Home - List All Discussions

Take A Pill!

by: Spinwubby

Take a Pill, Guys
Male contraceptive products still "in the works" will eventually help men take a more active role in birth control and family planning.
Jim Williams HealthKey.com contributor
April 16, 2010
Strap in men, we're about to take the time machine back, back, back ... to an era when it was primarily the woman's responsibility for birth control.
OK, you don't have to travel too far back in time when women traditionally shouldered all the physical, emotional and financial responsibilities for pregnancy prevention. Sure, men would sometimes grudgingly wear a condom. Oh, and then there's the "reliable pull out" approach to birth control?reliable in the sense that you could fill Yankee Stadium with the number of kids who've been born as a result of the old "pull-out" method.
Here's the harsh reality, guys: Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In years past, contraceptive options for men have been limited, with the condom being the most popular and efficient male contraceptive. Beyond that, it has been the snip-snip of the vasectomy?a mostly permanent surgical solution.
It's Your Turn, Men
Times, they are "a changing". Men may soon have the option of a daily pill, which can be taken orally, a patch or gel to be applied to the skin, an injection given every three months or an implant placed under the skin every 12 months, according to researchers at the Population Center for Research in Reproduction at the University of Washington in Seattle. Researchers say releasing testosterone over a period of three months is potentially a safe and practical method of contraception.
A research report by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology published in its December 2009 issue of The FASEB Journal backs up that claim. It states that scientists have found how and where androgenic hormones work in the testis to control normal sperm production and male fertility. This opens the door for the development of "the pill" for men, giving guys more control over their fertility and allowing them to play a more active role in family planning.
More Choices
The question has to be asked: Can men truly be responsible for the birth control in a relationship? The "male pill" is certainly a step in the right direction. Women who worry that their male partners won't remember to take a pill every day still have plenty of more options than men. But with current research and study, men might be empowered to make a decision that involves more than just a condom, a snip-snip, or pull-out roulette. And that's worth its weight in pills.
Copyright © 2010, Today's Health Source

reply from: LexIcon

But of course! Chemically turning men into something less than men is the perfect complement to women having chemically turned themselves into something less than women by screwing with their natural hormonal balances! It's only right, not to mention fair, that ALL human beings should have the option of neutering themselves chemically instead of simply abstaining from sexual intercourse on occasion to prevent unwanted/ unintended pregnancies.
The question is, what has been lost by trying to play it "safe?"

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: LexIcon
But of course! Chemically turning men into something less than men is the perfect complement to women having chemically turned themselves into something less than women
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
The active ingedient in the female pill is progesterone. The active ingredient in the male pill is testosterone.
"according to researchers at the Population Center for Research in Reproduction at the University of Washington in Seattle. Researchers say releasing testosterone over a period of three months is potentially a safe and practical method of contraception. "

reply from: Banned Member

No thanks. I prefer the old type of oral contraceptive.

reply from: BossMomma

But of course! Chemically turning men into something less than men is the perfect complement to women having chemically turned themselves into something less than women by screwing with their natural hormonal balances! It's only right, not to mention fair, that ALL human beings should have the option of neutering themselves chemically instead of simply abstaining from sexual intercourse on occasion to prevent unwanted/ unintended pregnancies.
The question is, what has been lost by trying to play it "safe?"
Excuse me? Women responsibly taking contraceptive are less than women? That's bullsh!t, women who prevent pregnancies are far better than those cranking out kids they don't want who wind up abused, handed off or, dead. They are also better than those who crank out babies so they can pin the baby daddy with child support or milk the state for welfare.
Then there are those married couples who don't want kids, why should they abstain? Isn't that the whole point of marriage? So you can screw without some religious ass hole sneering down their nose at you?

reply from: LexIcon

Why yes, that's precisely why God instituted marriage, for entertainment purposes.

reply from: Twink

Why yes, that's precisely why God instituted marriage, for entertainment purposes.
Show that Adam and eve ever had a wedding. In the OT, intercourse made you married, and a marriage must still be "consummated" to be valid. God didn't seem to have a problem with a man having hundreds of wives if he could afford them, and concubines to boot.
So what's up now?

reply from: LexIcon

to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wed
wed (wd)
v. wed·ded, wed or wed·ded, wed·ding, weds
v.tr.
1. To take as a spouse; marry.
2. To perform the marriage ceremony for; join in matrimony.
3. To unite closely: a style that weds form and function.
4. To cause to adhere devotedly or stubbornly: He was wedded to the idea of building a new school.
v.intr.
To take a spouse; marry.
Genesis 2:20-25 But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh...
Genesis 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
Looks like a valid wedding and consummated marriage to me.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/38152

reply from: Spinwubby

One of my faves:
...So here, in support of the Prayer Team's
admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment
codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

reply from: LexIcon

Genesis 38:6-10 (Today's New International Version)
6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Sleep with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (New International Version)
5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9 his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." 10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

reply from: AliG

The male pill is one more way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so I don't understand why any prolifers would be against it.
It looks like abortion is just a small part of the main agenda here. It sounds like the plan is to try to make everyone live by Christian standards whether they are Christians or not. If you think sex is a holy thing or something and that it's wrong to do it for enjoyment while not wanting to have kids, I have no problem with that. Just don't try to tell me I have to live the way you do even though I'm supposedly going to hell anyway. You can't even get most Christians to behave like Christians so it should be a no brainer that you're never going to get non-Christians to follow rules that the people who believe can't even seem to follow.
Maybe some of you need to read that scripture about the plank in your eye. How about the one about he that doesn't sin getting to throw rocks at other people? Worry about the sins you commit then get back to us about ours. It does seem that some people like to talk about the sins other people commit and ignore theirs doesn't it? You can't really expect non-believers to take you seriously like that can you?

