What is the problem with contraception?

[ThinkingSapien]

There was an interesting article in the “Reason” magazine quite a few years ago, where Virgina Postrel (the editor at that time) showed how certain people are overwhelmed and disoriented by the huge selection of fruits and vegetables in the supermarkets.

That’s a real world “problem” I encounter a lot. In business meetings rather then present some one with the range of options available I tend to start by providing a very limited set of pre-selected configurations for a target solution. Or I may not provide any choice at all unless the client ask “well can we make it work this way?” At the end of a project they tend to be happy.

 

[St_Francis]

There are none. In that scenario, contraception is perfectly appropriate and beneficial.

This is also to Tryrion…

This is the problem: you are completely leaving out an important part of human nature, which is that we are *both *material *and *spiritural. We are not just material.

Catholics have nothing against the use of birth control for animals, for example, for sterilization, even “abortion,” in the case of spaying an animal when she is pregnant. All perfectly ok.

And all this would be perfectly ok for humans as well, except for the fact that we are not *only *material beings like non-human animals are. We have the spiritaul dimension, wwhich animals do not have.

And the problem that abc present is a problem to the spiritual side of humans. Because it is a problem of the spiritual side of our nature and you do not accept that aspect of humanity, you cannot understand the harm that abc causes human beings.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There was an interesting article in the “Reason” magazine quite a few years ago, where Virgina Postrel (the editor at that time) showed how certain people are overwhelmed and disoriented by the huge selection of fruits and vegetables in the supermarkets.

That’s a real world “problem” I encounter a lot. In business meetings rather then present some one with the range of options available I tend to start by providing a very limited set of pre-selected configurations for a target solution. Or I may not provide any choice at all unless the client ask “well can we make it work this way?” At the end of a project they tend to be happy.

 

[aprilfloyd]

This is also to Tryrion…

This is the problem: you are completely leaving out an important part of human nature, which is that we are *both *material *and *spiritural. We are not just material.

Catholics have nothing against the use of birth control for animals, for example, for sterilization, even “abortion,” in the case of spaying an animal when she is pregnant. All perfectly ok.

And all this would be perfectly ok for humans as well, except for the fact that we are not *only *material beings like non-human animals are. We have the spiritaul dimension, wwhich animals do not have.

And the problem that abc present is a problem to the spiritual side of humans. Because it is a problem of the spiritual side of our nature and you do not accept that aspect of humanity, you cannot understand the harm that abc causes human beings.

Hi, Interesting point - where can I find the spiritual side of humans that you speak of.

 

[davidv]

Hi, Interesting point - where can I find the spiritual side of humans that you speak of.

In your mind (not the brain).

 

[St_Francis]

Hi, Interesting point - where can I find the spiritual side of humans that you speak of.

It seems to me from your posts that you are willing only to accept empirical eviddence, so you may be unable to find our spiritual nature since you are not looking in the right direction.

 

[Aloysium]

Hi, Interesting point - where can I find the spiritual side of humans that you speak of.

you are obviously going to find it with in you
within the reality of who you are
so it’s not an idea
it has to do with the reality of being here, now

so, here i am, i exist, this is real - that’s one
these words make sense; there is understanding - two
i can choose to write something serious, something funny, something nasty - three
let’s see, these ideas evoke a sense of mystery within me because they speak of this grand miracle in which we are participating; human existence, with all its struggles, suffering, losses, successes and loves is of such beauty - that would make four aspects of what would be attributed to our spiritual nature
unfortunately, everything i can think of points to the Spirit and ultimately to God, so i don’t think i will be of much help.
maybe one more thing:
to find your spiritual side you can pray or
just think of anything that isn’t an idea

 

[Tyrion]

Because ‘natural’ is a ‘rational underpinning’ of the teaching.
If you want to find out what it is we need to have a common understanding of what natural is.

Well, state your point, and we can go from there.

