Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Sound of Trumpet
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
Posted on 03/19/2007 5:46:55 AM PDT by markomalley
The recent debate over contraception between Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of
Human Life International and nationally syndicated talk-show host Sean
Hannity has brought to center stage an issue which most Americans-and
most Catholics-simply do not understand. Let's review what's wrong
with contraception.
The intrinsic moral issue of artificial contraception is a marriage
issue. Contraception has little or no intrinsic moral relevance
outside of marriage. This contributes to the difficulty our culture
has in understanding the problem, because our culture doesn't
understand marriage either. After all, only about half of all couples
are formally married. For this reason, it is perhaps best to start
with what we might call the extrinsic moral issues associated with
contraception, which apply to all sexual relations.
The Consequences of Contraception
I am using the word "extrinsic" to apply to the consequences of
contraception as opposed to its own essential moral character.
Catholics are not consequentialists, and we don't determine the
morality of an act by attempting to foresee all its consequences. But
we do determine the prudence of an act by assessing its potential
consequences. For this reason, it is highly instructive to examine the
extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception.
Even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should
be selected or avoided accordingly. It is a morally neutral act, for
example, to dam a river, but one wants to be pretty sure of the
consequences before one builds the dam. So too, many moralists have
argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in
itself when considered outside of marriage. But contraception
suppresses the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, and in so doing
it has two immediate and devastating consequences.
First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. An
action which, because of the possibility of conceiving a child, makes
demands on the stability of the couple is stripped by contraception of
its long-term meaning. The mutual commitment of a couple implied by
the very nature of this intimate self-giving is now overshadowed by
the fact that the most obvious (though not necessarily the most
important) reason for that commitment has been eliminated. This
clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual
sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-
being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.
Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness
to pleasure. Naturally-speaking, the sexual act finds its full meaning
in both emotional intimacy and the promise of offspring. For human
persons, sex is clearly oriented toward love and the creation of new
life. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent
bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human
sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of
commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a
meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of
equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have
mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the
"contraceptive mentality". Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup
procedure based on the expectation that contracepton should render sex
child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and
physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.
The Intrinsic Evil of Contraception
Now all of these evil consequences apply both inside and outside of
marriage. Within marriage, however, there is an intrinsic moral
problem with contraception quite apart from its horrendous
consequences. Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already
disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these
ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant.
Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its
consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of
psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning).
But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception
itself becomes intrinsically disordered.
Within the context of marriage, the purposes of sexual intercourse are
unitive and procreative (as Pope Paul VI taught in his brilliant and
prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae). It is worth remembering that
there is no proper context for sexual intercourse apart from marriage;
this is why it is impossible for human persons to psychologically
separate contraception from the marital context. But the point here is
that marriage has certain ends (the procreation of children, the
stability of society, the mutual happiness of the couple, and their
mutual sanctification) and so does sex within marriage. The purposes
of the marital act are the procreation of children and the progressive
unification of the spouses. These two purposes are intimately related,
for it is through marriage that a man and a woman become "two in one
flesh", both through sexual relations and, literally, in their
offspring.
It is intrinsically immoral to frustrate either of these purposes. Let
me repeat this statement. It is immoral to choose deliberately to
frustrate either the unitive or the procreative ends of marital
intercourse. It is immoral to make of your spouse an object of your
pleasure, to coerce your spouse, or to engage in sexual relations in a
manner or under conditions which communicate callousness or contempt.
These things frustrate the unitive purpose. It is also immoral to take
deliberate steps to prevent an otherwise potentially fruitful coupling
from bearing fruit. This frustrates the procreative purpose.
Related Issues
Because it causes so much confusion, it is necessary to state that it
is not intrinsically immoral to choose to engage in sexual relations
with your spouse at times when these relations are not likely to be
fruitful. The moral considerations which govern this decision revolve
around the obligation married couples have to be genuinely open to
children insofar as they can provide for their material well-being and
proper formation. There is nothing in this question of timing that
frustrates the purposes of a particular marriage act.
Statistically, couples who avoid contraception find that their
marriages are strengthened, their happiness increased, and their
health improved. Some of these considerations are topics for another
day. But Fr. Euteneuer is clearly correct and Sean Hannity is clearly
wrong. Contraception is a grave evil within marriage and has grave
consequences not only within marriage but outside of marriage as well.
Both individual couples and society as a whole will mature into deeper
happiness by freeing themselves from the false promises of
contraception, and from its moral lies.
Rudy Canoza
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
>
> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
It isn't wrong.
elizabeth
Being deliberately ignorant and willfully stupid *is* wrong.
Ray Fischer
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
wishes of God.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Rudy Canoza
I'd say so. Whoever this Sound of Trumpet doofus is
should stop trying to be ignorant and willfully stupid.
Uncle Vic
<sound_of...@warpmail.net> bloodied us up with this:
> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Contraception allows horrible sinners to experience pleasure for pleasure's
sake, and that's wrong in the warped mind of the Catholic.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
johac
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
>
> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
It's not.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
sara
wrote:
Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid
getting their women pregnant, and women who have an
adult understanding of their fertility can avoid
pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first
time.
sara
H Dickmann
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Sound of Trumpet <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>
>>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
> wishes of God.
>
Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive, perverted
and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
> >>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> > Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
> > wishes of God.
>
> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive, perverted
> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
Ewe poor bastard, well fuck off and live in a better one then, they
tell me there's fuck all pills of any sort in North Korea. Fucking
mystics.
MG
alexandr...@virgin.net
MG, if you sayin you're some kinda slag there, I'd agree
David Schwartz
wrote:
This the most complete and utter nonsense that I have heard in days.
Not one word of it is even remotely close to true. This is a great
example of using an argument like a bus, getting off at your stop.
This argument *definitely* has the consequence that it is immoral for
a couple to have sex when that sex could not result in children. It
denies it does, but provides no reason whatsoever. It claims that
having sex without contraception when children cannot result doesn't
have the consequences that using contraception to achieve the exact
same result does, but provides absolutely no justification for this
claim.