reply from: Banned Member

Well.. I think it's a choice then isn't it? Ha!
I just love it when secular non-believers attempt to prove their argumentative points by using scripture against Christians.. lulz Imagine how disingenuous it sounds to me when you use something you don't believe in as one of your proofs.. too rich! epic lulz
Bye, bye Alig

reply from: Shenanigans

Oh, didn't you know? Adam & Eve just bowled on down to the registry office and paid their three fig leaves and two forbidden apples and got themselves the JP to legally wed them. God walked Eve down the isle and the Lion was the best man, the lamb the ring barer.
Then they all high tailed it over to the marquee and had themselves a fine old shin dig, with St. Michael on the bagpipes, Gab on the flute and Ralph doing an awesome drum solo.
A good time was had by all.

reply from: Shenanigans

Contraception is no friend of the pro-lifer.
Depending where you read, 50 - 75% of abortions are done for contraceptive failure.
In fact, 16.9% of women who were aborting, made it clear, they had followed the instruction for their contraceptive perfectly.
Guttmacher Institute. 2008, July. Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States.

reply from: B0zo

It's true that Christians ought to worry about their own sins and not the sins of others.
But you've got some red herrings here.
Who said you would go to hell? I certainly have not said that, and would not say that.
And where did anyone here who was criticizing contraception say that they want laws forbidding it?
But the reason I as a pro-life Christian oppose contraception in principle is because it leads to abortion. Abortion is the perfection of contraception. It is "plan b" for when contraception fails. When sex is looked at as a toy, and when the reproductive aspects of the reproductive act are totally unwanted and all effort is made to frustrate reproduction so that only the "good parts" can be experienced, similar to the person who binges all day and then vomits it up, then the reproductive act is diminished and so is reproduction. The "accidiental" reproduction then becomes a problem instead of a cause of celebration, and we have become so selfish that we value an orgasm over another life, so we kill it.
I blame Christians for setting such a bad example when it comes to contraception. When Christians embraced contraception, some of them also embraced abortion (which naturally follows the contraception mindset), and Christians lost their moral authority and were no longer an example.
Contraception is the evil twin of abortion.
But as immoral as it is, I don't think it should be made illegal, as all morality cannot be legislated--just the big things. Still--it would be good if Christians would at least become good examples and remove contraception from their own lives.

reply from: Banned Member

Bravo B0zo.. Real clear thinking succinctly elucidated.

reply from: Tam

I think there is a huge ethical difference between something that actually prevents fertilization and something that destroyes a zygote after s/he has been conceived. HUGE difference. Every sperm is NOT sacred. But every human life, IS.

reply from: BossMomma

Naturally, 80% of a womans fertilized eggs never implant. No one knows how many have been flushed away during their periods. All BC does is make the womb incapable of implantation thus pregnancy cannot establish. So unless you want to mourn every tampon for fear that it's a zygote's resting place, the pro-life movement has no bearing in it's demonization of birth control.

reply from: Banned Member

Naturally, 80% of a womans fertilized eggs never implant. No one knows how many have been flushed away during their periods. All BC does is make the womb incapable of implantation thus pregnancy cannot establish. So unless you want to mourn every tampon for fear that it's a zygote's resting place, the pro-life movement has no bearing in it's demonization of birth control.
This is a tough argument you present. I know the Catholics are against birth control in their religious doctrine, but I am not convinced that the Catholics have as convincing an argument as you do, Boss.

reply from: Tam

Well, what is the principle behind that argument, though? It seems to me that it's pretty close to the notion that because some women are incapable of caring for their infant children, and infant children die of malnutrition and disease in droves all over the world every day, it should be ok for any woman to starve her infant child if she doesn't feel like feeding him/her.
I'm not saying it's identical to that, just that I'd like to hear the principle behind your belief, and how it differs from whatever principle would support the infanticide example.

reply from: B0zo

The "demonziation" of contraception is not just about whether it causes zygotes to fail to implant, though that is certainly a worthy argument, even if Mother Nature kills some herself. That is not a valid reason for us to do likewise.
The problem with contraception is that it sets the stage for abortion as "plan b" when the contreption fails.
Contraception is seen as "intrinsically evil" because it perverts the marital act. This is primarily Catholic theology, though I suspect some other Christian sects and other religions would agree. But I don't think there is much, if any, emphasis to make contraception illegal, except pills and devices which act as abortifacients.

reply from: BossMomma

So in essence, any boinking between hubby and wifey that doesn't result in pregnancy is evil? I guess infirtile couples shouldn't marry and have sex, oh wait! The catholic church already opposes the marrying of infertile couples.

reply from: Banned Member

So in essence, any boinking between hubby and wifey that doesn't result in pregnancy is evil? I guess infirtile couples shouldn't marry and have sex, oh wait! The catholic church already opposes the marrying of infertile couples.
Is this true? Augustine, B0zo.. anyone..

reply from: BossMomma

So in essence, any boinking between hubby and wifey that doesn't result in pregnancy is evil? I guess infirtile couples shouldn't marry and have sex, oh wait! The catholic church already opposes the marrying of infertile couples.
Is this true? Augustine, B0zo.. anyone..
I've heard of the Catholic church refusing to marry infertile couples on the basis that they cannot be fruitful and multiply. Sounds like Catholic eugenics to me.
"In Catholicism, the "primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children" and the secondary ends are "mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act [i.e., natural sexual intercourse open to the possibility of pregnancy] is preserved." Hence "entering marriage with the intention of never having children is a grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment." It is normal procedure for a priest to ask the prospective bride and groom about their plans to have children before officiating at their wedding. The Catholic Church may refuse to marry anyone unwilling to have children, since procreation by "the marriage act" is a fundamental part of marriage. Thus usage of any form of contraception, in vitro fertilization, or birth control besides Natural Family Planning is a grave offense against the sanctity of marriage and ultimately against God."
Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_marriage

reply from: Spinwubby

No Church wedding for impotent man
Published: June 12, 2008
An Italian bishop has informed a paraplegic young man that he cannot marry in the Church because he is impotent even though his fiancee is fully aware of his disability.
AFP reports that Salvatore de Ciuco, spokesman for Bishop Lorenzo Chiarinelli of Viterbo in central Italy, told SkyTG24 television that "no bishop, no priest can celebrate a wedding when he knows of admitted impotence as it is a motive for annulment" of the marriage.
The 26 year old groom, who took part in a civil marriage ceremony on Saturday in Viterbo, has been paraplegic since he was involved in a car accident. The curate of the parish who was banned from marrying the couple was present at the ceremony.
Canon 1084.1 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states that "antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage."
However, Canon 1084.2 adds that "if the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null."

