Can this be true??

[askeptic]

bear06:

Ooops. I actually meant to say “some” and not all. The laughable part is that mothers don’t make awesome contributions to society. I think we’d agree upon that. I will say, however, that the celibate life is only a higher calling if you are actually called to do it. Categorically the religious life is the best calling but it can be a disaster if this is not your calling. The best calling is the life God wills for you but that’s another topic.

That all depends on what the woman’s children end up doing, doesn’t it? If a woman has a choice between being an accountant or raising the next Einstein, then she’ll contribute more by raising the next Einstein.

But if the women herself can be the next Einstein, or have 10 kids who will be accountants, then she will contribute far more by being the next Einstein.

But what this ignores is the woman’s own quality of life and happiness. Procreation and duty to society are important, but the whole point of procreation and socities is the quality of life of individual human beings, this is the most important thing, the reason why we have laws, the reason why we help others etc.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

askeptic:

Catholic teaching on human sexuality is extremely negative. Sexuality is a basic need for most people, and few would be able to be celibate all their lives. Husbands and wives love each other, they are sexually attracted to each other, psychologists will tell you that a lack of a healthy sex life will damage a marriage.

You just said it: a healthy sex life. When a couple devalues sex to a pleasurable act, and not to its ultimate goal, which is ultimately the creation of new life, it is harming the marriage. Catholic teaching respects both the man and the woman. It wants the man to take care of his wife as his lifelong partner, not someone that he can just have sex with for a few years and then move onto another partner. Ever wonder why the divorce rates in America are so high? Maybe it’s because in America people are treating their spouses as mutual sex objects and not as human beings and their partner in life, which Catholicism teaches. A relationship isn’t merely just about having sex.

 

[askeptic]

Nice statistics. The problem is that these are CORRELATIONAL and not CAUSATIONAL (and a lot of hind sight analysis I might add). There are correlations between the birthrates of moles in Africa and the number of students graduating Central Florida University but it does not mean that they cause that to happen.

I agree, they are correlational. But there is also an obvious mechanism for a possible causal effect: namely that pregnancy and children take away from the complete investment of individual time necessary to achieve the highest levels of success.

As someone who is a student and whose father was involved in the highest level of academics, I know very well that in order to be successful in intellectually demanding fields you must commit ALL OF YOUR TIME to them. People who are not willing to do that generally don’t make it to the top. Women who are pregnant and have young kids will need to sacrifice time that would otherwise go toward research and study.

Now obviously having kids would detract from the time you could spend doing something, but I would certainly not say it was impossible. Again, if your primary goal is to be a leader in your field then great, make it your top goal and dedicate all your time to it. But do not do it at the expense of your spouse and your children. Don’t get married until you are ready to take on the obligation of a family.

Or you can get married and choose to have no children. I don’t see why talented women should be forced to choose between love and relationships and success in their field.

The Catholic Church does not allow this. It says that some women must either give up their dreams or the presence of male companionship in their lives.

Very unjust, if you ask me.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

askeptic:

The Catholic Church does not allow this. It says that some women must either give up their dreams or the presence of male companionship in their lives.

Very unjust, if you ask me.

Unjust? Aren’t you going against evolution here? Women and men were created for two different purposes, and once society decides to break down those lines you have things like high divorce rates, kids living in single parent homes, etc. etc.

 

[bear06]

A women’s educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, **found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment./**QUOTE]

This gets funnier by the minute! Yes, you must be uneducated to have many children. You might want to talk to some of my friends. I think the one who has a degree from MIT, a masters from Stanford and was working on a PHd when she decided that she was called to the married life might say. She’s about to have her 10th and is homeschooling some pretty smart kids. It’s really going to get impossible to continue the conversation because I’m realizing that we’re comparing two different worlds. We’re comparing those devoted to God’s will vs. those who are not. When you have a calling, there are sacrifices that go with it no matter what the calling is. Right? That doesn’t mean the calling is bad. We’re not supposed to work for a calling because every aspect is not perfectly appealing. You’ve actually made a case for what’s wrong with society today.