 

[Tyrion]

That’s a real world “problem” I encounter a lot. In business meetings rather then present some one with the range of options available I tend to start by providing a very limited set of pre-selected configurations for a target solution. Or I may not provide any choice at all unless the client ask “well can we make it work this way?” At the end of a project they tend to be happy.

Very true. Most people are scared of freedom, be it the choice in the grocery store, or too many options in a business decision. That is obvious, since only a small minority is willing and able to confront reality, and make decisions for themselves. They are the “leaders”. The rest are the meek (who do NOT inherit anything), the followers, who want someone else to tell them, what to think and how to “think”. It does take a lot of courage to accept the responsiblity for your actions… most people are not willing to do that.

 

[Tyrion]

This is also to Tryrion…

This is the problem: you are completely leaving out an important part of human nature, which is that we are *both *material *and *spiritural. We are not just material.

Catholics have nothing against the use of birth control for animals, for example, for sterilization, even “abortion,” in the case of spaying an animal when she is pregnant. All perfectly ok.

And all this would be perfectly ok for humans as well, except for the fact that we are not *only *material beings like non-human animals are. We have the spiritaul dimension, wwhich animals do not have.

And the problem that abc present is a problem to the spiritual side of humans. Because it is a problem of the spiritual side of our nature and you do not accept that aspect of humanity, you cannot understand the harm that abc causes human beings.

I explicitly asked to stay on the gound of reason and away from superstition. Is that too much to ask?

If you wish to mix in the so-called “spiritual” aspect, then at the very least you should define what that word means… because it is meaningless for non-believers. Then you need to show just where that “spiritual” nature resides (and you already admitted that you cannot do that using rational methods). (What david said: “in the mind” is too vague, unless he meant that it is not real, it only exists in his imagination. But I doubt that this is what he meant.) And finally you must show how that “spiritual” nature gets “hurt” in the presented scenario.

If you can do that, fine. But I don’t think you can. No one could - so far. But do it in a separate thread of yours, because I do NOT want any more derail attempts.

 

[St_Francis]

I explicitly asked to stay on the gound of reason and away from superstition. Is that too much to ask?

It would probably help if you didn’t denigrate the beliefs of those who host the board on which you are posting: etiquette 101, I would have thought.

Also, you say ground of reason, but I think that you do not know the difference between reason and empiricism. That’s something you might look into: the two are not synonymous.

If you wish to mix in the so-called “spiritual” aspect, then at the very least you should define what that word means… because it is meaningless for non-believers.

The soul is that which animates a living thing. When the soul departs or becomes separated from the body, we call the physical matter which is left dead.

Supernatural pertains to those things which are not material.

Then you need to show just where that “spiritual” nature resides (and you already admitted that you cannot do that using rational methods).

The residence of the soul cannot be shown by *empirical *methods, but can be partly discerned by reason.

However. in addition to empirical knowledge and reasoned knowledge, there is revealed knowledge. Revealed knowledge is that knowledge which we cannot come to ourselves, but which has been revealed to us by God.

And finally you must show how that “spiritual” nature gets “hurt” in the presented scenario.

I am answering the question you ask… God allows us the gift of participating in the creation of more human beings, which are His highest creation. To reject the greater gift for the much lesser gift of the pleasure is like letting a child fingerpaint all over a Renoir painting, or what happens to an athlete’s body if he “misuses” it by ignoring its state, eating badly, and drinking too much, etc.

 

[Jaaanosik]

This is also to Tryrion…

This is the problem: you are completely leaving out an important part of human nature, which is that we are *both *material *and *spiritural. We are not just material.

Catholics have nothing against the use of birth control for animals, for example, for sterilization, even “abortion,” in the case of spaying an animal when she is pregnant. All perfectly ok.

And all this would be perfectly ok for humans as well, except for the fact that we are not *only *material beings like non-human animals are. We have the spiritaul dimension, wwhich animals do not have.