reply from: B0zo

Not every marital act performed results in conception, and that is not considered to be evil, and those who say that the Church says it is, grossly misrepresent the Church. It's a ridiculous and malicious attack, but expected. One thing that seems to unite many here is hatred of the Catholic Church.
It is also untrue that an infertile couple may not marry, or that an infertile married couple may not have sexual intercourse.
It is also untrue that the Pope is the Antichrist.

reply from: B0zo

Where did you hear this?
Do you have any links to your sources, or are you just repeating (or orginating) gossip?
I heard that Catholics worship statues, but found it to be untrue when I bacame a Catholic.

reply from: Shenanigans

So in essence, any boinking between hubby and wifey that doesn't result in pregnancy is evil? I guess infirtile couples shouldn't marry and have sex, oh wait! The catholic church already opposes the marrying of infertile couples.
Is this true? Augustine, B0zo.. anyone..
Marriage, to be moral, must be procreative and unitive.
Pope Paul VI stated in"Humanae Vitae" stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (No. 11). This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact" ("Humanae Vitae," No. 12).
The reason NFP is a-okayed by the Church is it does not disrupt the natural flow of things, there are no artifical means used to prevent pregnancy, and since pregnancy is still a possibility, albeit very slim, when one correctly uses NFP, it is not gravely disordered.
A marriage must be open to life. Artificial contraception introduces a barrier between husband and wife, and thus, pollute the marriage act into one based on selfishness and lust.
People are free to disagree.

reply from: Banned Member

I once read that the practice of encouraging Catholics to procreate was part of a secret Vatican plan to create as many Catholic followers as possible and the fact that there is scripture that can be used to support this plan is a very fortunate convenience for the implementation of this dictate.
I love my Catholic friends and don't mean to challenge or offend anyone here, but I've often thought about this since reading it.
Rebuttals please.

reply from: B0zo

Any cynical statement about the Catholic Church can make some sense if you're convinced it is of men and not of God.
Though a married practicing Catholic may not use contraception, a couple may have times of abstinence, and might even agree to live as brother and sister, and the Church would not frown on that, but would applaud it, and would not be angry they were no longer making more Catholics.

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, it would be self-defeatiest to not want more members of a faith, now wouldn't it? Regardless, there are close to 1.5 billion Catholics world wide, we are the largest Christian faith, Christians making up 2.1 billion people.
And I do find it rather disheartening from a Christian persepective that the other Christian faiths can't get their acts together and keep cleaving off into other sects. Look at the crisis of doctrine that is happening in the Anglican church at present.
However, general stats show Islam close behind at 1.5 billion followers, and Muslims are increasing in number whereas Christians are declining. Apparently, Catholic numbers are always stagnant, we don't increase or decrease significantly.
There are also 1.1 billion Secular/agnostics/atheists on the planet too.
However, Lefty, we are not a faith that is free from attack, especially now given some of the other debacles going on.
As for scriptural backing, well, its kind of ironic to accuse the Catholics as using the bible for our doctrine, giving we often get in trouble for not taking it literally!
I for one, would like to hear why Protestant sects are embracing contraception, especially since up until the 1930s they shared the same view as the Catholic Church. How come after almost 1000 years or so they decide to up and change their minds? I beleive it was at the Seventh Lambeth Conference that the Anglicans decided to change their opinion on contraception, and please excuse me for sayign so, but look at the damn mess the Anglicans are in now, their church is spliting right down the middle with issues like gay marriage, gay ordination, women priests et al.
The acceptance of such contraception has lead for many Christian churches to be accepting, or at least apathetic towards abortion. How else could Tiller find himself a church, or a group like the Religious Coalition for Choice suddenly appear? Of course, there is that ignorant group catholics For A Free Choice, but everyone and their nana knows that group is peddlign BS and that the Catholic Church has remained constant on the immoral nature of abortion.
I've mentioned this before, a few years ago I read an editatorial commenting on an article written by a self-professed liberal Christian female minister. She was discussing the importance of family limitation and ensuring her two children would grow up in a world where they would have plenty and a world that would not be damaged by over population, they would govern a clean world where people had enough. The editaorial then went onto mention how a 67 year old woman, with 20 children, 50 grand children, and 10 great grand children (or equally high numbers, I forget which) blew herself up at an Israeli check point - a Muslim suicide bomber. The editatorial went onto finish, who does the Christiain minster think is going to inherit the earth, her two christian liberal children, or the Muslim suicide bomber's 20?
Of course, that's a side note, artificial contraception still remains gravely disordered and shoudl not be present within a Godly marriage.

reply from: B0zo

Thoug of course it would not be a sin to use a condom as a water balloon.

reply from: Shenanigans

Thoug of course it would not be a sin to use a condom as a water balloon.
Its best if you fill them with pudding.
Rancid pudding.
Rancid pudding made with spolit chicken blood.

reply from: BossMomma

We posted proof to the contrary, the only reason the Catholic church values marriage is for the purpose of reproducing, infertile or child-free-by choice need not apply. Where is your proof to the contrary?

reply from: BossMomma

So in essence, any boinking between hubby and wifey that doesn't result in pregnancy is evil? I guess infirtile couples shouldn't marry and have sex, oh wait! The catholic church already opposes the marrying of infertile couples.
Is this true? Augustine, B0zo.. anyone..
Marriage, to be moral, must be procreative and unitive.
Pope Paul VI stated in"Humanae Vitae" stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (No. 11). This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact" ("Humanae Vitae," No. 12).
The reason NFP is a-okayed by the Church is it does not disrupt the natural flow of things, there are no artifical means used to prevent pregnancy, and since pregnancy is still a possibility, albeit very slim, when one correctly uses NFP, it is not gravely disordered.
A marriage must be open to life. Artificial contraception introduces a barrier between husband and wife, and thus, pollute the marriage act into one based on selfishness and lust.
People are free to disagree.
Exactly, if you can't crank out babies the old fashioned way the church wont marry you, horribly judgemental considering that these infertile couples can adopt children who need homes.

