Short version why church on sex is right

[carn]

Have seem some people want reasons, why that only sex when married is moral advice.
No catholic doctrine whatsoever is necessary. Just the assumption, that unborn children are humans and therefore have a right to life as for example the German supreme court decided.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness_of_various_methods

Failure rate of pill in practical use is 8% per year in the first year. That rate drops with the years, so for simplicity we assume that 25 sexual active years are as risky as 10 first years.

That means the probability of not getting pregnant is about 0.92^10=0.43. Thats a rough estimate.

Whether or not a abortion is done, depends highly on several factors most importantly among these are plans for life, relationship, financial situation and backup by family.

That means if you already accepted the idea to have children with that man, know that the relationship has chances to last, planned youre future also with having a family in mind and have the more or less consent from your relatives to having children with that man, or in a different wording, if you are married, you are less likely to kill your child.

Otherwise you are rather likely, as overall abortion rates are 15-25% (so 0.15-0.25 abortions per life birth, with most of that births wanted pregnancies), probability to decide to kill could be about 50%.

So what do we know about the best known pack of four of adultering unmarried ficitional women, i mean Sex and the City, if they behave according to statistics?
One of them got pregnant without intent and decided not to kill her child.
And one of them probably got pregnant and killed the child.

So if you live like these women, the probability that at the end of your life you are guilty of ordering the killing of a human being could well be about 25% - that could be well more than the probability of killing someone because of a habit while driving drunk.

And therefore since driving drunk is morally wrong due to the risk of killing someone, living such a life of continously changing sex partners is morally wrong as well, because it carries a serious (and maybe even higher) risk of killing someone.

Now the catholic idea of only sex when married might not be the only solution and it might not be a solution normal humans are disciplined enough to use, but it is a solution, that reduces greatly the risk of killing a human being during your lifetime.

(Obviously this argument does not hold true, if you assume that unborn are not humans or if you assume there is nothing wrong with killing. But assuming this, catholic advice is sensible. Though i have not shown, that it is the only sensible option.
And please mind, that i did this in 20 mins, so the math and statistics might be off somewhat, so please concentrate on the general argument - i especially have to check what the risks of killing while driving drunk are, i suspect they are vastly lower than killing due to having sex without considering the consequences.)

 

[BornAgain2010]

Uhm…Okay.

So are you trying to ask a question or are you simply making a statement. Kinda confused?

 

[carn]

Uhm…Okay.

So are you trying to ask a question or are you simply making a statement. Kinda confused?

Resoning why a advice along the lines “only sex when married” is even sensible if one thinks christian beliefs are wrong. It simply follows from assuming that killing is wrong, unborn are humans, the unreliability of contraception and that you are less likely to abort if you are in very stable relationship meant for a long time, e.g. marriage.

 

[tonyrey]

Resoning why a advice along the lines “only sex when married” is even sensible if one thinks christian beliefs are wrong. It simply follows from assuming that killing is wrong, unborn are humans, the unreliability of contraception and that you are less likely to abort if you are in very stable relationship meant for a long time, e.g. marriage.

In other words Christianity sustains the value of life in a society which has undermined it even before children have the opportunity to be born!

 

[carn]

In other words Christianity sustains the value of life in a society which has undermined it even before children have the opportunity to be born!

Yes and that is true even if the church is wrong regarding the existence of God as long as one assumes that unborn are human and killing is wrong.

 

[Crumpy]

Resoning why a advice along the lines “only sex when married” is even sensible if one thinks christian beliefs are wrong. It simply follows from assuming that killing is wrong, unborn are humans, the unreliability of contraception and that you are less likely to abort if you are in very stable relationship meant for a long time, e.g. marriage.

With all due respect, the Bible and we Christians along with it do not rationalize whether to follow some Biblical principle only if it is “sensible.”

The sin of Adam and Eve, right at the beginning of the Bible, was a sin committed because they did not think the prohibition of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was sensible. Eve lists several counter arguments, and then Adam and Eve go ahead and eat the forbidden fruit.

We don’t believe in God or the Bible because we can demonstrate that it is sensible.

We do believe that these are sensible in the context of Divine inspiration, though.

“Sex only in marriage” is a consequence of the fact that the Bible presents marriage as a covenant, not a contract. This is a deep relationship (what God has joined together let no man put asunder) and the generation of children is a command from God, in the context of that relationship involving deep commitment.

“sensible” has such a broad meaning, different for each person perhaps. It wouldn’t be any sort of meaningful thing if it was just left up to everybody’s own interpretation.

I hope this moves you along in the direction of the first of your questions.

There’s a different way of looking at the title question, too. The Church is correct because Jesus promised to always be with us. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth. So, we believe that the Church is without equal on earth can give the correct guidance on this fundamental question.

 

[carn]

With all due respect, the Bible and we Christians along with it do not rationalize whether to follow some Biblical principle only if it is “sensible.”

Arguing that following a Biblical principle is sensible even if one assumes the bible is not divinly inspired does not mean that only those principles which can be argued for in that way should be followed.

Its just interesting that one of the most ignored and despised teaching of the church is sensible even from a non-church point of view. That means that people arguing against that point are not arguing only from an atheistic point of view but actually from an unreasonable point of view. (at least if they agree with “killing humans is immoral” and “unborn are humans”.)

“sensible” has such a broad meaning, different for each person perhaps. It wouldn’t be any sort of meaningful thing if it was just left up to everybody’s own interpretation.