And the problem that abc present is a problem to the spiritual side of humans. Because it is a problem of the spiritual side of our nature and you do not accept that aspect of humanity, you cannot understand the harm that abc causes human beings.

Every human being is different.
It’s an error to assume that abc is causing a harm to the spiritual side of every human being.

 

[St_Francis]

Every human being is different.
It’s an error to assume that abc is causing a harm to the spiritual side of every human being.

As Catholics, we know it is bad for every human being because it is objectively a mortal sin. This does not mean that God will judge each person who uses abc has having sinned mortally, but the reason it is a sin is that it is harmful and will cause at least spiritual harm to each person who uses it.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Well, state your point, and we can go from there.

I thought I asked first but never mind.

Word dictionary definitions of ‘natural’ are related to nature.

We are interested in philosophical meaning though.
A philosophy stands on human nature. The human nature is a capability to reason/think.
In order to say that something is natural we need have a few things lined up.

• subject - a human being that thinks (animals can not say something is natural)
• object/entity - anything that subject analysis
• attributes - properties of an object
• designer/maker/author - somebody who designs/makes an object with some attributes
• goal/purpose/intention - something that object is supposed to do/accomplish based on the designer’s intentions through attributes

An example - ink pen.
The pen is designed to write. A subject thinks: the pen has an attribute, a sharp point, maybe I can use it for piercing as well.
The subject has a plastic bag with rice and decides to open it with the ink pen. The pen breaks, ink gets into the bag and the rice is not eatable.

Natural - an object/entity fulfills its purpose
Not natural - an object/entity does not fulfill its purpose

Natural is good, not natural is bad, that’s a principle of the natural law.

Let’s discuss…

 

[Aloysium]

Very true. Most people are scared of freedom, be it the choice in the grocery store, or too many options in a business decision. That is obvious, since only a small minority is willing and able to confront reality, and make decisions for themselves. They are the “leaders”. The rest are the meek (who do NOT inherit anything), the followers, who want someone else to tell them, what to think and how to “think”. It does take a lot of courage to accept the responsiblity for your actions… most people are not willing to do that.

it is not my experience that “most ppl are scared of freedom”: journal, paper, book - actually i’ll take anything other than random generalizations that you have to back this up

“too many options in a business decision”: usually has to do with the ability to organize information while assessing the motives of the ppl pushing certain ideas; this has nothing to do with fear of freedom

i find your ideas regarding leaders and followers are, let us say, undeveloped, but then i do not know much about the field of political science.

How did you arrive at the idea that people “want someone else to tell them, what to think and how to think”; actually, it would be nice if this were the case - i would not have had to attend countless boring meetings filled with bickering and power games.

You may wish to rethink this

 

[Jaaanosik]

As Catholics, we know it is bad for every human being because it is objectively a mortal sin. This does not mean that God will judge each person who uses abc has having sinned mortally, but the reason it is a sin is that it is harmful and will cause at least spiritual harm to each person who uses it.

If there is at least one Catholic whose well informed conscience tells him that contraception is not causing him a spiritual harm then your statement:

• it is harmful and will cause at least spiritual harm to each person who uses it.*
  is false.
  I know a few Catholics like that therefore your statement is false.

I am not even talking about non-Catholics here. There are many of those who don’t care about Catholic teaching on this subject. On what ground would you think that they inflict a spiritual harm to themselves by using contraception?

 

[Jaaanosik]

it is not my experience that “most ppl are scared of freedom”: journal, paper, book - actually i’ll take anything other than random generalizations that you have to back this up

“too many options in a business decision”: usually has to do with the ability to organize information while assessing the motives of the ppl pushing certain ideas; this has nothing to do with fear of freedom

i find your ideas regarding leaders and followers are, let us say, undeveloped, but then i do not know much about the field of political science.

How did you arrive at the idea that people “want someone else to tell them, what to think and how to think”; actually, it would be nice if this were the case - i would not have had to attend countless boring meetings filled with bickering and power games.

