The immaculate misconception

[anEvilAtheist]

Follow your own logic. Making fun of them, abusing them verbally, demeaning them doesn’t have to lead to suicide or pain. Perhaps the proper disclosures and precautions haven’t been taken. After all, your posts are the ones extolling honesty uber alles. Maybe the problem is people aren’t being honest enough with the classes of potential victims for whom you plead such empathy.

Sure, demeaning someone doesn’t have to lead to suicide. I think that demeaning someone pretty much always causes some degree of pain in the person you’re demeaning, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that sometimes it doesn’t. You are still culpable in cases where it does. Similarly, if promiscuity is not always harmful, you are still culpable in cases where it is. Someone who cheats on his wife and gives her HIV is culpable because his actions clearly do great harm. But I don’t see any harm in two married couples having a foursome if they use protection.

 

[Spock]

Since you say that there are 8 pages of no serious arguments but derailing attempts, I’m not going to go through them. Some teachings of the Church have rational arguments and many cultures are in agreement.

Very strongly agreed! There are many teachings of christianity which are rational and reasonable - and of course they are not particular to christianity.

Though, I admit, some teachings of the Church are exclusive to the Church and are really based on faith in the Church. Faith is not something that can be explained and rationalized.

No problem at all. I accept your premise here.

What is bothering you the most? Name one (or a few) things that I can attempt to answer from a secular perspective. I may not be able to convince you or adequately argue with you about…but I’ll try. And we’ll see where it goes.

Let’s pick just one. There are two people in the privacy of their bedroom, who wish to express their love toward each other in a manner which does not include procreation. That is they use either a positive contraception, or they use a “forbidden” method (oral sex). Simply speaking thay are not “open” to procreation at that moment. My premise is that neither of these methods has an inherent harm to either of the participants or anyone outside. Still the CC mainatins that these actions are “inherently disordered, or wrong”. This is the church’s premise. What is your argument?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Because it’s harmful to your kids.

Why?

I’ll be interested to hear from you in ten years, after you’ve had a few daughters.

Anyway, best wishes to you.

Oh, I’m sure I wouldn’t want to think about my daughters having sex, regardless of whether it’s inside or outside of a marriage. If I have daughters, I will teach them that there’s nothing sinful about sex, but that it’s best to wait until they’re emotionally ready for it, and to use protection.

 

[meltzerboy]

Sure, demeaning someone doesn’t have to lead to suicide. I think that demeaning someone pretty much always causes some degree of pain in the person you’re demeaning, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that sometimes it doesn’t. You are still culpable in cases where it does. Similarly, if promiscuity is not always harmful, you are still culpable in cases where it is. Someone who cheats on his wife and gives her HIV is culpable because his actions clearly do great harm. But I don’t see any harm in two married couples having a foursome if they use protection.

I doubt you really mean what you seem to be saying here. Don’t you think demeaning someone is always wrong (apart from acting, as in a play or film), whether the person suffers from it or not? One might also make the argument that promiscuity is nearly always wrong, whether the person suffers because of it or not. An act itself may be inherently wrong, and one may be culpable for committing it, regardless of the specific consequences; especially those behaviors which, by their very nature, are excessive, such as promiscuity. They are not only potentially harmful to others, but also to oneself. Think of obsessions of any kind. If we substitute the word “passion” or “hobby,” it may sound more acceptable. A sex hobby, perhaps? Still, even an innocent hobby, if excessively engaged in, to the neglect of other aspects and responsibilities in one’s life, may become a destructive force in one’s own and other people’s lives. Further, we have to ask ourselves whether society as a whole can properly function if everyone were to attempt to satisfy their personal passions–not only sexual–all the time? I think moderation may be the key. However, some people, perhaps many, cannot or don’t know how to stop once they start down the road of multiple sex partners. Same with drinking alcohol, engaging in pornography, gambling, and other addictions. Even if one doesn’t think of these behaviors as moral issues in the religious sense, they are moral in the behavioral sense of the French Moralists since they relate to living well in society.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I doubt you really mean what you seem to be saying here. Don’t you think demeaning someone is always wrong (apart from acting, as in a play or film), whether the person suffers from it or not?

Yes, I think demeaning someone in situations where you have a reasonable expectation that you will harm them is bad, even if for some reason they do not get harmed. Attempted murder is bad, even if by some means the murder is averted. In situations where there is a reasonable expectation that demeaning someone will not harm them, as when acting, then it is not wrong.