reply from: B0zo

We posted proof to the contrary, the only reason the Catholic church values marriage is for the purpose of reproducing, infertile or child-free-by choice need not apply. Where is your proof to the contrary?
Impotency is not infertility.
And where is your proof that the Church considers marital acts that do not produce babies to be "evil acts"?
You're just a Catholic Church basher.
You repeat gossip and make up your own, and don't really care about the truth.
Infertile couples may marry, and married couples who were once fertile but are no longer, may continue to be married and may continue to have sexual relations.
You will often see a widow and a widower be married in the Catholic Church--sometimes old buggers in their 80's and they are validly married, so your assertion is a crock of horse manure, as is most of the anti-Catholic hatespeech that passes as "fact."

reply from: Banned Member

Thanks Shenanigans and B0zo for taking your valuable time to respond. Peace and love.

reply from: B0zo

You're welcome.
May the Force be with you.
PS I appreciate that you asked your questions in good faith, without presuming and wanting to believe the worst. As a Catholic, I don't mind if others don't want to be Catholic, and I don't mind criticism all that much, though I don't go out of my way to criticize other faiths, and don't see the point of it, but I DO mind when others out of ignorance or malice crticize what is untrue or grossly distorted.

reply from: BossMomma

We posted proof to the contrary, the only reason the Catholic church values marriage is for the purpose of reproducing, infertile or child-free-by choice need not apply. Where is your proof to the contrary?
Impotency is not infertility.
And where is your proof that the Church considers marital acts that do not produce babies to be "evil acts"?
You're just a Catholic Church basher.
You repeat gossip and make up your own, and don't really care about the truth.
Infertile couples may marry, and married couples who were once fertile but are no longer, may continue to be married and may continue to have sexual relations.
You will often see a widow and a widower be married in the Catholic Church--sometimes old buggers in their 80's and they are validly married, so your assertion is a crock of horse manure, as is most of the anti-Catholic hatespeech that passes as "fact."
Wow, you're spewing insults and my posts with sources to back them up are hate speech? You've got the pope's pointy hat shoved so far up your ass I'm sure the tip is tickling your tonsils.
The catholic church is responsible for nearly as much murder, bloodshed, rape and, pedophilia as the Islamic nation. Islamic fathers believe in giving their pre-pubesent daughters in marriage and the Catholics have no problem molesting children of the church.
The only thing the Pope sees his congregation is breed stock, they don't go out and try to gain members by talking to people or doing good deeds in Christs name, instead they breed cradle catholics, brain wash them into thinking the catholic way is the best way and make them slaves to the church, not to God. Half of what you believe cannot be found in any bible because it isn't there, it was written by man and misrepresented as the word of the almighty.
Your little shpeal contained so much utter bull crap I'm pretty sure I could fertilize my garden with it. There's your damn hate speech.

reply from: BossMomma

So in essence, any boinking between hubby and wifey that doesn't result in pregnancy is evil? I guess infirtile couples shouldn't marry and have sex, oh wait! The catholic church already opposes the marrying of infertile couples.
Is this true? Augustine, B0zo.. anyone..
Marriage, to be moral, must be procreative and unitive.
Pope Paul VI stated in"Humanae Vitae" stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (No. 11). This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact" ("Humanae Vitae," No. 12).
The reason NFP is a-okayed by the Church is it does not disrupt the natural flow of things, there are no artifical means used to prevent pregnancy, and since pregnancy is still a possibility, albeit very slim, when one correctly uses NFP, it is not gravely disordered.
A marriage must be open to life. Artificial contraception introduces a barrier between husband and wife, and thus, pollute the marriage act into one based on selfishness and lust.
People are free to disagree.
How does it pollute the marriage? I thought what a husband and wife did in the marriage bed was holy?
Proverbs 5:18-19 ESV
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.
Sounds to me like God is saying " Hey, you married a hot chick, get jiggy wid it!"

reply from: B0zo

So you will let your misrepresentation stand then?
You still assert that the Catholic Church says that having intorcourse that does not result in conceptin is "evil" and that infertile (or sterile) couples may not marry, even though I've demonstrated the opposite to be true?
Your hatred runs deep.

reply from: BossMomma

Hatred? I'd have to care about something to hate it. I don't care about catholisism, or the pope or, any of your contrived latin texts. I care about being called a liar and a hater after I post proof of my assertions and being called a hater even after other catholics have posted proof to back me up. The catholic church considers marital sex that is not open to having children immoral and thus evil. Get over yourself.

reply from: B0zo

Hatred? I'd have to care about something to hate it. I don't care about catholisism, or the pope or, any of your contrived latin texts. I care about being called a liar and a hater after I post proof of my assertions and being called a hater even after other catholics have posted proof to back me up. The catholic church considers marital sex that is not open to having children immoral and thus evil. Get over yourself.
You said that the Catholic Church says that if someone has sex and it does not result in a pregnancy that the Church says it is "evil," which is not only incorrect, but ridiculous, since it would be impossible to conceive with every act of intercourse.
You also stated that the Catholic Church forbids infertile couples from marrying, which is also incorrect.
I will not say these are "lies" unless you persist to repeat these errors in the face of the truth to the contrary, which was clearly demonstrated.
And no Catholic here backed up your assertion that the Church forbids sterile couples from marrying (and if they did they were in error). That is totally bogus, and I cited Canon law to the contrary.

