Contraception hypothetical

[tjm190]

Please don’t underestimate the resources of the Catholic Church nor it’s contribution to science.

I understand the church has made and can make contributions to science, but it takes a good deal of knowledge of actuarial science to be able to be able to correctly make use of statistical inference, let alone set up a valid study.

 

[tjm190]

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the “Dalkon Shield” IUD.

Your began requesting scientific evidence that the contraception also affected the unitive aspect of sexuality when I wrote that you were only looking at the reproductive aspects of sex. The link between the procreative and the unitive aspect of sex is something the Church teaches.

You’re obviosly trying to be “scientific” but you clearly have a bias against the Church teachings. Again, why do you place the “burden of proof” on those of us who embrace Church teachings? You dismiss a retrospective study that examined the divorce from a non-religous perspective. You are not looking at this topic objectively.

You started this thread by asking why a couple using a condom is denying God’s will. It sounded like you wanted to talk about faith and God’s will. Now this has turned into a discussion about the validity of scientific studies. Bait and switch. You don’t seem to want to talk about faith anymore.

Paraphrasing a quote by an author I can’t remember, “For those who have faith, no evidence is requirred. For those without faith, no evidence is enough.”

Wouldn’t let me edit. And the burden of proof always goes on those making the claim- contraceptives state that they do the job they are intended to do with no evidence of any sociological impact- and this is completely true. If some other group would like to provide valid evidence of a sociological impact, the burden of proof is on them. And there has been no bait and switch, just a shifting of the topic.

I claimed that there was nothing to suggest that contraception made sex any less unitive. This led to a discussion of the divorce rates and such, which is where we are now- but anything within the topic you or anyone else wishes to discuss remains in play, so don’t feel restricted.

And I’ve said it before with respect to faith- I can truthfully pray the Nicene Creed. That is all the faith that should be required if the Church claims to base it’s positions off of the faith it professes.

 

[tjm190]

All versions of the pill can have negative and permanent side effects. If you ever get a chance, read the patient insert for any brand of BCP. One of the side effects listed is blood clots leading to death or disability. Pretty permanent. That’s not a common side effect but neither is it restricted to older versions of the pill.

If you watch TV much, you may have noticed one of the newest brands of BCPs is running “correction” ads. They say something like “the FDA told us to correct some misinformation from previous ads”. The “misinformation” was not clearly informing about the side effects. If you watch TV late at night , you may also see the lawyer ads seeking class action members to sue the same company as makes the aforementioned pills over some very nasty side effects.

BTW, one of the most common side effects of BCP is loss of libido. Now, shouldn’t that be avoided?

That being said, whether or not BCPs have side effects or are safe doesn’t change the morality of their use. The only thing that matters is if they are being used to treat a condition itself (moral) or used to prevent pregnancy (not).

Since you stated that this entire line of discussion was meaningless with respect to morality (a true claim) I’d like to skip the rebuttal in the interest of time. If you feel cheated, please inform me.

 

[tjm190]

No, what you want to believe IS relevant. Because what you believe affects what you do. What you do affects others as well. It’s not like the boiling pot thing where only you get burned.

It affects your ability to enjoy life. It affects your future spouse or others that you may influence. It’s already showed up in your CAF correspondence.

The Catholic guidelines aren’t here for the benefit of the Church. As many believe. They are there for the benefit of the people. Like you and me. We may not understand them completely. But if we don’t and turn away from them without that understanding, we do ourselves a disservice.

I really should start being more clear, I meant that you can’t just claim “well you’re only saying that because you want to say that” in the face of a valid argument. If that were allowed, there would be no point in forming logical defenses of your position at all. Of course one’s belief system is relevant to their life, but it is my job to form my arguments without presuming my side to be correct and your duty to call me out on it when I do. And to fulfill said duty, I must inform you that your last paragraph did just that.

 

[newbetx]

And I’ve said it before with respect to faith- I can truthfully pray the Nicene Creed. That is all the faith that should be required if the Church claims to base it’s positions off of the faith it professes.

While the Nicene Creed is a nice summation, it is not the fullness of faith one requires to get to heaven.

And the Nicene Creed is an embelishment of the Apostle’s Creed. All the aspects of faith could not be summed up and repeated on a daily basis. The Faith is far too rich for that. No. “Creed alone” is not a good enough basis of the faith.