One might also make the argument that promiscuity is nearly always wrong, whether the person suffers because of it or not. An act itself may be inherently wrong, and one may be culpable for committing it, regardless of the specific consequences; especially those behaviors which, by their very nature, are excessive, such as promiscuity. They are not only potentially harmful to others, but also to oneself. Think of obsessions of any kind. If we substitute the word “passion” or “hobby,” it may sound more acceptable. A sex hobby, perhaps? Still, even an innocent hobby, if excessively engaged in, to the neglect of other aspects and responsibilities in one’s life, may become a destructive force in one’s own and other people’s lives.

As can a passion for Catholicism.

Further, we have to ask ourselves whether society as a whole can properly function if everyone were to attempt to satisfy their personal passions–not only sexual–all the time? I think moderation may be the key.

Obviously. Society couldn’t last very long if people spent every waking hour in mass.

However, some people, perhaps many, cannot or don’t know how to stop once they start down the road of multiple sex partners. Same with drinking alcohol, engaging in pornography, gambling, and other addictions.

Same with food. Perhaps it would be best if we encouraged people to stop eating and get all their nutrients intravenously.

Even if one doesn’t think of these behaviors as moral issues in the religious sense, they are moral in the behavioral sense of the French Moralists since they relate to living well in society.

Yes, there are important moral dimensions to sex as there are with any activity.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes, I think demeaning someone in situations where you have a reasonable expectation that you will harm them is bad, even if for some reason they do not get harmed. Attempted murder is bad, even if by some means the murder is averted. In situations where there is a reasonable expectation that demeaning someone will not harm them, as when acting, then it is not wrong.

As can a passion for Catholicism.

Obviously. Society couldn’t last very long if people spent every waking hour in mass.

Same with food. Perhaps it would be best if we encouraged people to stop eating and get all their nutrients intravenously.

Yes, there are important moral dimensions to sex as there are with any activity.

I’ll start with food because I’m hungry at the moment! You’re right about food addictions and gluttony; it fits with alcohol, gambling, sex, etc. However, food is of course different since one must eat to live. Yet it becomes an addiction when one lives only to eat and can think of little else. IOW, when anything–including food–completely takes over one’s life, that spells trouble.

Now to religion. I agree here too in that one may become over-zealous with regard to religion. We call that excessive religious fervor self-righteousness or sanctimoniousness. For Catholics, that would mean believing one is more Catholic than the Pope. It tends to be accompanied by intolerance, being excessively judgmental and hypercritical of others, scrupulosity, and a marked lack of charity. As you well know, Catholics are not required to spend every waking hour in Mass; but they do have an obligation to attend Mass on Sundays (or Saturdays) as well as on holidays. If you mean excessive Church-going, that too may be destructive, if, in doing so, one is neglecting or avoiding one’s responsibilities at home and at work.

I think your examples strengthen my argument about promiscuity, and I believe you agree in part that the latter may be harmful.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’ll start with food because I’m hungry at the moment! You’re right about food addictions and gluttony; it fits with alcohol, gambling, sex, etc. However, food is of course different since one must eat to live. Yet it becomes an addiction when one lives only to eat and can think of little else. IOW, when anything–including food–completely takes over one’s life, that spells trouble.

Agreed.

Now to religion. I agree here too in that one may become over-zealous with regard to religion. We call that excessive religious fervor self-righteousness or sanctimoniousness. For Catholics, that would mean believing one is more Catholic than the Pope. It tends to be accompanied by intolerance, being excessively judgmental and hypercritical of others, scrupulosity, and a marked lack of charity. As you well know, Catholics are not required to spend every waking hour in Mass; but they do have an obligation to attend Mass on Sundays (or Saturdays) as well as on holidays. If you mean excessive Church-going, that too may be destructive, if in doing so one is neglecting or avoiding one’s responsibilities at home and at work.

Agreed.

I think your examples strengthen my argument about promiscuity, and I believe you agree in part that the latter may be harmful.

I agree. Like all the best things in life, sex can be harmful if done to the point where you don’t have time to support your family. But this thread is not about whether taken to ridiculous extremes promiscuity can be harmful; it’s about whether there are any secular arguments that things like masturbation, homosexual sex, contraception, and extravaginal ejaculation are harmful.

