Catholic church and condoms

[Smoke]

I have just one thing to say. "Scrumpin'? "SCRUMPIN?!?"

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

 

[Autodidact]

That's still not even a question. Once something is alive, it's alive. You can't put barriers on what is a person and what is not. If a person is alive, they are alive. Maybe you could tell me what you consider a person. By your own admonition, life begins at conception, but that LIFE is still not a person?

You're assuming what you're trying to figure out. Right, that's what I'm saying. Four cells does not a person make.

 

[Autodidact]

What makes anew born baby any more of a "person" than a fetus?

More than anything else, I think it's the fully developed nervous system and brain.
Clearly, 4 cells is not a person.
Clearly, a newborn baby is.
Somewhere in between there is a gray area, and in the middle of that gray area somewhere the embryo should be recognized as a person. The Supreme Court says it's at viability, but I'm not sure that's really right. It's rather hard to draw the line.
That doesn't mean that something microscopic qualifies, however.

 

[Yeshua_Lives]

In the Bible the only limitations God has placed on sexual activity is that it must be within the confines of the marriage. There is nothing wrong with having sex just for fun as long as it is within your marriage. Any method of birth control that prevents fertilization is also fine.

Amen.

 

[Jack89]

There methods are flawed and they believe they have the right to force there view on society. They believe that sex before marrage is a sin and that sex should only be used to procreate, so they try and force this on everyone by stoping condoms etc.

 

[Autodidact]

Anyway, rheff, why did I fall for your red herring? This isn't a thread about the morality of abortion. Its a thread about whether you have a right to impose your bizarre anti-condom fetish on the rest of us. You don't. Please stop trying; it's an immoral violation of other people's rights. Thank you.

 

[rheff78]

Anyway, rheff, why did I fall for your red herring? This isn't a thread about the morality of abortion. Its a thread about whether you have a right to impose your bizarre anti-condom fetish on the rest of us. You don't. Please stop trying; it's an immoral violation of other people's rights. Thank you.

Thank you? Thank you what? You seem to think you have the correct answer. The Church has the right to voice their opinions. They have the right to TRY and raise the price of condoms. As I said, whether or not your country or government passes those laws is up to them, no matter how silly or stupid you might think they are. Thank you.

 

[w00t]

Condoms should be given away free. Far better to use a condom to prevent a pregnancy than to abort an unwanted foetus!

 

[doppelganger]

The Church has the right to voice their opinions. They have the right to TRY and raise the price of condoms.

No doubt. But consider a pragmatic approach and I think it might help shed light on why separation of religion and government is a bedrock principle of the Constitution. Where a largely powerless minority is being forced to worship the majority's idols (their dogmas, doctrines, religious creeds and personal morals), a society can click right along, swallowing the dissenters as it goes, simply because the minority will not have enough power to protect itself. But when a significant minority does not want to worship the majority's idols as happened for several centuries in Europe, the result is endless religious warfare. It was against the backdrop of people arguing, just like you, that they had the right to enforce their religious views through the power of the state that the Enlightenment, and the philosophers who crafted our Constitutional scheme in its image, said "enough."

Let me put this in clear terms: when a person perceives that the government is being used to violate their core beliefs in furtherance of someone else's beliefs, then the government and its stability are the enemy of the oppressed. What you advocate has a nice ring to it - I have the right to push my religious views through and back them with the power of the state if I can get enough people to go along with me - but it's been tried for millennia with horrible, horrible consequences. Indeed, you need look no further than the modern Arab world for a nice reminder of what Medieval Europe was like.

 

[kdrier]

Yea, free condoms is probably the best bet. and W00t... christian agnostic... I like it. A lot.

 

[Sunstone]

They have the right to TRY and raise the price of condoms.

Sure. And that would be about as wise as starting a religious war.