We still have the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, holy scripture, and tradition to include.

 

[tjm190]

Sorry. Forgot to address this.
First. So what? Maybe being devout is a good thing?

But from what I hear, many of the non-religeous attend the NFP classes. Also, those that are environmentalists. Why? Because they don’t want chemicals in their bodies. They don’t want the expense.

Yes it’s a good thing, and a thing correlated with a lower divorce rate. So the set of all NFP users has a large amount of people from another set, a set with a lower divorce rate. This means that NFP itself can not be said to be completely responsible for the difference even if causation were proved, which it has not been. Having been on general anesthesia, local anesthesia, various pain killers, chemo, blood thinners, and various other modern medicines, I can say I have no objection to the use of chemicals

So I hear (still looking for the orginal study) that while NFP users are at about 4% divorce rate rather than 50%, the ones that use NFP, go to Mass once a week and pray together that creates the rediculous much less than 1% divorce rate. Oh, and divorce isn’t the problem. It’s just an indication of the problem. Many don’t divorce but make each other misserable for the rest of their lives. That’s not what marriage is about, is it?

A. Since we are uncertain of the NFP related divorce rate, I’d rather it not be included into this discussion specifically.
B. So, by your logic, even if the NFP user divorce rate were found to be low, that would not be a sure indicator that NFP strengthened a marriage?

So it’s not JUST NFP. No. It’s many things, together.

Although NFP has not even been demonstrated to be a factor.

I often talk about TOB being a forest. A particular rule being a tree. If you don’t accept that tree, it’s gone. Eventually, if you don’t accept a bunch of the trees, you don’t have a forest anymore. A forest cannot be reduced to a few clumps of trees. If that happens, the support the trees give each other goes away and they fall in the wind. The whole support structure of the forrest’s inhabitants also suffers.

As CW says. “Take all of it or none of it.” I understand that now.

I offer my experience not as proof but as correlation to the Truth we have been told. Certainly “your mileage will vary.”

So if one were to reject the “contraception tree” while accepting the other trees there should be no problem? What is one tree within a forrest.

And CW seems to be trying to use the fact that he has some/many convincing ideas to defend unrelated unconvincing ones, when each point should be judged on it’s own merit.

 

[tjm190]

While the Nicene Creed is a nice summation, it is not the fullness of faith one requires to get to heaven.

And the Nicene Creed is an embelishment of the Apostle’s Creed. All the aspects of faith could not be summed up and repeated on a daily basis. The Faith is far too rich for that. No. “Creed alone” is not a good enough basis of the faith.

We still have the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, holy scripture, and tradition to include.

So the faith in the fact that contraception is a sin is required despite a lack of divine revelation on the subject?

 

[newbetx]

So the faith in the fact that contraception is a sin is required despite a lack of divine revelation on the subject?

No. It’s scripturally based. Not creed based.

 

[Corki]

So the faith in the fact that contraception is a sin is required despite a lack of divine revelation on the subject?

Contraception isn’t a matter of faith; it is a matter of morals. If you believe the Church has been given authority to teach on matters of morals, you are bound to obey her teaching on contraception. Whether you personally feel it is a sin doesn’t matter so long as you don’t disobey or lead others to do so.

 

[tjm190]

No. It’s scripturally based. Not creed based.

and could you find said basis? If you throw out Onan, expect a very… thorough response

 

[tjm190]

Contraception isn’t a matter of faith; it is a matter of morals. If you believe the Church has been given authority to teach on matters of morals, you are bound to obey her teaching on contraception. Whether you personally feel it is a sin doesn’t matter so long as you don’t disobey or lead others to do so.

The authority to teach does not imply infallibility. A teacher can have the authority to teach math, but that doesn’t mean that he or she can say 2+2=5 and have it be true. And even so, no body that has reversed it’s positions can be said to be above question.

 

[newbetx]

Yes it’s a good thing, and a thing correlated with a lower divorce rate. So the set of all NFP users has a large amount of people from another set, a set with a lower divorce rate. This means that NFP itself can not be said to be completely responsible for the difference even if causation were proved, which it has not been.

We seem to be flipping things, here. What WE say is that Contraception impacts the couple and family in a negative way and that shows up in the divorce rate. And according to the study done (pointed out by Gardenswithkids) that seems to be statistically true.

Having been on general anesthesia, local anesthesia, various pain killers, chemo, blood thinners, and various other modern medicines, I can say I have no objection to the use of chemicals

No offence meant here…Sarcasm on: Here, drink some paint thinner. I hear it reduces your chances of dying in old age. Sarcasm off. Medications to aid one in becoming better is not the problem. Medications that break a perfectly functioning system is silly. Like breast implants because a woman always wanted a size 38 chest is silly. Worse, the teenagers that want them to interest the football quarterback. Wrong application of medication/medical assistance.

A. Since we are uncertain of the NFP related divorce rate, I’d rather it not be included into this discussion specifically.
B. So, by your logic, even if the NFP user divorce rate were found to be low, that would not be a sure indicator that NFP strengthened a marriage?

You are correct with B. But you need to understand it’s not the method that’s the problem as much as the intent of the use of the method. NFP is a method by which the byproduct helps marriages (although there are some here that blame if for their failed marriage.) The burden is shared by the couple. Contraception is a tool that helps prevent pregnancy. The burden is on one or the other.

Although NFP has not even been demonstrated to be a factor.

We’ll keep looking.

So if one were to reject the “contraception tree” while accepting the other trees there should be no problem? What is one tree within a forrest.

The problem isn’t “one” is it? They all relate to each other. Like pulling a brick out of an arch. It weakens the one next to it and it takes a little less to take that one out. Then another. And another.
It doesn’t destroy the forrest right away…

And CW seems to be trying to use the fact that he has some/many convincing ideas to defend unrelated unconvincing ones, when each point should be judged on it’s own merit.

I dissagree. Each tree does not stand alone. They stand together. A good fortress is not made of a scattering of dissimilar bricks heaped in some order. They are uniform, interlocking and carefully laid with respect to one another. Such are the points of our faith.

 

[newbetx]

The authority to teach does not imply infallibility. A teacher can have the authority to teach math, but that doesn’t mean that he or she can say 2+2=5 and have it be true. And even so, no body that has reversed it’s positions can be said to be above question.

Do you mean the protestant churchs? They all reversed their position on contraception. The Catholic church stood fast. Do you believe it’s reversed it’s postion some how?

 

[newbetx]

and could you find said basis? If you throw out Onan, expect a very… thorough response

Well practiced on that one?

I have no plan to type the whole TOB process here and you don’t wish to spend money on a book. Kinda a stalemate. My preveious references to TOB MP3’s are still free, however. Don’t worry. They aren’t CW MP3’s. And of course, the CCC.

 

[tjm190]

We seem to be flipping things, here. What WE say is that Contraception impacts the couple and family in a negative way and that shows up in the divorce rate. And according to the study done (pointed out by Gardenswithkids) that seems to be statistically true.

Again, all studies can do is establish correlation.

/QUOTE] No offence meant here…Sarcasm on: Here, drink some paint thinner. I hear it reduces your chances of dying in old age. Sarcasm off. Medications to aid one in becoming better is not the problem. Medications that break a perfectly functioning system is silly. Like breast implants because a woman always wanted a size 38 chest is silly. Worse, the teenagers that want them to interest the football quarterback. Wrong application of medication/medical assistance.
First-Silly is a matter of perspective, and silly does not imply immoral.
Second- Again, our biological make up can have effects that we don’t like and would like avoid.

You are correct with B. But you need to understand it’s not the method that’s the problem as much as the intent of the use of the method. NFP is a method by which the byproduct helps marriages (although there are some here that blame if for their failed marriage.) The burden is shared by the couple. Contraception is a tool that helps prevent pregnancy. The burden is on one or the other.

I’m aware that the means are not what is objected to, I’m not the one who chose to engage in that line of thinking. You’re claim is that NFP’s byproduct is children? Isn’t NFP an attempt to prevent the birth of children?

We’ll keep looking.

Agreed.

The problem isn’t “one” is it? They all relate to each other. Like pulling a brick out of an arch. It weakens the one next to it and it takes a little less to take that one out. Then another. And another.
It doesn’t destroy the forrest right away…

I thought this was the logic you were going for, I just wanted to pick at your metaphor .

I dissagree. Each tree does not stand alone. They stand together. A good fortress is not made of a scattering of dissimilar bricks heaped in some order. They are uniform, interlocking and carefully laid with respect to one another. Such are the points of our faith.