 

[Rence]

Let’s pick just one. There are two people in the privacy of their bedroom, who wish to express their love toward each other in a manner which does not include procreation. That is they use either a positive contraception, or they use a “forbidden” method (oral sex). Simply speaking thay are not “open” to procreation at that moment. My premise is that neither of these methods has an inherent harm to either of the participants or anyone outside. Still the CC mainatins that these actions are “inherently disordered, or wrong”. This is the church’s premise. What is your argument?

What is “positive contraception”?

From a secular perspective “protected” sex does cause inherent harm to both participants. It gives them a false sense of security that they most assuredly won’t get pregnant. That’s simply not true. The FACT of the matter is, artificial birth control LESSENS the chance of becoming pregnant. Some methods have a higher success rate than others if used perfectly, but that’s all: each method has a statistically determined success rate.

We know for a fact that it’s not completely reliable as evidenced by all the unplanned pregnancies that occur. Those who do not follow their fertility signs are more likely to have sex during fertile times than those who follow their fertility signs. In effect, they’re having sex more often without a clue about their cycle. With each occurrence of sex, (and they will have sex during fertile times because they think they can have sex at any time, therefore they don’t know they’re in a fertile window, and thinking that they can’t possibly get pregnant because they are on birth control) the “lessens” becomes “more likely”. Therefore, the chance for pregnancy goes up with each occurrence of sex. This is harmful to both involved because:

An unplanned pregnancy is traumatic for those who are not open to life. It can be detrimental to the relationship hurting both parties, and secularly speaking (according to the statistics) more often results in abortion, which leads to a host of other problems including guilt and added risk factors for future pregnancies. I can’t even count how many people I know who got pregnant despite being on some type of birth control.

Those who have sex while being open to life, even if they are not wanting a child right then, are more emotionally capable of handling the surprise. I’m not making that up. Truly, if you’re not willing to accept an unplanned pregnancy, and you end up pregnant, you will not deal with it well. You know this to be true. This causes harm to the woman and the man. So it’s false to assume that protected sex doesn’t hurt anyone, because it does. Everyday. Look around you. That’s not religious propanda. Those who are not prepared for the possibility of pregnancy quite simply shouldn’t be having sex…especially if their quick fix is an abortion.

As for actions other than “regular sex”, I don’t have an argument. The Church’s stance, as I was taught it, is that most other foreplay is fine as foreplay between married couples, including your example of oral sex, as long as they ‘end with regular sex’. Among Catholics, some will even argue what is acceptable. I don’t consume myself what others think is acceptable. However, the basic rule itself is a rule almost exclusively belonging to the Church. Some societies consider it taboo to do anything other than ‘regular sex’ and there are no limits with other cultures. Secularly speaking, with your hypothetical couple, it’s not going to hurt them, and it certainly won’t lead to an unintended pregnancy.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

from what i see militant atheists are the most angry unloving people hell bent on destroying theism , i hope you can prove me wrong but spock never replies to my (name removed by moderator)ut and i think he’s trying to drive me to suicide

I don’t know how I could prove you wrong. All I can say is that the atheists I know, both militant and nonmilitant, are generally very loving people. If I said that devout Catholics are unloving people hell bent on destroying atheism, what could you say other than that that hasn’t been the case in your experience.

I don’t know why Spock doesn’t respond to you, but I can tell you why I reply less to your posts than I do to other posts. First, I find your posts hard to read because of your weird punctuation and lack of capital letters. You also talk a lot about how you feel and what your opinion of things is without providing substantiating evidence. I’m more inclined to respond when people make structured arguments for their position.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I don’t know how I could prove you wrong. All I can say is that the atheists I know, both militant and nonmilitant, are generally very loving people. If I said that devout Catholics are unloving people hell bent on destroying atheism, what could you say other than that that hasn’t been the case in your experience.

I don’t know why Spock doesn’t respond to you, but I can tell you why I reply less to your posts than I do to other posts. First, I find your posts hard to read because of your weird punctuation and lack of capital letters. You also talk a lot about how you feel and what your opinion of things is without providing substantiating evidence. I’m more inclined to respond when people make structured arguments for their position.