It simply stops the argument and swears that it doesn't go any
further.
I presume Catholics believe that people who are infertile are not
allowed to ever marry or have sex?
What's the most amusing is this purports to be a non-religious
argument (saying that contraception is not inherently immoral). IMO,
when you make non-religious shit up to reach the conclusion you
believe for religious reasons, it's still a religious argument.
DS
sara
> On 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> <1174526100.894403.58...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> >Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
>
> make a reasonable person turn and run for their life.
>
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice maybe Pro-Freedom but it's when it becomes
Pro-Convienience it leaves a heck of human litter
around for someone else to clean up,
signed,
'brokenhearted'
•R L Measures
<add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <sound_of...@warpmail.net> bloodied us up with this:
>
> > Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> Contraception allows horrible sinners to experience pleasure for pleasure's
> sake, and that's wrong in the warped mind of the Catholic.
• "The sex drive itself gave organized religion an opportunity to amass
what was indisputably the greatest power ever lodged in human hands."
-- Rabbi Abraham Feinberg
•R L Measures
<her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
• It used to be with the invention of latex.
- "I can not believe that salvation is based on contraception by
temperature and damnation is based on rubber". - Dr. André Hellegers.
•R L Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2007 02:47:02 -0700, "sara" <sara...@hotmail.co.uk> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <1174556822.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid
> >getting their women pregnant, and women who have an
> >adult understanding of their fertility can avoid
> >pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first
> >time.
> >
> >sara
>
> Therefore under your theory an unplanned pregnancy would be absolutely
> impossible. Sure it is.
>
• Couples who employ Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning would do well
to start shopping for baby clothes.
sara
> On 22 Mar 2007 02:47:02 -0700, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
>
> <1174556822.206329.274...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid
> >getting their women pregnant, and women who have an
> >adult understanding of their fertility can avoid
> >pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first
> >time.
>
> >sara
>
> impossible. Sure it is.
>
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
callous cow
H Dickmann
".R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2203070...@192.168.1.100...
> In article <KrsMh.320$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "H Dickmann"
> <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> > Sound of Trumpet <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>> >>
>> >>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>> >
>> > Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
>> > wishes of God.
>> >
>>
>> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
>> perverted
>> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>>
Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom, Dick and
Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
MarkA
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
>
> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
>
>
The Catholic church should be outlawed. The only thing good I can say
about them is that they eventually apologized for prosecuting Galileo, 300
years after the fact.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Hatter
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
> >>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> > Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
> > wishes of God.
>
>
> > --
> > Ray Fischer
> > rfisc...@sonic.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There you go fixed. It is no longer a lie.
Hatter
MarkA
Are you referring to all those people with push carts, sweeping up all the
aborted fetuses from the sidewalks?
> signed,
> 'brokenhearted'
MarkA
> On 22 Mar, 01:15, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
> wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>
>> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>
>> Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
>>
>> Posted on 03/19/2007 5:46:55 AM PDT by markomalley
>>
>
> Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid getting their women
> pregnant, and women who have an adult understanding of their fertility can
> avoid pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first time.
>
> sara
It's interesting how the religionists want to separate man from the 'lower
animals.' The creationists just can't abide the notion that humans are
related to other apes. Yet, when it come to contraception, we are expect
to act like the animals, and exert no control over our reproductive
biology. I wonder if Catholic women eat their placentas?
MarkA
Yea! It was SO MUCH healthier when women could be put in jail for
distributing information about birth control. Of course, it was EVEN MORE
healthy when people could be tortured to death for denying belief in the
Holy Trinity.
I guess without fuckwits like you to hold us back, humans might make too
much social progress too fast.
MarkA
Even worse, he's quoting OTHER people who are even MORE ignorant and
stupid.
H Dickmann
"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.22....@stopspam.net...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:59:06 +0000, H Dickmann wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> Sound of Trumpet <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>>>
>>>>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>>
>>> Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the wishes
>>> of God.
>>>
>>>
>> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
>> perverted
>> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Ray Fischer
>>> rfis...@sonic.net
>>>
>>>
>
> Yea! It was SO MUCH healthier when women could be put in jail for
> distributing information about birth control.
When and where was that?
Of course, it was EVEN MORE
> healthy when people could be tortured to death for denying belief in the
> Holy Trinity.
What has that got to do with contraception?
You show that your opposition is out of hate for the Catholic Church
>
> I guess without fuckwits like you to hold us back, humans might make too
> much social progress too fast.
>
Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women chose
never to have Children. When 25 % of the population is over 65 years old.
When marriage is no longer the norm and when most children grow up with just
one Parent.
sacs...@aol.com
wrote:
> Catholics are not consequentialists, and we don't determine the
> morality of an act by attempting to foresee all its consequences.
That would explain the confessionals. I believe the Pope admitted that
condoms could protect a person from HIV.
Robert
wrote:
I agree your society is sick, hopefully the illness will prove to be
terminal. Without the hate and intolerance that is core to your
society, our society based on respect and compassion will prosper
without the intolerance and bigotry of Christianity.
>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>> rfis...@sonic.net
>>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Robert
But no where near the litter from forcing a woman to have a unwanted
child.
>signed,
>'brokenhearted'
Hatt...@gmail.com
> "MarkA" <manth...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.03.22....@stopspam.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:59:06 +0000, H Dickmann wrote:
>
> >>news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >>> Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
> >>>>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> >>> Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the wishes
> >>> of God.
>
> >> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
> >> perverted
> >> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Ray Fischer
>
> > Yea! It was SO MUCH healthier when women could be put in jail for
> > distributing information about birth control.
>
> When and where was that?
>
> Of course, it was EVEN MORE
>
> > healthy when people could be tortured to death for denying belief in the
> > Holy Trinity.
>
> What has that got to do with contraception?
> You show that your opposition is out of hate for the Catholic Church
>
bettering humanity, turning to "x" doctrine is stupid. "x" doctrine is
religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. Nice try
to evade though, too bad we can see the red herring.
> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women chose
> never to have Children. When 25 % of the population is over 65 years old.