“morally consistent” would have been a better wording.
If one assumes that killing humans is immoral and unborn are humans, then one is forced independent of belief to conclude, that sexual acitivity need to have some moral limitation beyond “anything thats fun for all present is allowed”. (chiefly beacuse “all present” might change because of the sexual activity)

There’s a different way of looking at the title question, too. The Church is correct because Jesus promised to always be with us. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth. So, we believe that the Church is without equal on earth can give the correct guidance on this fundamental question.

Yes, the title is worded wrongly. Should have something in like “from an atheistic point of view”. Sorry.

 

[tonyrey]

In other words Christianity sustains the value of life in a society which has undermined it even before children have the opportunity to be born!

In a purposeless universe the value of life seems an anomaly…

 

[carn]

In a purposeless universe the value of life seems an anomaly…

But most people not believing in God or at least not believing that the church teaches according to Gods will seem to think, that killing humans is wrong and that unborn are at least somewhat humans. Assuming that catholic church is completely off with suggesting limitations to sexual activities and assuming that killing humans is wrong and assuming that unborn are humans is a contradictory position.

This does not change in case some of those assumptions are based on contradictions.

 

[tonyrey]

But most people not believing in God or at least not believing that the church teaches according to Gods will seem to think, that killing humans is wrong and that unborn are at least somewhat humans.

The issue is whether they have a good reason for their belief.

Assuming that catholic church is completely off with suggesting limitations to sexual activities and assuming that killing humans is wrong and assuming that unborn are humans is a contradictory position.

Why?

This does not change in case some of those assumptions are based on contradictions.

Such as?

 

[cerad2]

Have seem some people want reasons, why that only sex when married is moral advice.
No catholic doctrine whatsoever is necessary. Just the assumption, that unborn children are humans and therefore have a right to life as for example the German supreme court decided.

So if one of the participants is infertile then then are no moral issues? Nice to know.

 

[carn]

Why?
Such as?

Being sexually active but not with children in mind carries a large risk over the course of life of killing a human being, since being pregnant unwillingly in no kind of long term relationship will often lead to abortion.

So for the same reason as not driving drunk, one should limit sex to those situations were a pregnancy is acceptable. And that under most circumstances means that you could as well marry.

@cerad
I did not think through every possible situation, but from a general perspective. There are even people who drive rather safely although they are slightly above the suggested alcohol limit. That does not change that the general rule dont drink and drive is sensible and that even without assuming Gods existence (assuming that killing is immoral). And the same way the rule no sex outside marriage is a sensible rule even without assuming Gods existence (assuming that unborn are human).

I did not claim, that this is the only reason why its immoral.

 

[Rence]

Have seem some people want reasons, why that only sex when married is moral advice.
No catholic doctrine whatsoever is necessary. Just the assumption, that unborn children are humans and therefore have a right to life as for example the German supreme court decided.

What does the right to live have to do with premarital sex? We have another woman on another thread saying abortion is an acceptable option when married. I know several women who became pregnant while unmarried and are wonderful single moms. If one accepts abortion as a moral option, they will consider it a moral option no matter what their marital status. If one does not accept abortion as a moral option, they will not consider it a moral option no matter what their marital status.

Whether or not a abortion is done, depends highly on several factors most importantly among these are plans for life, relationship, financial situation and backup by family.

It depends on a lot of things. The first factor is a person’s position regarding abortion, the remaining factors are merely supporting reasons for their choice. Many women feel that they don’t have any other options but abortion (married or not) because they feel coerced: they may be at poverty level and are unaware of the federal aid and charity available. They can be in abusive relationships - both the married and unmarried. They are pressured by family, friends and the father of the child. Yes, married and unmarried. But again, many unmarried women choose to have their child and welcome the addition to their family.

That means if you already accepted the idea to have children with that man, know that the relationship has chances to last, planned youre future also with having a family in mind and have the more or less consent from your relatives to having children with that man, or in a different wording, if you are married, you are less likely to kill your child.

I would think that’s the way it’s supposed to work. Finding out that it’ not always the case…The most imporant factor is if the person is pro-life or not. All the rest falls behind that stance, married or unmarried.

 

[tonyrey]

Being sexually active but not with children in mind carries a large risk over the course of life of killing a human being, since being pregnant unwillingly in no kind of long term relationship will often lead to abortion.

You are presupposing that life is valuable. Why?

 

[carn]

I would think that’s the way it’s supposed to work. Finding out that it’ not always the case…The most imporant factor is if the person is pro-life or not. All the rest falls behind that stance, married or unmarried.

You forget the numbers. Its 100000 abortions per year in Germany, 800000 in the USA.

The few statistics i saw indicated that for about 70% of the women, the behavior, quality or absence of a partner played a role in their decision. For about 10% its the deciding factor according to the suffreys i saw.
So yes, it is likely that for 90% of abortions it would not matter if the man is willing to share his burden. But that would still mean about 10000 less human beings killed per year in German and 80000 in the US, if the basic rule, onlyy sex if you are ready for family would be followed.

To compare, in Germany we have about 5000 deaths through traffic accidents. And there are countless enforced rules or behavior suggestionscontinously adjusted to reduce that number. For the same reason it would be life saving, if some behavior suggestion are suggested regarding sex. (Even if only a few care, it could still mean hundreds of lives per year.)

@tonrey

That was assumption. I stated, that the argument is based on that assumption. If you drop it, the argument of course falls apart. But as all civilized societies value human life according to their constitutions highly, it is not an absurd assumption.
The assumption, that unborn are human is of course less widely shared. But as far as i can estimate only few propose openly that its wrong to call an unborn “child”, which prectically all future mothers do. Even those deciding to abort often think of it as a child.