… my dear friend ,

… thx for your reply and feedback , with my writing style it is a work in progress , if and when i figure out how to improve and perfect it furher i will change it , i’ll never stop trying to ever more perfect it , people don’t like it because it offends them , or offends by breaking the insane laws and rules in their heads , and that is the only reason , people know what i’m saying but choose to be offended by my writing style , that is illogical and insane , but that is just my opinion , i hope peoplw change though …

… my opinion is just as valid and valuable as anyones and i don’t need to keep quoting others to validate it , either i’m right or wrong , in any case i make mistakes as i learn from trial and error – like all human beings , my opine is all structured argument , just not as some may want , and knowing not a single person in this world outside the holy family has ever solved a single pproblem correctly , perfectly and permanently – maybe it might help if i don’t quuote others and provide evidence to support my arguments given that for the most part the support and evidence is wrong , imperfect , incomplete , inadequate , and if that is so even if i make a mistake i’m the same as virtually every other human being , but with me given my style and technique i may just crack it and solve a problem rather than perpetuate and multiply all the new and old mistakes ,… i might crack it and rather than quote or build on mistakes and problems i may solve that first problem for us , a possibility dear friiend , true , i am just using the mind god gave me , think about it …

… may god bless an love you ,

… john …

 

[Spock]

As for actions other than “regular sex”, I don’t have an argument. The Church’s stance, as I was taught it, is that most other foreplay is fine as foreplay between married couples, including your example of oral sex, as long as they ‘end with regular sex’. Among Catholics, some will even argue what is acceptable. I don’t consume myself what others think is acceptable. However, the basic rule itself is a rule almost exclusively belonging to the Church. Some societies consider it taboo to do anything other than ‘regular sex’ and there are no limits with other cultures. Secularly speaking, with your hypothetical couple, it’s not going to hurt them, and it certainly won’t lead to an unintended pregnancy.

Let me start with this one. We agree, and that is most gratifying. It hardly ever happens, and when it does it calls for a champange. I drink it to your health!

From a secular perspective “protected” sex does cause inherent harm to both participants. It gives them a false sense of security that they most assuredly won’t get pregnant. That’s simply not true. The FACT of the matter is, artificial birth control LESSENS the chance of becoming pregnant. Some methods have a higher success rate than others if used perfectly, but that’s all: each method has a statistically determined success rate.

We know for a fact that it’s not completely reliable as evidenced by all the unplanned pregnancies that occur. Those who do not follow their fertility signs are more likely to have sex during fertile times than those who follow their fertility signs. In effect, they’re having sex more often without a clue about their cycle. With each occurrence of sex, (and they will have sex during fertile times because they think they can have sex at any time, therefore they don’t know they’re in a fertile window, and thinking that they can’t possibly get pregnant because they are on birth control) the “lessens” becomes “more likely”. Therefore, the chance for pregnancy goes up with each occurrence of sex. This is harmful to both involved because:

An unplanned pregnancy is traumatic for those who are not open to life. It can be detrimental to the relationship hurting both parties, and secularly speaking (according to the statistics) more often results in abortion, which leads to a host of other problems including guilt and added risk factors for future pregnancies. I can’t even count how many people I know who got pregnant despite being on some type of birth control.

Those who have sex while being open to life, even if they are not wanting a child right then, are more emotionally capable of handling the surprise. I’m not making that up. Truly, if you’re not willing to accept an unplanned pregnancy, and you end up pregnant, you will not deal with it well. You know this to be true. This causes harm to the woman and the man. So it’s false to assume that protected sex doesn’t hurt anyone, because it does. Everyday. Look around you. That’s not religious propanda. Those who are not prepared for the possibility of pregnancy quite simply shouldn’t be having sex…especially if their quick fix is an abortion.

What you say is correct, but you bring the conclusion too far. It is true that each contraceptive method has its failure rate, that none of them are “perfect”. (Except of course using aspirin properly; when the woman holds it firmly between her knees. ) I am sure you are aware that the different methods can be combined and that would bring down the risk to a very low level - though still not zero. There is one more method, the tubal ligation for the man. It is reversible, and it provides 100% security.

You say that the possibility of failure will bring a false security into the act. Only for those who do not think it over. Where your analysis is incorrect that knowing about the risk will make the people “unable” to cope with the failure. Obviously some people will be less able to cope with an unwanted pregnancy than others. But that has nothing to do with the method itself. Where you are making a mistake is that you evaluate the method based upon its failures and not its merits.