> When marriage is no longer the norm and when most children grow up with just
> one Parent.
>
>
You mean, when things are like they are in Europe? A place that has
advance more than us socially? With a higher stanard of living for a
higher percentage of the population?
Oh horror.
Hatter
Ray Fischer
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>>>>
>>>>>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>>>
>>>> Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the wishes
>>>> of God.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
>>> perverted
>>> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ray Fischer
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Yea! It was SO MUCH healthier when women could be put in jail for
>> distributing information about birth control.
>
>When and where was that?
United States. 100 years ago.
>> Of course, it was EVEN MORE
>> healthy when people could be tortured to death for denying belief in the
>> Holy Trinity.
>
>What has that got to do with contraception?
It's all religious insanity.
>You show that your opposition is out of hate for the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church has declared itself to be the enemy of freedom.
>> I guess without fuckwits like you to hold us back, humans might make too
>> much social progress too fast.
>
>Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women chose
>never to have Children.
That's already happened and still the population is growing. And
still tens of thousands of people die every day of hunger.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>>
>>>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>
>> Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
>> wishes of God.
>>
>
>Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive, perverted
>and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
Does the Taliban still hand out medals?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Every day tens of thousands of people die of hunger while YOU enjoy
your comforts and conveniences.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Robert
wrote:
>
And 100% of children born are wanted, with a loving family to
support them. No more foster homes, no more abused children.
> When 25 % of the population is over 65 years old.
Not going to happen, many of those that would turn 65 in the next 20
years will die before their 65th b'day. 20% of those alive today, will
die in the next 20 years. Mostly the eldest. Populations will
stabilize, stem cell research will prevent many age related problems.
More children will have live in Grand parents
>When marriage is no longer the norm and when most children grow up with just
>one Parent.
>
Marriage will remain the norm, there will be more non traditional
marriages. And all children will have 2 or more adults in their lives.
Human will stop having and loving pets, before they stop loving and
caring for children.
>
>> --
>> MarkA
>> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
>>
>
--
Father Haskell
> In article <fip403tn8p5etmdpn87ptg1gtmta6pb...@4ax.com>, Attila
>
>
>
> <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> > On 22 Mar 2007 02:47:02 -0700, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> in
> > alt.abortion with message-id
>
> > >Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid
> > >getting their women pregnant, and women who have an
> > >adult understanding of their fertility can avoid
> > >pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first
> > >time.
>
> > >sara
>
> > Therefore under your theory an unplanned pregnancy would be absolutely
> > impossible. Sure it is.
>
> · Couples who employ Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning would do well
> to start shopping for baby clothes.
Cue "Every Sperm is Sacred."
Father Haskell
wrote:
> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Then so is getting your cat fixed.
skyeyes
> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women chose
> never to have Children.
Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like*
children. It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why
does the rate of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have
access to higher education and personal choice? Do you think women
are intended to be nothing but baby machines?
Why do you want to force women to have children they do not want? Do
you realize how messed up such children are? Do you realize that
there are already 6.5 *billion* people on this benighted planet
already?
Brenda "Child-Free and Happy About It" Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
raven1
>
>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
It isn't.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
> ".R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in messagenews:r-2203070...@192.168.1.100...
>
>
>
>
>
> > <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >>news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >> > Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> >> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
> >> >>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> >> > Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
> >> > wishes of God.
>
> >> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
> >> perverted
> >> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>
> > . It used to be with the invention of latex.
>
> Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom, Dick and
> Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
Why dont ewe mystics put your money where your mouth is and fuck off
to North Korea and see what a world without the pill, without
happiness, without wealth and without health is really like?
Fucking religion has fucked the world for long enough, enough is
enough, wake the fuck up and grow the fuck up you fucking dead headed
morons, she's a grand life, sooo enjoy it or fuck off.
MG
sara
>Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom,
>Dick and Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
contraception has nothing to do with a happy relationship.
Mark A;
>The Catholic church should be outlawed. The only thing good I can say
>about them is that they eventually apologized for prosecuting Galileo, 300
>years after the fact.
credit where its due.
>Are you referring to all those people with push carts, sweeping
>up all the aborted fetuses from the sidewalks?
are you asking me if I'm free for dinner tomorrow night?
and yes by the time the effing legal system and the guy
hands out for maintanence some women may well be advised
to eat the placenta before the freekin check arrived.
Charity?
>That would explain the confessionals. I believe the Pope admitted that
>condoms could protect a person from HIV.
but sadly it won't protect you from marriage,
Robert;
>But no where near the litter from forcing a woman to have a unwanted
>child.
exactly, who in their right minds would force a woman to
have children? it is in her nature to bear a child, but
not forced. If a woman chose contraception and abortions
above giving birth something isnt going right, so what the
hell is going wrong for them? and who the hell is/are raping
them?
Hatter;
>Oh horror
there is one example
Ray Fische;
>That's already happened and still the population is growing.And
>still tens of thousands of people die every day of hunger.
and whats that to do with contraception at all? by somehow
being at YOUR convenience for free and cheap sex this in
someway prevents the rest of our world from starving? What!
do you think I'm some sort of charity! hey! lets adopt all
the starving children in the world and put them in our brothels
too!
skyeyes;
>Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like*
>children. It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why
>does the rate of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have
>access to higher education and personal choice? Do you think women
>are intended to be nothing but baby machines?
Say it when you've had a baby/ies in a happy relationship,
but yeh! thats a puzzle, why is it when some women are
in higher ed do they never find the time or lose the
inclination to have a family? impractical for financial
gains, maybe?
Attila;
>Those who practice such methods are called "Parents".
so whats wrong with that (oh bollox or fanny?), envious?
I guess! :)
>Oh? In what way? Aside from the necessary disposal of biowaste, of
>course.
miserable that you you can't have that child? did she/he
dump you? are you sure you're not only trying to tidy those
awful feelings of rejection and inhibition away somehows,
but prove to the rest of us that abortion was right!
sara
johac
r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
> In article <fip403tn8p5etmdpn...@4ax.com>, Attila
> <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Mar 2007 02:47:02 -0700, "sara" <sara...@hotmail.co.uk> in
> > alt.abortion with message-id
> > <1174556822.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid
> > >getting their women pregnant, and women who have an
> > >adult understanding of their fertility can avoid
> > >pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first
> > >time.