reply from: BossMomma

Hatred? I'd have to care about something to hate it. I don't care about catholisism, or the pope or, any of your contrived latin texts. I care about being called a liar and a hater after I post proof of my assertions and being called a hater even after other catholics have posted proof to back me up. The catholic church considers marital sex that is not open to having children immoral and thus evil. Get over yourself.
You said that the Catholic Church says that if someone has sex and it does not result in a preganancy that the Church says it is "evil," which is not only incorrect, but ridiculous, since it would be impossible to conceive with every act of interourse.
You also stated that the Catolic Church forbids infertile couplse from marrying, which is also incorrect.
I will not say these are "lies" unless you persist to repeat these errors in the face of the truth that was clearly demonstrated.
You know bozo, I find it funny that everything posted by SpinWubby and even Shenanigans has agreed with me. All three of us have posted the humanae vitae or whatever it's called that states marriage is meant for procreation, not love, not companionship but expressly procreation. I stated the catholic church will not marry infertile couples and, I posted proof of it.
"In Catholicism, the "primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children" and the secondary ends are "mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act [i.e., natural sexual intercourse open to the possibility of pregnancy] is preserved." Hence "entering marriage with the intention of never having children is a grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment." It is normal procedure for a priest to ask the prospective bride and groom about their plans to have children before officiating at their wedding. The Catholic Church may refuse to marry anyone unwilling to have children, since procreation by "the marriage act" is a fundamental part of marriage. Thus usage of any form of contraception, in vitro fertilization, or birth control besides Natural Family Planning is a grave offense against the sanctity of marriage and ultimately against God."Source and further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_marriage

There you have it, no kids, no marriage, no boinking. Feel free to put some ketchup on your foot, might make it taste better when you insert it into your mouth.

reply from: B0zo

I cited CANNON LAW that states that there is no prohibition for infertile couples to marry, and you did not cite any valid proof to the contrary. That is what the Church says. That's the CHURCH LAW, so that's the end of the discussion.
I have seen in my own Church older couples who are obviously infertile married, and I know for a fact that infertility does not prevent a couple from being married in the Church, and none of your quotes (which you don't undersand and have badly misinterpreted) from papal encyclicals contradicts this.
Being sterile is not the same as using contraception.
And being sterile is not the same as being impotent.

reply from: Shenanigans

Yes, you are right. Our Church has sinned, why? Because the flesh is weak, and at times in our history our leaders erred wrongly.
Just like every other human insititution, nation and group in history.
Come on now, Boss, you're making me wonder if FM has hacked your account. The Catholic Church does NOT condone molestation of children. What happened with a few dodgey priests was beyond tragic, but by no means sanctioned by the Church. What happened was a bunch of Bishops were confused and unable to deal with this, and so covered it up. They acted wrongly, but we're talking about a relatively different time and a different mindset.
Unless of course, you have some insider knowledge the rest of us don't, perhaps, since you know so much abotu Catholic doctrine you could site where paedophilia has been sanctioned.
So you're an expert in Catholic missionary technquies now?
And if you're so sure what Catholics believe is not in the bible, why not post a few of "BS" you think is non-bibical and I'm sure myself, or Bozo or one of the other Catholics on board will answer it for you.
You'd be surprised how Bibically sound our teachings are.
Careful now, your hatred is starting to show.

reply from: Shenanigans

From the CCC:
1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.
Which leads to:
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
--
In other words, a barrier method or chemical contraception closes the marriage bond to life, and places a barrier between the spouses, it turns an act of love into an act of lust as there is not full committement nor full openeness between the spouses.
Yeah, but where exactly did He say "use contraception, place a barrier between yourself and your wife, close your marriage to both fullness of giving and to the act of life?"
In Genesis 1:28 we hear about the mischeif Onan got up too, while this passage is also used in argument against "auditioning the finger puppets", and Onan didn't fullfil his duty, it also shows God's not to happy about contraception, as Onan's purpose for "spilling his speed" was to prevent pregnancy.
What did God do to Onan? He smote him, and He smoted him big time.
Now, the Church does not go on to say "have as many children as you possibly can" the Church acknowledges that a family may have serious reasons to limit or space children, and the Church allows its members to determine for themselves what consititutes "serious", however, it is expected to be decided upon by a well informed and moral conscience, AND must be reasonable. It cannot be something like the couple want to take a holiday to Hawaii next summer, things like serious health issues, probable pregnancy risk complications or fiscal hardship are acceptable.
However, it is the means by which a husband and wife limit their families that is the concern. NFP works with the bodies of the couple and is still open to life, artificial means do not.

reply from: Shenanigans

Procreative AND UNITIVE.
So it means, the purpose of marriage is two fold, to procreate (or be open to the possibility of procreation) and to unite the married couple, through the sacrifices and joys that is marriage.
You're using Wiki?
If your'e going to cite Cannon law, at least go to the source, the Vatican has a website, you can find teh Catechism online.
As for the infertile being allowed or not allowed to marry, from my experience it depends on how the priest/bishop is interpting it. My brother's friend's dad is in a wheelchair, he'd been in one since he was a child after falling off a tractor and it was believed he was sterile. Well, he got married in the Catholic church and has three kids.
Whereas, I have heard of cases whereby people without a uterus or testicles are nto allowed to wed. It all depends on the clergy involved as to how they view the teaching. A case I heard recently where a woman had no uterus, was banned from being married, was then allowed to be married by a Bishop after her parish priest said no.

reply from: B0zo

Individuals within the Church have sinned, and sadly sometimes in high places, but the Church herself has never sinned, since it is the Body of Christ.
Agreed, but what I don't understand is why she would go out of her way to slam and mock another religion.
She says she doesn't care enough to hate it, but she's sure doing a good job of at least fooling me that she does.
I haven't heard such nastiness against our faith on this forum, except a few comments from faithman.
To sum up Catholic teaching so that there are no more misconceptions:
Sexual activity is to be restricted to a valid marriage between a man and a woman.
Contraception is forbidden.
Not every sex act causes a pregnancy, and it is not a sin when that happens, and in fact the Church allows for married couples to have sexual relations during known infertile times, and to abstain during fertile times.
If a married couple becomes infertile they may continue having sexual relations.
If an unmarried couple is infertile and it is known they are infertile, they are permitted to marry.
A couple may not marry if one or both are impotent, and it is clear that the marriage cannot be consumated, and if they were to marry anyway, such impotence would be grounds for an annulment. (Impotence is not sterility).
These are rules for Catholics. Nobody outside the Church is bound by our rules and they don't have to obey them.
Nobody who doesn't want to be a Catholic has to become or remain one.
You don't have to like what we believe, and you are free to criticize it, though most Catholics I know do not criticize, mock, or say hateful things about other faiths, as they strive to see the good and the true in other religions.
But I get pissy when when a Catholic teaching is distorted or fabricated, and then the distortion or falsehood is criticized or mocked.

