effective.
Actually Its artificial birth control that is not allowed
Your information is incorrect. All the higher apes, of which humans are but one, can and do engage in recreational sex. The bonobos especially, and their slogan (if they had one) would be: “make LOVE not WAR”. When they are frustrated, they don’t fight, but have some good sex. They have a highly superior ethical system compared to the human behavior.
There might be a few exceptions. But I am correct for the large majority of species.
Your statistics are off. 2.2 children is the replacement rate for a first-world population. Humans must be having more than 2.2 children or else the population would remain static.
I think a lot of humans would envy this statement. But it’s a choice.
I think that has been answered already, in several ways.
That’s a good comeback. OK, ABT is like onanism (withdrawl), which was the only way people could have recreational sex up until the modern age. And we know what happened to Onan.
Where on earth are you getting that from? A person who is infertile may have sex at any time. A post-menopausal woman or a woman without ovaries is incapable of practicing NFP (which observes fertility signs).
And he could have created us with an aversion to any other immoral activity. God permits everything we want to do. That doesn’t mean he approves.
You mean like striking Onan dead?
THAT’S a *rational *conclusion? God doesn’t care if we shoot up a schoolyard full of children? He won’t stop you.
So you’re saying that ABC comes from God? And it’s rational to say that ABT comes from God?
If the risk of conception is high and someone wants to use birth control without sterilization, the rational choice is NFP. It is the safest and most effective method.
I agree. I don’t understand it, either. BC is BC, whether artificial or natural. Either way, two people are interfering with God’s will.
No, that’s wrong. A person who is infertile may definitely marry, otherwise postmenopausal women could not marry and you know that they do. It’s a person who is impotent (can never have intercourse) who may not marry.
So if we want to be pedantic, birth control is allowed. We are allowed to control births to foster responsible parenthood and for serious reasons. Of course how we accomplish this matters, means matter. (The end never justifies the means). Unless you are suggesting that being completely abstinent is a sin (as complete abstinence is also a method of birth control)?
Thank you for that correction.
Killing is killing. But it’s immoral in some (most) cases, and perfectly acceptable in others (such as self defense when no other recourse is available).
Thanks for posting this Phemie; my head was about to explode.
Of course you are. But your previous point was that ONLY humans use sex for pleasure. Since the higher apes engage in “sex for pleasure”, I just pointed out that you were mistaken.
I feel sorry for them. But the point is still the same. Only a very few sexual encounters result in conception.
Again, you are mistaken. Non-vaginal intercourse is as old as humanity itself. Thanks to Clinton, the word “BJ” is now a household phrase. (Not much else can be attributed to him as a positive contribution to American life.
)I have to apologize for not being explicit. What is “forbidden” is any kind of sexual activity where the final ejaculation is outside the vagina. Even if it is just an “empty gesture”, since there can be no successful conception - barring a special miracle. But a miracle could happen in any circumstance, can’t it? My question is simple: “why is there any restriction on the act, when it is impossible to achieve conception”? What is the point of “PRETENDING”? Where is the rationale in this restriction?
This is where the problem starts. If I would be in the position to create something, I would make absolutely certain that its behavior will not be contradictory to my design specification. In other words: “I would CARE about the outcome”. If you allow something that you may not “approve of”, then you do not disapprove of it, either. You are neutral.
As the last resort… why not? Though I am sure that God could come up with a less violent solution.
And if he needed some outside advice, I could give him some.If he would CARE, he would stop me. If I would be in the position to allow or prevent such an action, I would CARE enough to interfere and prevent it.
No, the safest method is to avoid intra-vaginal ejaculation - coupled with mutual stimulation.
Huge difference. How is having sex, when a woman is not fertile, against God’s will? Is it your opinion that a married couple should only have sex when she is fertile?
No. I think that if a married couple wants to have sex, they should engage whenever they want, whether it is the fertile period or not.
I posted a thoughtful multipoint response to you, and you posted a thoughtful multipoint response to me. Thanks. But I select this response because this is really where I think the rubber meets the road for you.