> > >
> > >sara
> >
> > Therefore under your theory an unplanned pregnancy would be absolutely
> > impossible. Sure it is.
> >
> • Couples who employ Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning would do well
> to start shopping for baby clothes.
Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning - aka "Vatican roulette".
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Paul Duca
her...@bigpond.com wrote on 3/22/07 8:16 AM:
>
> ".R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> news:r-2203070...@192.168.1.100...
>> In article <KrsMh.320$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "H Dickmann"
>> <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>> Sound of Trumpet <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>>>>
>>>>> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>>>
>>>> Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
>>>> wishes of God.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
>>> perverted
>>> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>>>
>> . It used to be with the invention of latex.
>
> Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom, Dick and
> Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
>
>
Sounds like every Tammy, Dina, and Harriet spurned this guy's
advances...
Paul
Paul Duca
her...@bigpond.com wrote on 3/22/07 10:47 AM:
That is simply a collective accounting of individual decisions...of
course, you've been told from the day you were born females only exist to
have babies, so there must be something wrong with those who don't.
Paul
•R L Measures
<mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
> >
> >
> > Contraception: Why It's Wrong
> >
> > Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
> >
> >
>
> The Catholic church should be outlawed.
АА Outlawing alcohol turned into a national disaster. Outlawing
Catholicism would only provide the persecution and simply awful bashing
that Catholics relish.
> The only thing good I can say
> about them is that they eventually apologized for prosecuting Galileo, 300
> years after the fact.
** 392-years, Mark, and it was a piss poor one at that.
•R L Measures
<her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> ".R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> news:r-2203070...@192.168.1.100...
> > In article <KrsMh.320$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "H Dickmann"
> > <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >> > Sound of Trumpet <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> >> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
> >> >>
> >> >>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
> >> >
> >> > Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
> >> > wishes of God.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
> >> perverted
> >> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
> >>
> > . It used to be with the invention of latex.
>
> Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom, Dick and
> Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
>
** Condoms and abstinence are a woman's only protections against human
papaloma viruses (except for those pre-pubescently vaccinated with
Guardasil®), genital herpes, genital warts, gonorhea, syphilis, HIV-AIDS,
climidia, and unwanted pregnancy.
cheers
>
>
>
>
> >
> > - "I can not believe that salvation is based on contraception by
> > temperature and damnation is based on rubber". - Dr. André Hellegers.
•R L Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:34:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) in
> alt.abortion with message-id <r-2203070...@192.168.1.100> wrote:
>
> >In article <fip403tn8p5etmdpn...@4ax.com>, Attila
> ><<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 Mar 2007 02:47:02 -0700, "sara" <sara...@hotmail.co.uk> in
> >> alt.abortion with message-id
> >> <1174556822.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid
> >> >getting their women pregnant, and women who have an
> >> >adult understanding of their fertility can avoid
> >> >pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first
> >> >time.
> >> >
> >> >sara
> >>
> >> Therefore under your theory an unplanned pregnancy would be absolutely
> >> impossible. Sure it is.
> >>
> >• Couples who employ Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning would do well
> >to start shopping for baby clothes.
>
> Those who practice such methods are called "Parents".
>
• chortle
•R L Measures
<jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <r-2203070...@192.168.1.100>,
> r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
>
> > In article <fip403tn8p5etmdpn...@4ax.com>, Attila
> > <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> >
> > > On 22 Mar 2007 02:47:02 -0700, "sara" <sara...@hotmail.co.uk> in
> > > alt.abortion with message-id
> > > <1174556822.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid
> > > >getting their women pregnant, and women who have an
> > > >adult understanding of their fertility can avoid
> > > >pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first
> > > >time.
> > > >
> > > >sara
> > >
> > > Therefore under your theory an unplanned pregnancy would be absolutely
> > > impossible. Sure it is.
> > >
> > • Couples who employ Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning would do well
> > to start shopping for baby clothes.
>
>
> Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning - aka "Vatican roulette".
• Dr. Jane Comfort, the co-author of "The Facts of Love" says that a
woman can conceive if she has coitus on any day of the month.
Douglas Berry
<her...@bigpond.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
>> distributing information about birth control.
>
>When and where was that?
The United States, the 20th Century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
•R L Measures
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:47:04 GMT there was an Ancient "H Dickmann"
> <her...@bigpond.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
> >> Yea! It was SO MUCH healthier when women could be put in jail for
> >> distributing information about birth control.
> >
> >When and where was that?
>
> The United States, the 20th Century
>
** During the early 20th century, those who advocated bot getting
involved in WW-I risked being jailed by the Woodrow Wilson administration.
MarkA
> In article <pan.2007.03.22....@stopspam.net>, MarkA
> <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>> >
>> >
>> > Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>> >
>> > Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> The Catholic church should be outlawed.
>
> €€ Outlawing alcohol turned into a national disaster. Outlawing
> Catholicism would only provide the persecution and simply awful bashing
> that Catholics relish.
>
Perhaps we could make it a capital offense? Now THAT would be an
appropriate use of the death penalty!
>> The only thing good I can say
>> about them is that they eventually apologized for prosecuting Galileo,
>> 300 years after the fact.
>
> ** 392-years, Mark, and it was a piss poor one at that.
The Pope is not high on my list of esteemed statesmen.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
Smiler
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote in message
news:1174526100....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
>
> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> Catholic Culture
Should be in a Petrie Dish.
Smiler,
The godless one
MarkA
> "MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.22....@stopspam.net...
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:59:06 +0000, H Dickmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>> Sound of Trumpet <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>>>>
>>>>>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>>>
>>>> Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
>>>> wishes of God.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
>>> perverted
>>> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ray Fischer
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Yea! It was SO MUCH healthier when women could be put in jail for
>> distributing information about birth control.
>
> When and where was that?