reply from: BossMomma

Procreative AND UNITIVE.
So it means, the purpose of marriage is two fold, to procreate (or be open to the possibility of procreation) and to unite the married couple, through the sacrifices and joys that is marriage.
You're using Wiki?
If your'e going to cite Cannon law, at least go to the source, the Vatican has a website, you can find teh Catechism online.
As for the infertile being allowed or not allowed to marry, from my experience it depends on how the priest/bishop is interpting it. My brother's friend's dad is in a wheelchair, he'd been in one since he was a child after falling off a tractor and it was believed he was sterile. Well, he got married in the Catholic church and has three kids.
Whereas, I have heard of cases whereby people without a uterus or testicles are nto allowed to wed. It all depends on the clergy involved as to how they view the teaching. A case I heard recently where a woman had no uterus, was banned from being married, was then allowed to be married by a Bishop after her parish priest said no.
First, I didn't know wtf cannon law was, I'm not catholic and don't exactly make it a point to study all the nuances of your religion. Secondly, I don't see how using Wiki is wrong when you're backing it up.

reply from: BossMomma

From the CCC:
1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.
Which leads to:
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
--
In other words, a barrier method or chemical contraception closes the marriage bond to life, and places a barrier between the spouses, it turns an act of love into an act of lust as there is not full committement nor full openeness between the spouses.
Yeah, but where exactly did He say "use contraception, place a barrier between yourself and your wife, close your marriage to both fullness of giving and to the act of life?"
In Genesis 1:28 we hear about the mischeif Onan got up too, while this passage is also used in argument against "auditioning the finger puppets", and Onan didn't fullfil his duty, it also shows God's not to happy about contraception, as Onan's purpose for "spilling his speed" was to prevent pregnancy.
What did God do to Onan? He smote him, and He smoted him big time.
Now, the Church does not go on to say "have as many children as you possibly can" the Church acknowledges that a family may have serious reasons to limit or space children, and the Church allows its members to determine for themselves what consititutes "serious", however, it is expected to be decided upon by a well informed and moral conscience, AND must be reasonable. It cannot be something like the couple want to take a holiday to Hawaii next summer, things like serious health issues, probable pregnancy risk complications or fiscal hardship are acceptable.
However, it is the means by which a husband and wife limit their families that is the concern. NFP works with the bodies of the couple and is still open to life, artificial means do not.
Onan didn't wanna do his duty and give his brother a child, completely different then not wanting kids at all. Onan was being used as a stud dog for his dead brother and understandibly he didn't appreciate it, having to screw and knock up his sister in law. For that he got punished. There are many happy, loving families who use contraception and feel no barrier between themself and their spouse.

reply from: Shenanigans

And why didn't he want to do his duty? Because the children he would sire would not be technically his, so he wanted to avoid those children, thus, avoid pregnancy, thus he splilt his seed, which both spat in the face of his duty AND was the use of "contraception".
Things can mean two things, you know.
And there are people who feel no problem having abortions.
It is easy for some to pollute the natural course of things and not carry remorse.

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, perhaps, and don't take this the wrong way, if you wish to spout your ramblings about the negative, or what you percieve as the negative aspects of the Catholic faith, you should perhaps investigate our laws and doctrines. It enables you to correctly refute or place argument against the Church's teachigns.
Deeper investigation into such would yeild you a better understanding of Truth.
Because Wiki is misrepresenting it.
Lays an implication that the most important aspect of a marriage is reproduction. This is not true. Procreation and the culitivation of love between the spouses are of equal standing.
Angelus address on July 17, 1994, Pope John Paul II restated the Church's position:
"Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so.
Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child.
Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference."

reply from: B0zo

They're entitled to that belief as are you.
And you're entitled to criticize and/or mock any religion you please, including Catholicism, though most Catholics would not do the same to you regarding your religion, or even if you have no religion.
But it would be nice that if you must criticize, you do so with facts and a clear understanding of what and why you are criticizing.

reply from: BossMomma

And why didn't he want to do his duty? Because the children he would sire would not be technically his, so he wanted to avoid those children, thus, avoid pregnancy, thus he splilt his seed, which both spat in the face of his duty AND was the use of "contraception".
Things can mean two things, you know.
And there are people who feel no problem having abortions.
It is easy for some to pollute the natural course of things and not carry remorse.
Yeah and I'm willing to bet a decent percentage of those are Catholics and other denominations who hold the " every abortion but my abortion" mind set. A good hormonal contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy which at least in my opinion is better than that good "christian woman" having her unwanted baby vacuumed out of her cooch. You can't have it all, not everyone is gunna stoop to catholicism and just crank out babies in that idiotic quiverful mentality, these days it's simply not practical.
So, you can either take away abortion which murders a child or, you can take away the very drug that would prevent unwanted children from ever being concieved, that which has not been concieved does not even exist and cannot be killed, abused, abandoned or, exploited. That which was never concieved cannot suffer the agony of knowing they were born of a horrible crime upon their mother, that which was never concieved can never know the pain of having an entire family turn their back.
You think contraception is evil? I say that maybe if my mom was using it I wouldn't have suffered 24 years of physical, psychological and, sexual abuse. I'm done with this f@#king conversation. I don't hate you or your holier than thou faith, I'm asking you to look outside that narrow corridor you live in.

reply from: PCmom

From out in the interwebz:
The Center of Disease Control and Prevention 2002 National Survey of Family Growth revealed that 97% of American Catholic women over age 18 have used a banned form of contraception, which is the same percentage as the general population. A 2005 nationwide poll of 2,242 U.S. adults by Harris Interactive showed that 90% of Catholics supported the use of birth control. Usage of modern contraceptive methods is also high in many predominantly Catholic countries: 67% of married women of child-bearing age in Spain, 69% in France, 60% in Mexico, and 70% in Brazil.

reply from: BossMomma

What's the catholic abortion rate?