 

[rheff78]

No doubt. But consider a pragmatic approach and I think it might help shed light on why separation of religion and government is a bedrock principle of the Constitution. Where a largely powerless minority is being forced to worship the majority's idols (their dogmas, doctrines, religious creeds and personal morals), a society can click right along, swallowing the dissenters as it goes, simply because the minority will not have enough power to protect itself. But when a significant minority does not want to worship the majority's idols as happened for several centuries in Europe, the result is endless religious warfare. It was against the backdrop of people arguing, just like you, that they had the right to enforce their religious views through the power of the state that the Enlightenment, and the philosophers who crafted our Constitutional scheme in its image, said "enough."

Let me put this in clear terms: when a person perceives that the government is being used to violate their core beliefs in furtherance of someone else's beliefs, then the government and its stability are the enemy of the oppressed. What you advocate has a nice ring to it - I have the right to push my religious views through and back them with the power of the state if I can get enough people to go along with me - but it's been tried for millennia with horrible, horrible consequences. Indeed, you need look no further than the modern Arab world for a nice reminder of what Medieval Europe was like.

I understand what you are saying, I do. I guess I'm just a believer in the common good. Does the Church have the right to try and do this, yes. Will the government be stupid enough to let this pass and start what could possibly become a MAJOR problem, I don't think so. (Like Hilary's heatlth care system, she may want it, but there's no way it would ever pass, thank god.) Look, even Thomas Jefferson said we need to keep God out of government, but the truth is that is not a possibility. There are too many issues. BTW, sorry about the political editorial, I just couldn't resist.

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you? Thank you what? You seem to think you have the correct answer. The Church has the right to voice their opinions. They have the right to TRY and raise the price of condoms. As I said, whether or not your country or government passes those laws is up to them, no matter how silly or stupid you might think they are. Thank you.

I'm growing tired of repeating myself. They have the right to do so; this does not make it right. It isn't. Now, would you like to present an argument as to why you think it's right to make people who do not share your peculiar religious views abide by them.

 

[rheff78]

See 192.

 

[doppelganger]

I understand what you are saying, I do. I guess I'm just a believer in the common good. Does the Church have the right to try and do this, yes. Will the government be stupid enough to let this pass and start what could possibly become a MAJOR problem, I don't think so.

But it means you don't respect the compromise that was reached. And it only persists because we agree to abide by it. If you are pushing your religion, do I have any choice now but to push back? If you don't believe in keeping religious creeds out of government, then eventually nobody else will. They can't afford to. Hence, a more militant atheism arises in response to the religious right in politics in this country and Islamic extremists mixing politics and religious creeds abroad.

We all need to honor the compromise or nobody will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand what you are saying, I do. I guess I'm just a believer in the common good. Does the Church have the right to try and do this, yes. Will the government be stupid enough to let this pass and start what could possibly become a MAJOR problem, I don't think so. (Like Hilary's heatlth care system, she may want it, but there's no way it would ever pass, thank god.) Look, even Thomas Jefferson said we need to keep God out of government, but the truth is that is not a possibility. There are too many issues. BTW, sorry about the political editorial, I just couldn't resist.

How does making it more difficult for people to obtain condoms further the common good in any way whatsoever?

 

[doppelganger]

How does making it more difficult for people to obtain condoms further the common good in any way whatsoever?

Because "God" will send them to Hell. If you hadn't noticed, 90% of "God"'s thoughts are spent fretting about human sexuality. With a creepy freak like that for a "God," keeping people "chaste" is in the public interest.

 

[rheff78]

Penguin, I'm not saying it does. I'm just asserting their right to say that. Dopple, I agree 100%. I teach History so I understand everything. But, this country was founded on Christian ideals. It also gives the right to worship or not worship. I agree. I think religion and government don't mix. But, unfortunately you always have the politicians that always want to bring it into it.

 

[Autodidact]

See 192.

Yes, from #192 I sort of got the impression that you don't think it would be right for the Church to advocate for this. I'm confused, because I had thought your position was that it is. Can you clarify?

 

[Autodidact]

rheff: It is an obvious truism that everybody has the right to advocate anything they want (other than e.g. the overthrow of the government, etc.) The point is not what is their right, but what is right.