>
>
>
USA, 1873. Margaret Sanger was indicted, and had to leave the country to
avoid imprisonment, for publishing a newsletter that advocated
contraception. In 1916, she opened a birth control clinic in New York
City, and was arrested for it. She formed the American Birth Control
League in 1921, which was later re-named as Planned Parenthood.
> Of course, it was EVEN MORE
>> healthy when people could be tortured to death for denying belief in
>> the Holy Trinity.
>
> What has that got to do with contraception? You show that your
> opposition is out of hate for the Catholic Church
That was in response to your statement that "Our Society is not happy and
healthy. Our society is permissive, perverted and very sick."
FWIW, I don't really 'hate' the RCC. It would be more accurate to say
that I find it contemptable.
>
>> I guess without fuckwits like you to hold us back, humans might make
>> too much social progress too fast.
>>
>>
> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women
> chose never to have Children. When 25 % of the population is over 65
> years old. When marriage is no longer the norm and when most children
> grow up with just one Parent.
>
>
Some people, and institutions, fear progress. Fortunately, they are in
the minority.
MarkA
> On Mar 22, 7:47 am, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women
>> chose never to have Children.
>
> Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like* children.
> It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why does the rate
> of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have access to higher
> education and personal choice? Do you think women are intended to be
> nothing but baby machines?
>
> Why do you want to force women to have children they do not want? Do you
> realize how messed up such children are? Do you realize that there are
> already 6.5 *billion* people on this benighted planet already?
>
Catholics do not believe that there is any limit to how many people the
Earth can support.
> Brenda "Child-Free and Happy About It" Nelson, A.A.#34 EAC Professor of
> Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
--
H Dickmann
> In article <hsuMh.395$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "H Dickmann"
> <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> ".R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
>> news:r-2203070...@192.168.1.100...
>> > In article <KrsMh.320$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "H Dickmann"
>> > <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> >> > Sound of Trumpet <sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>> >> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>> >> >
>> >> > Next: Why being happy and healthy is a sin and contrary to the
>> >> > wishes of God.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive,
>> >> perverted
>> >> and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>> >>
>> > . It used to be with the invention of latex.
>>
>> Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom, Dick and
>> Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
>>
> ** Condoms and abstinence are a woman's only protections against human
> papaloma viruses (except for those pre-pubescently vaccinated with
> Guardasil®), genital herpes, genital warts, gonorhea, syphilis, HIV-AIDS,
> climidia, and unwanted pregnancy.
>
But some people reject that as being religious claptrap and think that
Viruses are just part of a healthy and happy life.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>
>>
>> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
>It isn't wrong.
Pfft. Leave it to religion to apply only consequentialistic moral
demands. In other words, contraception is NOT wrong -- if one can get
away with it by avoiding the consequences.
Silly Catholics.
H Dickmann
"MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.23....@nowhere.com...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:07:22 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
>
>> On Mar 22, 7:47 am, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women
>>> chose never to have Children.
>>
>> Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like* children.
>> It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why does the rate
>> of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have access to higher
>> education and personal choice? Do you think women are intended to be
>> nothing but baby machines?
>>
>> Why do you want to force women to have children they do not want? Do you
>> realize how messed up such children are? Do you realize that there are
>> already 6.5 *billion* people on this benighted planet already?
>>
>
> Catholics do not believe that there is any limit to how many people the
> Earth can support.
Not correct,
If you want to limit the worlds population start with poor countries where
people deliberately have a dozen children so they have someone to support
them in sickness and old age. But that would mean money which we need
ourselves to lead a happy and healthy life.
H Dickmann
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:47:02 -0700, sara wrote:
>
>> On 22 Mar, 01:15, "Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net>
>> wrote:
>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>>
>>> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid getting their women
>> pregnant, and women who have an adult understanding of their fertility
>> can
>> avoid pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first time.
>>
>> sara
>
> animals.' The creationists just can't abide the notion that humans are
> related to other apes. Yet, when it come to contraception, we are expect
> to act like the animals, and exert no control over our reproductive
> biology. I wonder if Catholic women eat their placentas?
>
Firstly, There is a big difference between Catholics and Fundamentalist
Creationists.
Secondly, Many animals controll reproduction according to their enviroment
without contraception. If there is a drought, many animals stop breeding.
> --
> MarkA
> (still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
>
H Dickmann
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>
>>
>> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>
>> Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
>>
>>
>
> about them is that they eventually apologized for prosecuting Galileo, 300
> years after the fact.
You want to outlaw all the Catholic Schools, Hospitals, Charities, Caring
for the Poor, the sick, the Dying?
Would that make a better society?
johac
r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
> In article <jhachmann-330F3...@news.giganews.com>, johac
> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <r-2203070...@192.168.1.100>,
> > r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <fip403tn8p5etmdpn...@4ax.com>, Attila
> > > <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 22 Mar 2007 02:47:02 -0700, "sara" <sara...@hotmail.co.uk> in
> > > > alt.abortion with message-id
> > > > <1174556822.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Contraception is wrong, guys can quite easily avoid
> > > > >getting their women pregnant, and women who have an
> > > > >adult understanding of their fertility can avoid
> > > > >pregnancy as well. Only use the prophylactic the first
> > > > >time.
> > > > >
> > > > >sara
> > > >
> > > > Therefore under your theory an unplanned pregnancy would be absolutely
> > > > impossible. Sure it is.
> > > >
> > > • Couples who employ Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning would do well
> > > to start shopping for baby clothes.
> >
> >
> > Roman Catholic Natural Family Planning - aka "Vatican roulette".
>
> • Dr. Jane Comfort, the co-author of "The Facts of Love" says that a
> woman can conceive if she has coitus on any day of the month.
I doubt if the Pope has read that one.
johac
Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:47:04 GMT there was an Ancient "H Dickmann"
> <her...@bigpond.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
> >> Yea! It was SO MUCH healthier when women could be put in jail for
> >> distributing information about birth control.
> >
> >When and where was that?
>
> The United States, the 20th Century
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
> --
And there are those today who would like to ban it again:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/38285/
Ray Fischer
>On Mar 22, 7:47 am, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women chose
>> never to have Children.