reply from: BossMomma

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data, non-Hispanic Catholic women of childbearing age are 29% more likely than their Protestant counterparts to have abortions . The rate is even higher--33%--if Hispanics are factored in. Another way of looking at it: while Protestant women make up about 54% of the population, they account for only 37% of the abortions. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions.

reply from: B0zo

Would these be practicing Catholics who go to Mass every week, or "cultural" Catholics who appropriate the name, but don't practice their religion?
Not that I dispute many Catholics have sinned (or continue to sin) in some way.
What was the point of your post?

reply from: B0zo

Did they say how they define Protestant and Catholic?
Many people check a box on their employment forms or whatever other form according to the religion they were born into, though they haven't set foot in a church in years.
This would not be good evidence for further Catholic-bashing unless you can demonstrate that those Catholics surveyed were practicing Catholics who accepted the teachings of the Catholic Church. (And does not change your false statement, which you have not withdrawn in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that sterile couples may not marry according to Catholic doctrine).
And don't forget who Guttmacher works for, and which Church is the most outspoken against abortion. Could it be they have an ax to grind?
And note they deceptively excluded poor Hispanic women in the first part, but included them for their overall finding in the last part.

reply from: Tam

I think being Catholic is like being Jewish or being Mormon, and NOT like being Protestant. If you're born Mormon, you're ALWAYS Mormon. If you leave the church, you're a "jack Mormon," but you're still a Mormon. If you are born Jewish, you stay Jewish all your life, but you can be a practicing or non-practicing Jew. If you're born into a Catholic family, you're Catholic and you stay Catholic all your life, whether or not you practice Catholicism.
This is not 100 percent true, of course. There are those who so emphatically reject the religion of their birth that no one would identify them as Catholic, or Jewish, or Mormon. But when a Presbyterian rejects the faith, no one considers him/her to be a Presbyterian anymore. You're not a Nazarene for life, or a Baptist, or a Congregationalist. People switch around from one Protestant denomination to another regularly, as well. When asked about your religion, if you're an atheist born into a Protestant family, you say "athiest." When asked as an athiest born into a Catholic family, you say "Catholic."
Anyway, it's definitely not 100 percent true, but it's got enough practical reality to it to be a factor in this statistic, I'd say.

reply from: B0zo

Over half the people who call themselves Catholic do not practice the faith. They are "cultural Catholics."
If we were to see the abortion rate among practicing Catholics, I have no doubt it would be very small, but that would not serve well the bigots who look for reasons to slam the Catholic Church.
I would like to know how they came up with their figures. I'm already somewhat suspicious of this data since the percentage or registered Catholics in the US is less than 25%, and not 31%.

reply from: CP

Did they say how they define Protestant and Catholic?
Many people check a box on their employment forms or whatever other form according to the religion they were born into, though they haven't set foot in a church in years.
This would not be good evidence for further Catholic-bashing unless you can demonstrate that those Catholics surveyed were practicing Catholics who accepted the teachings of the Catholic Church. (And does not change your false statement, which you have not withdrawn in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that sterile couples may not marry according to Catholic doctrine).
And don't forget who Guttmacher works for, and which Church is the most outspoken against abortion. Could it be they have an ax to grind?
And note they deceptively excluded poor Hispanic women in the first part, but included them for their overall finding in the last part.
I was under the impression that the followers of Christ are the church (not a building or group of "leaders"). Of course, it has been my experience that very few "believers" actually "follow Christ," and the Bible even foretold this sad inevitability, did it not?

reply from: B0zo

The Church, as I understand it as a Catholic, are those individuals baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Baptism brings the soul into the Church, but the Church is not devoid of leadership and there is a hierarchy of "leaders," who administer the Sacraments. So there is most definately a structure, and the Holy Scriptures, as important as they are, are not the basis of the Church, but they (The New Testament) came from within the Church.
Not everyone who received this gift appreciates it, and often reject it and go the way of "the world." That's a sad reality, but some (perhaps most) need to learn some things the hard way, and they eventually return. So you will find many who call themselves Christians doing bad things, especially those who have fallen away from practicing their faith. But there are many good people who are Christians who do behave themselves. And many struggle with sins, but are striving to do better and struggle to free themselves of their vices and sins.
There are many who are totally apathetic to thier faith, and have for the most parts turned their backs on it, but still identify with "Catholic" or "Baptist" or "Presbyterian," etc., and those are the ones who skew the polls that show Christian support of abortion. Technically, they are still Christian, but they are not practicing their faith, and I think a distinction should be made between those who do and believe and those who do not (or do not care).
But practicing or not, we are all sinners, and the Church is our hospital.

reply from: rsg007

Except that everyone is born atheist--we are taught to believe in god by parents, society, whatever. So I don't quite see your point here.

reply from: B0zo

Nobody is born an atheist, since that would require a rejection of the idea of a god, and that's more than an ignorance of a god.

reply from: Shenanigans

Of course. I think something like 27% of women who are aborting cite their faith as Catholic, and 45% or something are Protestant.
But there are NO moral abortions and NO abortion is justified. Those women are probably at greater risk of eternal woe given they should know better.
And? We're supposed to verge from the truth because people find it impractical?
Of course, I have provided Canon citation that states such fertility on over drive is not required nor sanctioned.
No contraception will ever be 100%, bar sterilisation, and tubals are 0.2% failure and vasectomies 0.002% failure rate.
The Pill is about 95-98% depending where you read, and NFP is 95 - 100% effective, again depending where you read.
50 - 75% of women who are seeking abortions are doing so beause of contraceptive failure. 17% claim they were using their method of contraception perfectly.
The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to encourage people to defer having sex till their married or at least in a position where they're willing to carry said pregnancy or place child for adoption.
Everything doesn't have to be about sex and killing.
Some people argue the same with abortion, that better to kill that "mindless blob", that is "unable to know agony".
Your mother could have aborted you. You wouldn't have known the horrible abuse then either.
And it sounds like your mother was the problem, not your conception.
Of course you are. Heaven forbid you stick around and try and learn something that could change your mindset.
And yeah, the truth is always narrow.

reply from: Shenanigans

Then said "catholics" are in dire need of an education regarding the faith they claim to adhere to.