 

[precious_roy]

askeptic:

I agree, they are correlational. But there is also an obvious mechanism for a possible causal effect: namely that pregnancy and children take away from the complete investment of individual time necessary to achieve the highest levels of success.

As someone who is a student and whose father was involved in the highest level of academics, I know very well that in order to be successful in intellectually demanding fields you must commit ALL OF YOUR TIME to them. People who are not willing to do that generally don’t make it to the top. Women who are pregnant and have young kids will need to sacrifice time that would otherwise go toward research and study.

Or you can get married and choose to have no children. I don’t see why talented women should be forced to choose between love and relationships and success in their field.

The Catholic Church does not allow this. It says that some women must either give up their dreams or the presence of male companionship in their lives.

Very unjust, if you ask me.

Not really. What is unjust is only giving half of yourself to whatever you are doing and not using your abilities to their fullest.

If you get married, then you are obviously dedicating time that could be spent in the research of your field to frolicing with your significant other. I am saying take this time and use it to work more towards your career. There isn’t anything wrong or unhealthy about that. It becomes unhealthy when you try and ‘serve two masters at the same time.’

 

[bear06]

I am not saying it’s impossible for women with many children to be professionally successful. But “teacher” and “doctor”, is not the same as “leading scientist in her field.” To be that successful a person needs to dedicate all of her time to her work, and being pregnant and having children would impede that.

Why is “leading scientist in her field” more successful to you than raising good, moral and responsible children? Would it be better to live in a world where cancer is cured but where society has no morals or would it be better to live in a society with cancer where everyone follows the Ten Commandments?

 

[askeptic]

Semper Fi:

Unjust? Aren’t you going against evolution here? Women and men were created for two different purposes, and once society decides to break down those lines you have things like high divorce rates, kids living in single parent homes, etc. etc.

On the contrary, through evolutioin both men and women have come to possess incredible intellect and ability. Using the potential of the entire human race, not just half of it, will increase our chances of survival as a species and improve our quality of life.

Perhaps if women had not been oppressed until 100 years ago or so, we would have had many more great scientists, many more achievements, and in short many more benefits for humanity.

By the way, atheists tend to have lower divorce rates than religious people, including Catholics.

 

[askeptic]

bear06:

A women’s educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have

, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, **found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment./**QUOTE]

This gets funnier by the minute! Yes, you must be uneducated to have many children. You might want to talk to some of my friends. I think the one who has a degree from MIT, a masters from Stanford and was working on a PHd when she decided that she was called to the married life might say. She’s about to have her 10th and is homeschooling some pretty smart kids. It’s really going to get impossible to continue the conversation because I’m realizing that we’re comparing two different worlds. We’re comparing those devoted to God’s will vs. those who are not. When you have a calling, there are sacrifices that go with it no matter what the calling is. Right? That doesn’t mean the calling is bad. We’re not supposed to work for a calling because every aspect is not perfectly appealing. You’ve actually made a case for what’s wrong with society today.

That statistic does not claim what you said it claims. It merely stated that more educated women tend to have fewer kids, and less educated women tend to have more kids.

That doesn’t mean that every single human being is going to fit into that mold.

I hope your friend loves the life she is leading and is glad she made that sacrifice. I don’t think that the calling to do what she is doing is in any way bad, I just don’t think it’s right for every single person.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

askeptic:

On the contrary, through evolutioin both men and women have come to possess incredible intellect and ability. Using the potential of the entire human race, not just half of it, will increase our chances of survival as a species and improve our quality of life.

Perhaps if women had not been oppressed until 100 years ago or so, we would have had many more great scientists, many more achievements, and in short many more benefits for humanity.

By the way, atheists tend to have lower divorce rates than religious people, including Catholics.

How will we, as a species, survive if we have men and women using contraception and aborting our next generation? One more thing I would like to mention to you is that one of the true feminists, not these new left-wing feminists, was a practicing Catholic… Dorothy Day.

 

[askeptic]

precious_roy:

Not really. What is unjust is only giving half of yourself to whatever you are doing and not using your abilities to their fullest.

If you get married, then you are obviously dedicating time that could be spent in the research of your field to frolicing with your significant other. I am saying take this time and use it to work more towards your career. There isn’t anything wrong or unhealthy about that. It becomes unhealthy when you try and ‘serve two masters at the same time.’

As I have said before, Catholicism doesn’t place a great deal of value on human happiness and quality of life.

Love, companionship, relationships are all very important to human beings. Happiness is important. Enjoying life is important. Perhaps a female scientist with a male companion will be happier, more stable emotionally, and as a consequence a more productive scientist.

 

[askeptic]

bear06:

Why is “leading scientist in her field” more successful to you than raising good, moral and responsible children? Would it be better to live in a world where cancer is cured but where society has no morals or would it be better to live in a society with cancer where everyone follows the Ten Commandments?

On the subject of Ten Commandments, why don’t you read this:

forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1294743&postcount=70

I would be afraid to live in a society where people followed the “just” laws “God” gave to Moses.

On the whole humanity has benefitted far more from science than anything else. Medicine, technology, understanding of the universe, etc. are all the fruits of science. As far as I’m concerned, science is humanity’s greatest achievement.

But you know what, I am all in support of women who love to stay at home and raise children. I want them to be happy and to have wonderful lives.

What I don’t support are ideologies that force one kind of lifestyle on every single person.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

askeptic:

As I have said before, Catholicism doesn’t place a great deal of value on human happiness and quality of life.

This is bull and you know it. If Catholics didn’t place a high value on quality of life for humans, then there wouldn’t be so many Catholic social organizations such as the Knights of Columbus, Society of St Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, etc. Happiness isn’t as important as salvation. Our Lord was crucified and we are expected to carry our cross along with Him.

 

[askeptic]

Semper Fi:

How will we, as a species, survive if we have men and women using contraception and aborting our next generation? One more thing I would like to mention to you is that one of the true feminists, not these new left-wing feminists, was a practicing Catholic… Dorothy Day.

I agree with that. I do think that abortion kills a human being and is therefore immoral. I agree that people have a duty to replace the population.

But I don’t think we necessarily need to “mulitply” any longer. There are 6 billion of us and growing, some people have suggested that the optimal human population for the earth is around 2 billion.

Perhaps instead of having more babies Catholics should start adopting poor children from Africa and giving them good homes.

There is not a shortage of children, just a bad distribution of them across the world (i.e. most are in impoverished nations where they have no hope of having a good life).

 

[askeptic]

Semper Fi:

This is bull and you know it. If Catholics didn’t place a high value on quality of life for humans, then there wouldn’t be so many Catholic social organizations such as the Knights of Columbus, Society of St Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schoos, etc. Happiness isn’t as important as salvation. Our Lord was crucified and we are expected to carry our cross along with Him.

I didn’t say Catholics, I said Catholicism.

Human beings as a whole tend to help other human beings. I am a student now, but when I work I intend to donate a good portion of my earnings to help others. This has nothing to do with any kind of religion, but depends on the empathy I feel for fellow human beings.

Catholicism on the other hand is not too big on happiness. There is more in Catholic theology about the value of suffering, of sacrifice, of duty, of “selflessness” than of happiness and enjoying life.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

askeptic:

I didn’t say Catholics, I said Catholicism.

Human beings as a whole tend to help other human beings. I am a student now, but when I work I intend to donate a good portion of my earnings to help others. This has nothing to do with any kind of religion, but depends on the empathy I feel for fellow human beings.

Catholicism on the other hand is not too big on happiness. There is more in Catholic theology about the value of suffering, of sacrifice, of duty, of “selflessness” than of happiness and enjoying life.

Happiness isn’t permanent, salvation is, and not everyone is going to be happy all the time throughout their life so what you are saying again is garbage. We are more concerned with the whole person than with one emotion a person may experience. As I said happiness isn’t permanent. Catholicism TEACHES that we must help our brothers in need.

 

[askeptic]

Semper Fi:

Happiness isn’t permanent, salvation is, and not everyone is going to be happy all the time throughout their life so what you are saying again is garbage. We are more concerned with the whole person than with one emotion a person may experience. As I said happiness isn’t permanent. Catholicism TEACHES that we must help our brothers in need.

Then again, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is an afterlife. From everything I’ve seen our existence here on earth is all we’ll ever have. As far as I’m concerned we should strive to make everyone’s life here as good as it can be.

I can understand the desire for an eternal life and eternal happiness with God, but this could very well be wishful thinking, nothing more.

Catholicism also teaches that people who were abandoned by their spouses can never remarry. Catholicism also teaches that women who left abusive husbands cannot remarry. Catholicism also teaches that women who want to dedicate their lives to science cannot marry if their intention is to have no children. Catholicism also teaches that African women whose husbands don’t particularly respect their wishes not to be pregnant evne though pregnancy there can lead to death due to complications cannot use birth control. Catholicism also teaches that people with possibily uncontrollable homosexual attraction cannot have homosexual relationships. I can see how these teachings would severely harm the quality of life of some individuals.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

askeptic:

Then again, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is an afterlife. From everything I’ve seen our existence here on earth is all we’ll ever have. As far as I’m concerned we should strive to make everyone’s life here as good as it can be.

I can understand the desire for an eternal life and eternal happiness with God, but this could very well be wishful thinking, nothing more.

We are not discussing the evidence for an eternal life on this thread. I was merely pointing out to you what Catholicism teaches because what you stated is exactly the opposite of what our Church teaches.

 

[askeptic]

Semper Fi:

We are not discussing the evidence for an eternal life on this thread. I was merely pointing out to you what Catholicism teaches because what you stated is exactly the opposite of what our Church teaches.

I realized that and added this to my post:

Catholicism also teaches that people who were abandoned by their spouses can never remarry. Catholicism also teaches that women who left abusive husbands cannot remarry. Catholicism also teaches that women who want to dedicate their lives to science cannot marry if their intention is to have no children. Catholicism also teaches that African women whose husbands don’t particularly respect their wishes not to be pregnant evne though pregnancy there can lead to death due to complications cannot use birth control. Catholicism also teaches that people with possibily uncontrollable homosexual attraction cannot have homosexual relationships. I can see how these teachings would severely harm the quality of life of some individuals.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

askeptic:

I realized that and added this to my post:

Catholicism also teaches that people who were abandoned by their spouses can never remarry. Catholicism also teaches that women who left abusive husbands cannot remarry. Catholicism also teaches that women who want to dedicate their lives to science cannot marry if their intention is to have no children. Catholicism also teaches that African women whose husbands don’t particularly respect their wishes not to be pregnant evne though pregnancy there can lead to death due to complications cannot use birth control. Catholicism also teaches that people with possibily uncontrollable homosexual attraction cannot have homosexual relationships. I can see how these teachings would severely harm the quality of life of some individuals.

Why are you here posting flamebait? Catholics teachings on contraceptives applies to only Catholics. Anyone who is not a Catholic obviously is not going to abide by Catholic teaching. Why are you holding the Church responsible for people’s sins? We teach that the husband must respect his wife, and if some African isn’t doing that, because he is a sinner, how can the Church as a whole be held responsible for that? It seems to me that you have a vehement hatred for the Catholic Church. Ever wonder why the Catholic Church is the target of so much hate? You keep on posting these fallacies and it is a sure way to get banned… One more thing, you are being very bigoted by saying a homosexual cannot control themselves.