>
>Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like*
>children. It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why
>does the rate of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have
>access to higher education and personal choice? Do you think women
>are intended to be nothing but baby machines?
Rhetorical question?
>Why do you want to force women to have children they do not want?
That's easy. They're scared of women and women's sexuality, so they
need to get laws passed to suppress it. That's also why they're
against contraception.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>"MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:pan.2007.03.23....@nowhere.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:07:22 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 7:47 am, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women
>>>> chose never to have Children.
>>>
>>> Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like* children.
>>> It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why does the rate
>>> of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have access to higher
>>> education and personal choice? Do you think women are intended to be
>>> nothing but baby machines?
>>>
>>> Why do you want to force women to have children they do not want? Do you
>>> realize how messed up such children are? Do you realize that there are
>>> already 6.5 *billion* people on this benighted planet already?
>>>
>>
>> Catholics do not believe that there is any limit to how many people the
>> Earth can support.
>
>Not correct,
No, it's pretty much correct
>If you want to limit the worlds population start with poor countries where
>people deliberately have a dozen children so they have someone to support
>them in sickness and old age.
The Catholic church is opposed to limiting the number of children.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Firstly, There is a big difference between Catholics and Fundamentalist
>Creationists.
The latter are even more irrational.
>Secondly, Many animals controll reproduction according to their enviroment
>without contraception. If there is a drought, many animals stop breeding.
Natural abortion, infanticide, starvation, abadonment of infants. All
those are ways that populations are limited.
Civilized people try for something less barbaric. Obviously the Church
isn't quite so civilized.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Uncle Vic
us up with this:
Then why are there so gawd damned many Catholics?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
H Dickmann
Must be the reason why they promote natural family planning. It's not
perfect but it helps limiting the number of children.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
H Dickmann
Yes, Civilized people start wars and kill the lot.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
H Dickmann
What, no comment to the above?
It may cost you money.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
> On 22 Mar, 10:23, mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 6:59 pm, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4601fb57$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > > > Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
> > > >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
> > > >>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
> > > > wishes of God.
>
> > > Our Society is not happy and healthy. Our society is permissive, perverted
> > > and very sick. It started going down with the invention of the pill.
>
> > tell me there's fuck all pills of any sort in North Korea. Fucking
> > mystics.
>
> > MG
>
> MG, if you sayin you're some kinda slag there, I'd agree
I dont understand, explain yourself.
Are you a mystic? is that your problem?
MG
never@million
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:46036321$0$14089$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> The Catholic church is opposed to limiting the number of children.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
And the priest are ecstatic.
DCI
•R L Measures
<to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
€€ Luciano Albini / John Paul I did the right thing and he lasted 34-days.
•R L Measures
<her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
** true enough, H., but there's still the problem of onwanted pregnancy.
> But some people reject that as being religious claptrap and think that
> Viruses are just part of a healthy and happy life.
>
** there's nothing healthy about bullhead clap.
•R L Measures
<jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
• My guess is that the hierarchy is well aware of this prevarication, but
ever since the 12th century the need for a continuous source of cute
altar-boys to attract men to the priesthood who are not attracted to
females carries more weight in Rome than the truth.
•R L Measures
•R L Measures
€€ Without a continuous supply of cute boys, the priesthood would be in
deep feces.
Hardpan
<sound_of...@warpmail.net> wrote:
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>
>
>Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>
>Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
>
>
>Posted on 03/19/2007 5:46:55 AM PDT by markomalley
>
>
>The recent debate over contraception between Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of
>Human Life International and nationally syndicated talk-show host Sean
>Hannity has brought to center stage an issue which most Americans-and
>most Catholics-simply do not understand. Let's review what's wrong
>with contraception.
>The intrinsic moral issue of artificial contraception is a marriage
>issue. Contraception has little or no intrinsic moral relevance
>outside of marriage. This contributes to the difficulty our culture
>has in understanding the problem, because our culture doesn't
>understand marriage either. After all, only about half of all couples
>are formally married. For this reason, it is perhaps best to start
>with what we might call the extrinsic moral issues associated with
>contraception, which apply to all sexual relations.
>
>The Consequences of Contraception
>
>I am using the word "extrinsic" to apply to the consequences of
>contraception as opposed to its own essential moral character.
>Catholics are not consequentialists, and we don't determine the
>morality of an act by attempting to foresee all its consequences. But
>we do determine the prudence of an act by assessing its potential
>consequences. For this reason, it is highly instructive to examine the
>extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception.
>
>Even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should
>be selected or avoided accordingly. It is a morally neutral act, for
>example, to dam a river, but one wants to be pretty sure of the
>consequences before one builds the dam. So too, many moralists have
>argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in
>itself when considered outside of marriage. But contraception
>suppresses the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, and in so doing
>it has two immediate and devastating consequences.
>
>First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. An
>action which, because of the possibility of conceiving a child, makes
>demands on the stability of the couple is stripped by contraception of
>its long-term meaning. The mutual commitment of a couple implied by
>the very nature of this intimate self-giving is now overshadowed by
>the fact that the most obvious (though not necessarily the most
>important) reason for that commitment has been eliminated. This
>clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual
>sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-
>being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.
>
>Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness
>to pleasure. Naturally-speaking, the sexual act finds its full meaning
>in both emotional intimacy and the promise of offspring. For human
>persons, sex is clearly oriented toward love and the creation of new
>life. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent
>bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human
>sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of
>commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a
>meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of
>equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have
>mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the
>"contraceptive mentality". Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup
>procedure based on the expectation that contracepton should render sex
>child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and
>physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.
>
>The Intrinsic Evil of Contraception
>
>Now all of these evil consequences apply both inside and outside of
>marriage. Within marriage, however, there is an intrinsic moral
>problem with contraception quite apart from its horrendous
>consequences. Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already
>disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these
>ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant.
>Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its
>consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of
>psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning).
>But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception
>itself becomes intrinsically disordered.
>
>Within the context of marriage, the purposes of sexual intercourse are
>unitive and procreative (as Pope Paul VI taught in his brilliant and
>prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae). It is worth remembering that
>there is no proper context for sexual intercourse apart from marriage;
>this is why it is impossible for human persons to psychologically
>separate contraception from the marital context. But the point here is
>that marriage has certain ends (the procreation of children, the
>stability of society, the mutual happiness of the couple, and their
>mutual sanctification) and so does sex within marriage. The purposes
>of the marital act are the procreation of children and the progressive
>unification of the spouses. These two purposes are intimately related,
>for it is through marriage that a man and a woman become "two in one
>flesh", both through sexual relations and, literally, in their
>offspring.
>
>It is intrinsically immoral to frustrate either of these purposes. Let
>me repeat this statement. It is immoral to choose deliberately to
>frustrate either the unitive or the procreative ends of marital
>intercourse. It is immoral to make of your spouse an object of your
>pleasure, to coerce your spouse, or to engage in sexual relations in a
>manner or under conditions which communicate callousness or contempt.
>These things frustrate the unitive purpose. It is also immoral to take
>deliberate steps to prevent an otherwise potentially fruitful coupling
>from bearing fruit. This frustrates the procreative purpose.
>
>Related Issues
>
>Because it causes so much confusion, it is necessary to state that it
>is not intrinsically immoral to choose to engage in sexual relations
>with your spouse at times when these relations are not likely to be
>fruitful. The moral considerations which govern this decision revolve
>around the obligation married couples have to be genuinely open to
>children insofar as they can provide for their material well-being and
>proper formation. There is nothing in this question of timing that
>frustrates the purposes of a particular marriage act.
>
>Statistically, couples who avoid contraception find that their
>marriages are strengthened, their happiness increased, and their
>health improved. Some of these considerations are topics for another
>day. But Fr. Euteneuer is clearly correct and Sean Hannity is clearly
>wrong. Contraception is a grave evil within marriage and has grave
>consequences not only within marriage but outside of marriage as well.
>Both individual couples and society as a whole will mature into deeper
>happiness by freeing themselves from the false promises of
>contraception, and from its moral lies.
Question: how do you propose to feed all these billion of new mouths,
when the one century old petroleum gravy-train runs out?
You DO realize that we 6.4 BILLION humans are literally eating,
wearing, trabsporting and consuming massive amounts of oil these days
just to exist at these massive numbers, didn't you?
So is it better not to be born at all, or to die of starvation?
That is the real question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In fact, when there is combined under the same Constitution a prince, a
nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch
and keep each other reciprocally in check." - Book I, Chapter II
"Doubtless these means [of attaining power] are cruel and destructive of all
civilized life, and neither Christian, nor even human, and should be avoided
by every one. In fact, the life of a private citizen would be preferable to
that of a king at the expense of the ruin of so many human beings." Book II,
- Chapter XXXXVVIII
"Now in a well-ordered Republic, it should never be necessary to resort to
extra-constitutional measures...." -Book I, Chapter XXXIIVV
"The governments of the People are better than those of princes." Book I,
-Chapter LVIII
- Niccolņ Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)
Liz
news message <1174603947.5...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>>H Dickmann;
>>Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom,
>>Dick and Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
>
>contraception has nothing to do with a happy relationship.
Having children has nothing to do with a happy relationship. The
relationship with your mate should stand on its own merits. Decisions
that affect the relationship should be made together considering the
wants, needs, financial, and emotional well being of both people. One
of the most important decisions in a heterosexual relationship is if
or when to have children, and if the couple decides that a child isn't
necessary or wanted at any given moment, contraception has everything
to do with that decision.
Liz #658 BAAWA
They all agree on what their god wants. Each theist will tell you
that what the only true god wants, and what he, himself, wants, are
exactly the same. -- Al Klein
Liz
news message <1174603947.5...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
[-----]
>skyeyes;
>>Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like*
>>children. It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why
>>does the rate of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have
>>access to higher education and personal choice? Do you think women
>>are intended to be nothing but baby machines?
>
>Say it when you've had a baby/ies in a happy relationship,
You don't seem like a happy person. Are you in a happy relationship?
>but yeh! thats a puzzle, why is it when some women are
>in higher ed do they never find the time or lose the
>inclination to have a family? impractical for financial
>gains, maybe?
Some believe that women have more value than simply as a breeder.
Merely producing "baby/ies" doesn't accomplish anything. "Baby/ies"
aren't pets. Their purpose isn't to make their parents feel fulfilled
or good or needed. Children must learn and grow mentally and
emotionally to become well-rounded adults. If you are a parent, your
only goal should be to enable your children to happily leave you with
the skills they need to become a contributing member of the society in
which they live. Some women have both children and an education
realizing that they can impart both knowledge and a sense of their own
worth to their children, giving them more than any uneducated
caretaker ever could.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with
a passionate need for external authority and guidance,
pretending not to trust their own judgement. - Alan Watts
Liz
news message <bFIMh.657$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>".R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
>news:r-2203071...@66-52-38-98.lsan.dock.net...
[----]
>> ** Condoms and abstinence are a woman's only protections against human
>> papaloma viruses (except for those pre-pubescently vaccinated with
>> Guardasil®), genital herpes, genital warts, gonorhea, syphilis, HIV-AIDS,
>> climidia, and unwanted pregnancy.
>A better protection is being married to one partner for life.
He says as if marriage prevents sex with persons other than one's
spouse.
Marriage doesn't provide any magical protection. Having sex with
partners who are free of disease and use birth control provides more
protection than simply assuming your husband or wife hasn't cheated.
Look at Ted Haggard, formerly known as the Pastor of New Life Church
and leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. How was his
wife protected by marriage?
Liz #658 BAAWA
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that
their interests and his own are the same -- Stendhal
H Dickmann
"Liz" <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:7uc703d32cqghf95g...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:25:43 GMT, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> in
> news message <bFIMh.657$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>".R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
>>news:r-2203071...@66-52-38-98.lsan.dock.net...