reply from: Shenanigans

Did they say how they define Protestant and Catholic?
Many people check a box on their employment forms or whatever other form according to the religion they were born into, though they haven't set foot in a church in years.
This would not be good evidence for further Catholic-bashing unless you can demonstrate that those Catholics surveyed were practicing Catholics who accepted the teachings of the Catholic Church. (And does not change your false statement, which you have not withdrawn in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that sterile couples may not marry according to Catholic doctrine).
And don't forget who Guttmacher works for, and which Church is the most outspoken against abortion. Could it be they have an ax to grind?
And note they deceptively excluded poor Hispanic women in the first part, but included them for their overall finding in the last part.
I doubt everyone is this twisted, but I know an atheist woman who's had a few abortions, and as a "joke" (she said) she checked the catholic box on the admission form.
She did it, she said, to make the Catholics look bad. And that she was thought was rather amusing.

reply from: B0zo

I chose Catholicism as my religion. I looked in the other corridors, and found Catholicism to be true.
And you didn't "ask" anyone to look outside anywhere--not nicely--you made many mean and snotty comments about a faith that is sacred to many on this forum, and even in your abandonment of the discussion, you are insulting, and cannot not be at all gracious.
And do you still assert that the Catholic Church forbids sterile couples from marrying? If so, you are a liar or are willfully ignorant, since your error has been exposed by an authoritative source.

reply from: rsg007

No, "atheist" simply means the absence of a belief in god: The prefix "a-" means "not" (as in "atypical," meaning "not typical") and "theist" means "believing in god."
"Rejecting" god has nothing to do with it. People who were once religious and have indeed rejected god are still called atheists because of their lack of a belief in god.
So I repeat, everyone is an atheist at birth, i.e., everyone has a lack of a belief in god at birth.

reply from: Banned Member

No, "atheist" simply means the absence of a belief in god: The prefix "a-" means "not" (as in "atypical," meaning "not typical") and "theist" means "believing in god."
"Rejecting" god has nothing to do with it. People who were once religious and have indeed rejected god are still called atheists because of their lack of a belief in god.
So I repeat, everyone is an atheist at birth, i.e., everyone has a lack of a belief in god at birth.
I'm not sure that absolute ignorance is equivalent to a lack of belief. A new born is not a non-believer in anything. They are just blank.

reply from: B0zo

No, "atheist" simply means the absence of a belief in god: The prefix "a-" means "not" (as in "atypical," meaning "not typical") and "theist" means "believing in god."
"Rejecting" god has nothing to do with it. People who were once religious and have indeed rejected god are still called atheists because of their lack of a belief in god.
So I repeat, everyone is an atheist at birth, i.e., everyone has a lack of a belief in god at birth.
Some would define atheism as a denial of the existence of god, but your definition is valid.
But from a Christian perspective, one is not an atheist after baptism, even if baptized as a baby.

reply from: Ana

No, "atheist" simply means the absence of a belief in god: The prefix "a-" means "not" (as in "atypical," meaning "not typical") and "theist" means "believing in god."
"Rejecting" god has nothing to do with it. People who were once religious and have indeed rejected god are still called atheists because of their lack of a belief in god.
So I repeat, everyone is an atheist at birth, i.e., everyone has a lack of a belief in god at birth.
Some would define atheism as a denial of the existence of god, but your definition is valid.
But from a Christian perspective, one is not an atheist after baptism, even if baptized as a baby.
Bozo, it depends. I am Messianic. We don't believe in infant baptism, as we believe the decision to follow Christ must be a conscience one, which an infant is obviously unable to do. However, because of their age and innocence, they will be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven regardless.

reply from: Shenanigans

I've always wondered about this, is there a particular age where a child is considered intelligent enough to make that conscious decision? Or is it individual? If a 5 year old is aware of God and refuses Him and they die will they go to Hell yet their 12 year old cousin who might have a learnign disability be unable to fully comprehend God and thus they are exempt from the same condition?
What if a child is raised to be an atheist, and dies at the age of 8, would that child go to Hell simply because they believed what their parents taught them? What if the child was 12, 15, 18? Can an 18 year old, raised by atheists, be exempt?
I've met others of this mindset, that we must consciously choose God who have told me, up front, that aborted foetuses, SIDS babies and any other young child all go to Hell unless they've choosen God, and since an aborted foetus or a baby can't consciously choose God, then all babies and foetuses who die will go to Hell?
To be honest, I find the concept of babies and aborted foetuses in Hell because they couldn't consciously choose God to be repugnant.

reply from: Banned Member

I suspect this is why many faiths believe in baptism shortly after birth. This circumvents many of these ethical and technical issues. I was baptized at the age of 15, as a Baptist, after a short catechism. We too believe that it must be a conscious decision in order for it to have significance.

reply from: Ana

Shenanigans,
It depends on the age and circumstance of the person. Only God knows where the exact lines are drawn, but I know He is a fair and just God.
My opinions though?
The 8 y/o with atheist parents, safe.
The 5 y/o? Doubtful they have a full understanding of Christ's sacrifice, so safe.
Someone with a severe mental disability? Also safe. I fully believe that people who are at risk are those who make an active push at rejecting God. My mother would have told you I was saved as a teen and turned away from God. I know better... I was never saved. It wasn't until I activly started to pursue Him that I received my salvation. The same is in the reverse... you have to actively deny God to risk salvation, and how that happens is dependant on your own age, understanding and circumstance.
In my humble opinion.

reply from: B0zo

Article about infant baptism from the Catholic perspectiv:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

reply from: Tam

Except that everyone is born atheist--we are taught to believe in god by parents, society, whatever. So I don't quite see your point here.
really? you really, truly don't see my point? my point is about the statistics about abortion rates in various religions. since newborns don't HAVE abortions, what on earth are you talking about?

reply from: Banned Member

My name is Daman Lazar I am the owner of Ambulatory Surgery Center of Brooklyn at 313 43rd Street in Brooklyn, NY. Ofc # 718-878-4462 Toll Free # 877-842-7430. Cell # 516-680-9416.
The main function of my clinic is abortion. I like it.
Call me and tell me what you think about it. I love to talk about it on the phone.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics