I
ishii
Guest
Fair enough. Funny how discussions of contemporary issues often end up being arguments about history and whose version is correct. History plays a big role in the issues we face today.
Ishii
- Status
Ishii
Y
YAA23
Guest
As a Catholic, how can you justify a married couple not using birth control this day in age? Let’s say you have a couple that cannot afford more than one child but birth control is free. The woman can’t take birth control because it is against the catholic church, so she ends up having 4 or 12 children they cannot afford. How is it fair to bring children in to this world that you can’t pay for? The end result is the children having a less than good standard of living and the parents are constantly working and stressed so they can’t pay for them. Yes, you can practice safe sex (without condoms bc that is also against catholic teaching) by planning it out and avoiding the week of ovulation, however, studies have shown that this does not work 100% of the time and women can still get pregnant when they are not ovulating and while they are menstruating.
The obvious reason why the Catholic church is against birth control and condoms for married couples is because by using them, they are not procreating soldiers for God, however, when these rules are primitive and apply to a much different world. Back in the day, the population was not any where near its current levels and standards of living were significantly cheaper and lower. Today, you can’t make a bunch a children and expect them to work on your farm. You have to send them to school if you want them to have a decent lifestyle, and I think we all know children cost A LOT of money. The average-income parent in America will end up spending roughly $200k from birth to age 21 on their children–and this is an average income family (meaning parents only make about $35k a year).
The obvious reason why the Catholic church is against birth control and condoms for married couples is because by using them, they are not procreating soldiers for God, however, when these rules are primitive and apply to a much different world. Back in the day, the population was not any where near its current levels and standards of living were significantly cheaper and lower. Today, you can’t make a bunch a children and expect them to work on your farm. You have to send them to school if you want them to have a decent lifestyle, and I think we all know children cost A LOT of money. The average-income parent in America will end up spending roughly $200k from birth to age 21 on their children–and this is an average income family (meaning parents only make about $35k a year).
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Don’t feed the troll people
kpeople:
T
Tomdstone
Guest
There are alternatives such as abstinence.
I noticed that at the local SSPX chapel, there are many families with a large number of children and the families seem to be getting along just fine.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
They’re making choices, though. I know a number of those people, and they tend to live very simply and absolutely every kid works as soon as he’s old enough. A lot of their kids do go to college, but it’s usually fairly low on the education food chain; inexpensive junior college at first, state universities beyond that.
Say what one will about SSPX, they tend to be very responsible, earnest people.
I
ishii
Guest
And you thought our conversation on the end of the Cold war was off topic?
We should all heed ChrossofChrist.
Ishii
T
Tomdstone
Guest
We are talking about presidential candidates and their positions. Today’s NY Times had a front page headline about the Court confronting the religious rights of corporations. Do corporations have religious rights in the area of contraception, particularly abortifacient contraceptives? This is a topic which should be of some relevance to Catholics when considering presidential candidates, no?
I
ishii
Guest
Oh, I missed the link to the article in the NY Times on this issue. And I also missed the part where any of the prospective candidates had discussed where they stand on this issue. Either way, the way the topic was presented by the new “member” of CAF, it was not at all in the spirit of the topic of this thread, nor did your response have anything remotely to do with the NY Times article or the topic of this thread.
There are rules against hijacking threads.
Ishii
Y
YAA23
Guest
That was very nice? Im sorry if my question offended you.
Don’t feed the troll people
I
ishii
Guest
It was off topic. This thread is about the GOP candidates for 2016, not the Church teaching on birth control.
Ishii
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
CAF gets many people who essentially troll the website to get a (generally negative) reaction out of others. Considering that a) you have 13 posts b) you brought up birth control which really is a non issue in American elections c) claiming the Church’s opposition to contraception is “primitive”, which naturally leads to d) implying it is better if some children were not born into this world and e) doing this while proclaiming to be Catholic, what you posted is not too dissimilar to troll behavior, whether that was your intention or not.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I
ishii
Guest
So if the coronation of Hillary fails who will fill the void? The gov of NY - Cuomo? Cory booker? Bill Richardson? Or my favorite ticket: Anthony wiener & Eric holder ? (Wiener/holder 2012). Who is out there?
Ishii
Ishii
D
DoGodsBidding
Guest
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I disagree. I don’t believe that Anthony Wiener has the experience or the prudential judgement to be president of the United States.
I
ishii
Guest
I don’t think he does either. But Democrats don’t seem to be concerned about experience or prudential judgement - they twice have nominated Obama. But a Wiener/Holder ticket could possibly to a whole different group of voters.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Doesn’t quite have the same ring as Wiener/Holder
- Status