You may wish to rethink this

Actually it’s you who should rethink this. Tyrion’s description has its merits. It’s a good description of the reality.

A leader/follower identification of people depends on areas.
A leader in one field can be a follower in another field. The fact remains; there are leaders and there are followers.

There are many factors that contribute to who is who. All go back to upbringing of a person and education.
There is a tendency. Some leaders in their subject think they can be leaders in everything. That’s their fault though, only a true polyhistor can be leader in multiple fields.

Most of the Catholics were brought up in environments where they were taught to listen to a priest in regards to the faith and morals. There is a minority of those who were taught to think and analyze this subjects. That’s a fact.

 

[Tyrion]

We are interested in philosophical meaning though.
A philosophy stands on human nature. The human nature is a capability to reason/think.
In order to say that something is natural we need have a few things lined up.

• subject - a human being that thinks (animals can not say something is natural)
• object/entity - anything that subject analysis
• attributes - properties of an object
• designer/maker/author - somebody who designs/makes an object with some attributes
• goal/purpose/intention - something that object is supposed to do/accomplish based on the designer’s intentions through attributes

Ok, let’s start with this. The first 3 parts of the definition are fine - with the caveat that “human” is too restrictive. One should speak of generic “sentient beings”. However, the last two “designer” and “goal” implictly assume that there is always a designer, who also has goal in mind. That assumption is not acceptable. Even if there is a “designer” it is possible that the object has no purpose intended by the designer. Or there are multiple purposes intended. The real meaning of “natural” can be derived from its negation - which would be artificial. Therefore “natural” means that it exists in nature, without assuming the existence of a desinger.

But I still do not see how does this reflect on the problem I asked.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Ok, let’s start with this. The first 3 parts of the definition are fine - with the caveat that “human” is too restrictive. One should speak of generic “sentient beings”. However, the last two “designer” and “goal” implictly assume that there is always a designer, who also has goal in mind. That assumption is not acceptable. Even if there is a “designer” it is possible that the object has no purpose intended by the designer. Or there are multiple purposes intended. The real meaning of “natural” can be derived from its negation - which would be artificial. Therefore “natural” means that it exists in nature, without assuming the existence of a desinger.

But I still do not see how does this reflect on the problem I asked.

Human - because right now I don’t know any other “sentient being” on the earth to tell me what is natural.
Is the mother nature a good designer?
I thought that you kind of accept a designer based on your last paragraph in the post #6.

As for the concept of “natural function”, make sure you do not fall into the trap of assuming that any of the organs have only “ONE” natural function. For example the mouth is naturally used for ingesting nutrients into the body, AND also to emit sounds for both transmitting information (speech) and for pleasure - “singing”. And it can also be used to give and receive considerable physical pleasure. As a different example, the hand can be used to grab something, and also to pound a nail into a wooden plank (after some considerable training, of course ). And it can also to be used - quite naturally! - to caress someone, all the way to give wonderful pleasure. So I suspect that trying to argue what is “natural” and what is “unnatural”, you have a tough nut to crack… but, by all means, go ahead and do it.

If you don’t believe in a designer then please explain what you mean when you talk about a “natural function”.
What are they why do they exist? Do “natural functions” have a purpose or not? Can a purpose exist without a designer?

Of course, an object can have multiple purposes.
To say that an object does not have a purpose is not correct. Any idea of a designer has a purpose. Just playing with an idea, thinking, (even dismissing the idea right away) will lead the designer to another idea.
That’s an evolution.

Everything that we do has a purpose.
Everything in the nature has its purpose.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

All I have to say to OP is this:

Good luck finding a woman (I’m assuming you’re a man) who’s going to agree to substitute oral sex and mutual masturbation for intercourse for the rest of your fertile lives! Have you ever even had intercourse? Oral sex and masterbation can’t hold a candle to it-physically or emotionally!
If my husband suggested what you’re suggesting, even if we weren’t Catholic, I’d probably divorce him!

In Christ,
Ellen