Do you really think that this type of evaluation method should be used in other parts of life? I would hope not. Driving a car has risk of accidents. Eating a food has a non-zero risk of getting poisoned. Walking on the street carries the risk of tripping and breaking your knee or having a meteor strike you on the head. Of course there are risks.

Life is inherently risky. What do we do? Evaluate the risks and the benefits, conduct a risk-benefit analysis and make our decision accordingly. We do this (subconsciously) in every decision of our life. The opposite would be impossible. Just because something has a built-in risk it is not a sufficient reason to abstain from the activity. If you stop eating, you die of malnutrition. If you do not have sex, you will survive, but what is the point?

But I have to applaud you for your analysis. It was well performed, even if you “ran away” with the conclusion. Incomparably better than the usual nonsense.

/triple cheers for you!

 

[Spock]

…but spock never replies to my (name removed by moderator)ut and i think he’s trying to drive me to suicide

I hope you are kidding. I do not reply because I don’t read your posts - for the same reason that EvilAtheist has pointed out. There is no obligation to read and/or to reply all the posts. There are many posters whose (name removed by moderator)ut I don’t care to read. You conclusion that I “try to drive you to suicide” is so far out that I am left speechless. With utmost sincerity I suggest that you seek professional help.

 

[Holly3278]

Is there anything sadder than the “Moral Theology” forum? When a huge majority of the threads is about the frustration of some poor, troubled teenager, whose red-hot libido gives them the incentive to have some innocent little fun, and then their confused conscience tortures them with guilt for doing the most natural thing in life. It is truly heartbreaking.

What is truly heartbreaking is that you would think that masturbation or premarital sex is “innocent little fun”.

 

[Rence]

But I have to applaud you for your analysis. It was well performed, even if you “ran away” with the conclusion. Incomparably better than the usual nonsense.

/triple cheers for you!

Well, thanks…but unfortunately, I didn’t run away with the conclusion as evidenced by the high unplanned pregnancy rate, and the high abortion rate as a result. This speaks for itself…what I said was true: those who are not open to life have no business having sex, protected or unprotected, because they obviously are not capable of handling the stressors the same way those who are open to life do. The results are devestating for both parties. That’s not a criticism, just a fact. You can reject it, and that’s fine. You won’t see me judging you for your lack of acknowledgement. Teaching of the Church aside, the outcome is the same.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I hope you are kidding. I do not reply because I don’t read your posts - for the same reason that EvilAtheist has pointed out. There is no obligation to read and/or to reply all the posts. There are many posters whose (name removed by moderator)ut I don’t care to read. You conclusion that I “try to drive you to suicide” is so far out that I am left speechless. With utmost sincerity I suggest that you seek professional help.

… dear spock ,

… i have the ultimate professional help from on high , don’t worry about me , anger is expressed in many ways and is oft the fruit of offence , such offence actually only exists in ones mind and is only real there , it is insanity which is a sad fact of the sorry state of this fallen world …

… the purpose of showing you are offended is to ultimately drive the offender to suicide or kill him , this is why jesus saud , more or less , " you have heard it said you shall not kill , but i say to you whoever is angry with his brother will pay for itr in hell fire " , anger = desire to kill which is a great evil in itself , deserving of hell apparently this unjust insane anger …

… i personally believe all human beings have an obligation to love each other , if you don’t hold this view it is up to you – the fruit of atheism i thinks dearest friend , for me i’ll maintain my hope in humanity and do my best to love all , you will do what you want i suppose , but you are my brother no diff than from the same parents or the equivelant of my own child if you were that age …

… we are both members of one hman fanmily having the same common parents in the beginning , if you choose to reject this reality and me i cannot force you to change , but i ask you to rethink it all and temper the arguments with some sanity and logic dear brother …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Spock]

Well, thanks…but unfortunately, I didn’t run away with the conclusion as evidenced by the high unplanned pregnancy rate, and the high abortion rate as a result.

High? As compared to what? Statistics can be used to prove anything and its opposite if one chooses the sample “properly”. Can you show the difference between the protected and unprotected sexual encounters? Just how unreliable is the protection?

You cannot just point to the high abortion rate, and say: “you see that is the result of using protection”. That would be very illogical. The solution is, of course to make the protection more reliable. Even if the risk cannot be fully eliminated, it can be minimized.