Again, you seem to assert that belief in individual teachings must be a matter of faith, whether you intend it or not.

 

[tjm190]

Well practiced on that one?

I have no plan to type the whole TOB process here and you don’t wish to spend money on a book. Kinda a stalemate. My preveious references to TOB MP3’s are still free, however. Don’t worry. They aren’t CW MP3’s. And of course, the CCC.

Well it’s the only one out there, or atleast the only one that’s been shown to me. So ya, I’m tempted to just save a rebuttal of it to my computer to copy and paste when it comes up.

 

[newbetx]

Again, all studies can do is establish correlation.

First-Silly is a matter of perspective, and silly does not imply immoral.
Second- Again, our biological make up can have effects that we don’t like and would like avoid.

Well, cosmetic surgery for vanity sake only is not considered moral. Correcting a birth defect, OK. Re-establishing joints. OK.

I’m aware that the means are not what is objected to, I’m not the one who chose to engage in that line of thinking. You’re claim is that NFP’s byproduct is children? Isn’t NFP an attempt to prevent the birth of children?

Ah, no. You didn’t pick up on the previous posts of the advantages to NFP. The byproduct is communications and shared responsibility. Building upon the fact that the two became one. Also an opportunity to recall the sacrafices we make for one another.

Many people do use NFP for avoidance. Some writings suppose that, BTW. I do know couples that had to use it to become pregnant.

I thought this was the logic you were going for, I just wanted to pick at your metaphor .

Well, that’s what a meta is for.

Again, you seem to assert that belief in individual teachings must be a matter of faith, whether you intend it or not.

We are called to believe even if we do not understand. I still call myself a “Cafeteria Catholic” because I still can not believe most things until I understand them. I still have a ways to go.

There are logical explainations for most aspects of the faith. However, accepting some requires faith. Like I have to take it on faith that Mary was a virgin. Jesus rose. Jesus had apostles. I wasn’t there. I have to have faith that scripture tells us the truth. Even if not quite literally. Much of scripture can be misunderstood because taken out of context, the one in which it was written, is an easy thing to do 2000 years after the fact.

 

[Corki]

Isn’t NFP an attempt to prevent the birth of children?

No.

This is the old myth that NFP is just Catholic Contraception. NFP can be used to delay the next pregnancy or to more easily become pregnant. NFP, properly used, is a communication tool as much as it is a cycle tracking tool.

The authority to teach does not imply infallibility. A teacher can have the authority to teach math, but that doesn’t mean that he or she can say 2+2=5 and have it be true. And even so, no body that has reversed it’s positions can be said to be above question.

This is true but Catholics are called to obey the Church even on matters where she has not spoken infallibly. Infallibility only affect future discussion; it doesn’t change the duty of the Catholics to assent in the present.

As for your Math example, if a school district gave a teacher the authority to teach even though he/she believed that 2+2=5, there would be a serious flaw in the authority of the district. I recognize no such flaw in the authority of the Church or of He who gave the Church her teaching authority.

 

[tjm190]

No.

This is the old myth that NFP is just Catholic Contraception. NFP can be used to delay the next pregnancy or to more easily become pregnant. NFP, properly used, is a communication tool as much as it is a cycle tracking tool.

As opposed to contraception, which can’t be used to delay the next pregnancy? And it’s easy to see how communication could be involved in NFP, but it clearly isn’t necessary.

This is true but Catholics are called to obey the Church even on matters where she has not spoken infallibly. Infallibility only affect future discussion; it doesn’t change the duty of the Catholics to assent in the present.

As for your Math example, if a school district gave a teacher the authority to teach even though he/she believed that 2+2=5, there would be a serious flaw in the authority of the district. I recognize no such flaw in the authority of the Church or of He who gave the Church her teaching authority.

I can not responsibly accept any belief system that would have in the part to believe Kepler’s Laws of Planetary motion were sinful.

 

[newbetx]

As opposed to contraception, which can’t be used to delay the next pregnancy? And it’s easy to see how communication could be involved in NFP, but it clearly isn’t necessary.

Then you don’t understand it.

I can not responsibly accept any belief system that would have in the part to believe Kepler’s Laws of Planetary motion were sinful.

Not a clue here where this is coming from.