You sure have raised a good point. The concept of “thought crime” was obviously not invented by George Orwell in 1984. Nor has the phrase “our duty to the Party” originated with him - which slogan was created by the Junior Anti-Sex League - joyless sex, where the woman simply lays there to be “had” without any pleasure.
I don’t view the world in black and white. What I view in black and white is morality.
You appear to be professing a detached academic interest. But that’s at odds with your behavior in this thread, which has been active defense of a specific argument.
And how much is too much enjoyment?
All those “may”-s and “might”-s are your opinion. Take a family already down on their luck, hungry and barely surviving. They can barely provide for their existing children. An added child will push them the over the edge. In that case that added pregnancy would be a disaster. Such instances can happen. And you are not in the position to declare if a falimy regards a new pregnancy a “negative outcome”, or an outright disaster.
Don’t assume anything. (You know what assume does, don’t you? Makes an “donkey” of U and ME…) If I would hear a rational, reasonable argument, I would listen and contemplate it.
If he loses himself to the extent that his child suffocates through neglect it is hardly ridiculous…
Hmmm…evidently you are unable or unwilling to understand. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire or sexual pleasure - it was created by God. It is when sex is reduced to simply a physical act with no attempt to show love and increase bonding with one’s spouse that it becomes lust - lust occurs when a person is treated as a mere object.
No. But as I have not tried to measure and regulate desire I don’t think your question is relevant.
Understood by whom and when? How do you propose to define “morality”?
What the heck is a “metaphysical obligation”? The way we should treat others is the way that maximizes the outcome for both of us. Life is NOT a a zero-sum game!!! It is a win-win game, if conducted properly. And the optimum strategy is to be mutually helpful - without any “metaphysical obligation”.
“Real” sense? You will reap what you sow. Is that not “real” enough?
Not really. Children under a certain age - and that age DOES vary - are simply not developed enough to give a meaningful consent. And that is a biological fact, without any “philosophical” mumbo-jumbo.
And that is the problem. Not all decisions are “morally charged”. And which ones are morally charged is up for debate.
Sure. But what acts are morally significant is the problem here.
Fine. You need to give some real reasoning why “contraceptive” sex is “evil”. That is the point.
And with this example you are off your rockers. There is nothing “evil” in helping others, even if it might not be praiseworthy, if done for some “selfish” reasons. This is a perfect example of something being partially good (helping others) and partially bad (for selfish reasons). But to say that it will become “evil” is truly nonsensical.
Another nonsensical example. It is not that “the end justifies the means” … it is that “the end and means TOGETHER make a justifyable scenario”.
It does, and my answer is: “who cares”?
Repeated now ad-nauseam. Tell me how? Explicitly… Not that it MAY or MIGHT hurt society… but how DOES it hurt… in each and every case. Show me the direct, logical line of reasoning how an act of contraception “hurts” society. Exactly and precisely. It does not have to be immediate. But you must show a logical line of causative relationship (not some ill conceived correlation!) that the idea of “contraception” leads to some dire consequences.
No - they are not my opinion. They are possibilities and need to be taken into consideration.
There is help available to families who are struggling. There is help for your hypothetical family even without the addition of an unplanned pregnancy. In fact, there is a lot of help and it includes free pre- and post-natal care, free OB services, food, clothing, housing, and much more. If the parents cannot afford to keep their child she can be put up for adoption. People want to adopt children. Desperately. The help is not hard to find.
From one of your prior posts I got the impression that you weren’t here to be convinced or not. I wonder how I got that impression? Oh, wait, I know! You said so! How silly of me. However, your posts lead me to the sad conclusion that you have no intention of considering any argument presented by a Christian to be rational and/or reasonable simply because the argument is being presented by a Christian (and yes, I know the tired joke about the word “assume” and I also know that what I have written in this part of my post is only my opinion).
Reality is what counts. Possibilities are only wishful thinking.
Everywhere? Even in black Africa? Or in Bangladesh? In Afganistan? What about the woman for whom the next pregnancy is almost (but not quite certain) death? What about them? Indeed there are many people who wish to adopt. Adopt what? Black children? Dream on buddy.
Keep on dreaming.
I believe the poster has given you the answer you are still requesting - in the post to which you have responded. It divides the unitive and procreative purposes of sex. I will take it a bit further and say that it is not what God intended. I know this is true because God’s Church has made it official teaching and that is infallible. Every act of contraception is evil and it is also Church teaching that every evil is pervasive and effects every person in the world in a negative way.
Ilogical, oh second-in-command. “Reality is what counts.” Do you mean that as a blanket statement? Possibilities require an open mind. I thought you wanted open-mindedness, for people to stop thinking in black and white.
No; not everywhere and that is a valid response. Through the parable of the sheep and the goats Jesus taught us that whatever we do to to even the least of His brethren we do to Him. It is our responsibility to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. There is help available in those places but certainly not enough. This world is broken. So we do the best we can to save lives no matter where people live, or attempt to live. *Catholic Charities * is a huge organization. The people who work for it are trying to help those people in Bangladesh, in black Africa, in Afghanistan. That does not mean, however, that we should turn our backs on those in western society. As for women for whom the next pregnancy is almost death, that is extremely rare and the unborn child is just as precious as her mother. Both lives must always be taken into consideration. I have already covered this.
I am wide awake; much more awake than when I was agnostic and wandering through this world with no answers to the many questions I had.
I believe that there is objective morality and that it is not simply what a society decides.
By metaphysical obligation I mean an actual obligation that exists as opposed to an obligation that does not exists because duty is just a social construct. Should implies obligation but there is actually no should if there truly is no objective morality.
Consent is not biological at all. How would I observe and measure consent? What part of the human can I put under a microscope to evaluate consent? How do you know a dog, for instance, does or does not consent? Consent is definitely a philsophical concept.
No, I genuinely believe that the Old School (by Western standards) tendency to see sexuality as wicked but violence as good (or at least excuseable and useful) is very harmful.
If souls are so easy to damage, hurting a soul is a relatively trivial (or at least normal) offense because its so common and unavoidable.
Yes, but as the Catholic Church is usually quick to remind everyone, we live in a Fallen world where sin touches virtually everything we do. Even perfect behavior is not enough, our thoughts and emotions must be pure too (according to the Church).
The real meaning of the word is enforced servitude, being forced to work without pay or other compensation, and of course being treated and regarded as property instead of a person.
Not really.
Oh yes She (under what logic is a hierarchy composed solely of males referred to as female anyway?Oh she does not!
) does
Because he is using himself as the standard and default setting, and assuming that civilization would simply end without such people.