 

[Sair]

High? As compared to what? Statistics can be used to prove anything and its opposite if one chooses the sample “properly”. Can you show the difference between the protected and unprotected sexual encounters? Just how unreliable is the protection?

You cannot just point to the high abortion rate, and say: “you see that is the result of using protection”. That would be very illogical. The solution is, of course to make the protection more reliable. Even if the risk cannot be fully eliminated, it can be minimized.

Whilst I agree that statistics can certainly be ‘massaged’ in order to point to any desired conclusion, I think there is one thing left out of the analysis of the effectiveness of contraception. Humans are, by nature, fallible and often rather stupid. Success rates of various forms of contraception are very high, if these methods are used correctly. When you factor in the proportion of couples who either fail to use any given method correctly (such as forgetting to take the pill), along with those who think, “Oh, just this once, it won’t matter if we don’t use a condom,” then the overall success rates of contraception tend to plummet.

There is also a certain logic to the idea of what the church calls a ‘contraceptive mentality’ - the idea that if people are using contraception (correctly or otherwise) they are more likely to seek an abortion if the contraceptive method fails. The thinking, it seems, is that the unwillingness to generate a new life extends beyond prevention of conception, into active destruction of any conceived embryo - “But we used a condom! This shouldn’t have happened.” Personally, I don’t think this is an attitude common to all couples who use contraception, and I also believe that children should be wanted and planned, not accidental and required to be accepted without question as gifts from God.

 

[Spock]

Whilst I agree that statistics can certainly be ‘massaged’ in order to point to any desired conclusion, I think there is one thing left out of the analysis of the effectiveness of contraception. Humans are, by nature, fallible and often rather stupid. Success rates of various forms of contraception are very high, if these methods are used correctly. When you factor in the proportion of couples who either fail to use any given method correctly (such as forgetting to take the pill), along with those who think, “Oh, just this once, it won’t matter if we don’t use a condom,” then the overall success rates of contraception tend to plummet.

Very important and correct observation. Again, the merits of the method should be considered based upon the proper usage, not the skewed result coming from improper usage or lack of usage.

 

[Rence]

High? As compared to what? Statistics can be used to prove anything and its opposite if one chooses the sample “properly”. Can you show the difference between the protected and unprotected sexual encounters? Just how unreliable is the protection?

You cannot just point to the high abortion rate, and say: “you see that is the result of using protection”. That would be very illogical. The solution is, of course to make the protection more reliable. Even if the risk cannot be fully eliminated, it can be minimized.

Look, I’m not arguing with you. And I’m not judging you. YOU have to live with you and your life decisions. I won’t be hassling you. Your question was if there was a secular reason outside of religion to support that using protected sex between a couple in love would cause harm to them. Yes it can, for the reasons I gave. I didn’t even get into the health issues of hormone therapy. Do I really need to come up with a scientific analysis to prove that sex leads to conception?

Those not willing to risk the possibility of parenthood, whether they are 1) using ABCs perfectly, 2) using ABCs imperfectly, 3) throwing caution to the wind or whatever, simply should not be having sex — because like it or not, sex leads to pregnancy. That’s the way of it. If one is not willing to be ‘open to life’, an unplanned pregnancy can and does destroy those ‘loving’ relationships and statiscially leads to abortion.

If you don’t buy that logic, I’m okay with it. But something tells me no matter what secular reason I come up with to support any of the things you are in favor of (and that the Church is not), you will disagree with it. And that’s okay, I don’t mind. You’re the one who asked for the challenge and I tried it in good faith. To be honest, while I agree to follow the rules of the Church and know them well, I just don’t have a dog in the ABCs fight. So you’re picking the wrong person with whom to argue

Does the Church stand alone on some issues? Certainly, I’m the first to admit that. Do the rules make sense? Certainly, not all of them do that’s for sure. There are many secular reasons to support many of their moral teachings though. But no matter what the Church says, or what anyone says: people will weigh their actions against the consequences of those actions. They will take risks for their behavior if they don’t think the consequences too important or if they don’t consider them at all. Do they hurt themselves in the process? Of course they do. As you said in a previous post, it’s part of life.

 

[tonyrey]

I also believe that children should be wanted and planned, not accidental and required to be accepted without question as gifts from God.

They should be but very often they are not wanted **for any reason **whatsoever because they just happen to be inconvenient **under any circumstances **- the evidence being the endless stream of abortions. They are the supreme misconceptions…