>
> [----]
>>> ** Condoms and abstinence are a woman's only protections against human
>>> papaloma viruses (except for those pre-pubescently vaccinated with
>>> Guardasil®), genital herpes, genital warts, gonorhea, syphilis,
>>> HIV-AIDS,
>>> climidia, and unwanted pregnancy.
>
>>A better protection is being married to one partner for life.
>
> He says as if marriage prevents sex with persons other than one's
> spouse.
>
> Marriage doesn't provide any magical protection.
Yes it does.
Adultery does not provide protection.
Marriage and adultery are opposed to each other.
MarkA
>
> "MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.22....@stopspam.net...
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>>
>>>
>>> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>>
>>> Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The Catholic church should be outlawed. The only thing good I can say
>> about them is that they eventually apologized for prosecuting Galileo,
>> 300 years after the fact.
>
> You want to outlaw all the Catholic Schools, Hospitals, Charities, Caring
> for the Poor, the sick, the Dying?
> Would that make a better society?
>
Almost certainly.
MarkA
*Chuckle* That's like rebuilding a church that has burned down. I would
expect all the members to look for a church that has a more concerned god.
H Dickmann
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
news:5lb70353abnnnmq20...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:51:19 GMT, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <b1JMh.672$M....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2007.03.22....@stopspam.net...
>>>
>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Contraception: Why It's Wrong
>>>>
>>>> Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> about them is that they eventually apologized for prosecuting Galileo,
>>> 300
>>> years after the fact.
>>
>>for the Poor, the sick, the Dying?
>>Would that make a better society?
>>
>
>
Why?
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
MarkA
> €€ NFP ?
Why do the English drink warm beer?
They own Lucas refrigerators!
(an old one, but still a classic)
MarkA
*Something* is going to limit human population growth. The question is,
who will be in control, humans or Mother Nature?
Ray Fischer
1) They don't promote it - they allow it.
2) It's two main attributes are that it prevents people from having
too much sex and it doesn't work all that well.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>Firstly, There is a big difference between Catholics and Fundamentalist
>>>Creationists.
>>
>> The latter are even more irrational.
>>
>>>Secondly, Many animals controll reproduction according to their enviroment
>>>without contraception. If there is a drought, many animals stop breeding.
>>
>> Natural abortion, infanticide, starvation, abadonment of infants. All
>> those are ways that populations are limited.
>>
>> Civilized people try for something less barbaric. Obviously the Church
>> isn't quite so civilized.
>
>Yes, Civilized people start wars and kill the lot.
Like the Inquisition during which the church killed people by burning
them alive.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
MarkA
>
> "MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.23....@nowhere.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:07:22 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 7:47 am, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women
>>>> chose never to have Children.
>>>
>>> Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like*
>>> children. It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why
>>> does the rate of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have
>>> access to higher education and personal choice? Do you think women are
>>> intended to be nothing but baby machines?
>>>
>>> Why do you want to force women to have children they do not want? Do
>>> you realize how messed up such children are? Do you realize that there
>>> are already 6.5 *billion* people on this benighted planet already?
>>>
>>>
>> Catholics do not believe that there is any limit to how many people the
>> Earth can support.
>
> Not correct,
> If you want to limit the worlds population start with poor countries where
> people deliberately have a dozen children so they have someone to support
> them in sickness and old age. But that would mean money which we need
> ourselves to lead a happy and healthy life.
>
Let me be more precise: the RCC *behaves as if* it believes there is no
limit to how many people the world can support. I hope they recognize
that the Earth's resources are finite.
As you point out, most of the growing population is in the world's poorest
countries. With no infrastructure to provide support for people too old
or ill to care for themselves, having children is their only chance at
'social security.'
However, having the RCC preaching that all contraception is evil, and
preaching against condom use in Africa, shows a very odd set of
priorities; one that I cannot endorse.
MarkA
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:46036321$0$14089$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>H Dickmann <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"MarkA" <to...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news:pan.2007.03.23....@nowhere.com...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:07:22 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:47 am, "H Dickmann" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now when 30% of women
>>>>>> chose never to have Children.
>>>>>
>>>>> Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like*
>>>>> children.
>>>>> It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why does the
>>>>> rate
>>>>> of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have access to
>>>>> higher education and personal choice? Do you think women are
>>>>> intended to be nothing but baby machines?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you want to force women to have children they do not want? Do
>>>>> you
>>>>> realize how messed up such children are? Do you realize that there
>>>>> are already 6.5 *billion* people on this benighted planet already?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Catholics do not believe that there is any limit to how many people
>>>> the Earth can support.
>>>
>>>Not correct,
>>
>> No, it's pretty much correct
>>
>>>If you want to limit the worlds population start with poor countries
>>>where people deliberately have a dozen children so they have someone to
>>>support them in sickness and old age.
>>
>> The Catholic church is opposed to limiting the number of children.
>
> Must be the reason why they promote natural family planning. It's not
> perfect but it helps limiting the number of children.
>
They promote NFP because they recognize that people want SOME control over
their reproductive biology, even if they are not supposed to use barriers
of chemicals. I have to admit that I have never understood why the method
was so important. If you want to control your chances of getting
pregnant, what difference does it make whether you are checking your
cervical mucus, or inserting a diaphragm?
H Dickmann
Not entirely correct. ( Apart from some bloody minded fanatics who are
wrong)
The Church teaches that the use of condoms as a means of contraception is
wrong.
The church also teaches that in matters of morality everyone must first and
foremost obey his or her conscience.
If, as an example, a man has aids, his concience will tell him that it is
immoral to infect his wife. The use of a condom then is not as a means of
contraception but a means of disease prevention.
Martin Phipps
not have any rights whatsoever.
Martin
•R L Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:49:14 -0500, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <pan.2007.03.23....@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >
> >Catholics do not believe that there is any limit to how many people the
> >Earth can support.
> >
>
> Just another of their simple minded delusions.
>
• Megalomania sees no limits. The Mormon / LDS church takes the same view.
•R L Measures
<mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
• I would be looking for a god who didn't need to be adored and
worshipped 24/7.