Catholic church and condoms

[rheff78]

I don't know about more valid. I think I'm right; you think you're right--that's natural. I'm just trying to explore the implications, so other people can figure out whom they think is right.
If not, to be honest, I think I would choose her, simply because I love her. This is not so much a moral as a practical truth. AFAICR, it matches with the Jewish position on this dilemma.

NO, you're not simply trying to let other people figure out which is right, I quote you,

And that, ladies and gentleman, epitomizes the morality of the Catholic Church

That sounds like more like a statement of intent. You are trying to convince others that your way is correct. So, you would save your wife instead of an innocent baby? And that ladies and gentlemen epitomizes the morality of atheists. BTW the churches stance would be to deliever the baby.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm sorry, what question? We don't seem to be understanding each other very well.

Post# 92...

I'm understanding you just fine on my end.

 

[Autodidact]

NO, you're not simply trying to let other people figure out which is right, I quote you,

And that, ladies and gentleman, epitomizes the morality of the Catholic Church

Well, doesn't it?

That sounds like more like a statement of intent. You are trying to convince others that your way is correct.

Of course I am--what's wrong with that?

So, you would save your wife instead of an innocent baby? And that ladies and gentlemen epitomizes the morality of atheists. BTW the churches stance would be to deliever the baby.

I don't have a wife, but I don't speak for all atheists, just for myself. I think many people would make the same choice. I don't think either choice is more moral, since either way one person is going to die.

 

[Autodidact]

Post# 92...

I'm understanding you just fine on my end.

I'm sorry, I'm just not understanding you. I thought I answered your question in post #94. I hate it when people don't answer questions, so can you explain how I have failed to do so? Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe we could ask the atheists, and theists, in this thread how they would respond to rheff's dilemma, to see whether there is any pattern to their answers.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm sorry, I'm just not understanding you. I thought I answered your question in post #94. I hate it when people don't answer questions, so can you explain how I have failed to do so? Thank you.

No, you didn't.

You said:
Yours leads to valuing zygotes over living people,....

To which I responded:
That's bull!
The scenerio brought forth was that of fertilzed eggs, not fertilezed egg.

Then I asked:
So tell me, how exactly is our position lead to "valuing zygotes over living people"?

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Pay particular attention to singular vs. plural.

 

[Smoke]

It didn't make me uncomfortable, it just took some thought. I told you my way of looking at things. The fact that you think your opinions are more valid is what's in question. I'm an imperfect being, I have and will make imperfect decisions in my life. I put this question to you, if your "significant other" was delievering a baby, the doctor said we could only save one, which would it be? Is your FULLY developed baby less important than the mother?

Yes. I'd save the mother. Fortunately, I've never had to make such a decision, but I had an grandaunt who was a midwife and did have to face that choice. When it was necessary to choose, she always "took the baby," which is a euphemism for something pretty grisly -- but "saving the baby" would have been a euphemism for something pretty grisly, too.

Fortunately, with modern medicine, it's rarely necessary to make such a choice.

Since we're putting this in terms of atheists and theists, I guess I should point out that my grandaunt was a theist -- specifically, a Methodist.

 

[Autodidact]

No, you didn't.

You said:
Yours leads to valuing zygotes over living people,....

To which I responded:
That's bull!
The scenerio brought forth was that of fertilzed eggs, not fertilezed egg.

Then I asked:
So tell me, how exactly is our position lead to "valuing zygotes over living people"?

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Pay particular attention to singular vs. plural.

Oh, I wasn't following the math. O.K., you value 32 zygotes more than one person. I value one person more than 1,000,000 zygotes.

 

[Autodidact]

As I said, Jewish ethics permits abortion (roughly) and if an abortion could save the life of the mother and is not performed, that is considered murder, Talmudically speaking.

 

[doppelganger]

It's more then that. People can't just disagree, they have to show you how archaic and backwards your beliefs are. Some people play sports, collect bottle caps, or even take up pottery. Others just like to belittle others for what they believe.

Well this topic is about meddling with public policy based on those beliefs. That's not in the arena of "respect my faith" anymore. That's out where "I believe," - without evidence other than religious and moral assertions to support the policy one is advocating - is not entitled to be taken seriously when there are real problems to fix and lives at stake.

Any individual can believe whatever they want about the value of sperm, eggs, zygotes, chromosomes . . . .whatever. And any religious authority can tell them to believe and do whatever they can convince their followers to go along with . . . . but the OP is about meddling in matters of government and public policy based on personal and sectarian religious creeds. It's this sort of thing that is giving religion a bad name.

 

[doppelganger]

I'd also like to hear what the statistics are comparing the rate of contraceptive use between Roman Catholics and other groups and what the comparative per capita rates of abortion are between Roman Catholics and non-RC.

Anybody know?

Now, if someone will take a shot at finding the answers to these questions, we can have a discussion of the merits of the RC's "no contraceptives" dogma as a public policy position.

 

[sandandfoam]

Now, if someone will take a shot at finding the answers to these questions, we can have a discussion of the merits of the RC's "no contraceptives" dogma as a public policy position.

Here might be what you want
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]the Alan Guttmacher Institute reported in 2001-JUL that 37.4% of all abortions are performed on Protestant women; 18% of all abortions are done on born-again Protestants. 10 "Born-again" believers constitute about 30% of the American adult population, and are thus under-represented among those women having abortions.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The abortion index by religion during 1994-1995 was found to be: [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Protestants: 0.69[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Followers of a non-Judeo-Christian religion: 0.78[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Catholics: 1.01%[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Jews: 1.08[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Persons who do not follow an organized religion: 4.02[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]An index value of 1.0 represents the national average. e.g. Catholics were 1% more likely to obtain an abortion than average. Data was prepared by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Storrs, CT, in 1995 from five Gallup polls
[/FONT]

I got it here:-
Additional U.S. abortion data

 

[Autodidact]

Wow, that's wild. Catholics get abortions at about the same rate as the general population. Yet it's murder, according to their religion. That's just wild.

 

[Sunstone]

Am I the only one who finds it alarming the Catholic Church is prejudiced against latex condoms? I mean, if they take such a negative stand against latex condoms, can a negative stand against latex love dolls be far behind?

 

[doppelganger]

Wow, that's wild. Catholics get abortions at about the same rate as the general population. Yet it's murder, according to their religion. That's just wild.

Right. And in many countries where politics is dominated by Roman Catholic believers , the abortion rates are significantly higher than they are in the United States (even where abortion is illegal). Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Mexico and Peru all have higher abortion rates than the United States or the United Kingdom. The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide

The highest in the world are in Eastern Europe/Central Asia: Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan . . . then Africa and South America.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Am I the only one who finds it alarming the Catholic Church is prejudiced against latex condoms? I mean, if they take such a negative stand against latex condoms, can a negative stand against latex love dolls be far behind?

I think as long as you're open to the prospect of your latex love doll getting pregnant, they're okay with it.

 

[Smoke]

Now, if someone will take a shot at finding the answers to these questions, we can have a discussion of the merits of the RC's "no contraceptives" dogma as a public policy position.

Catholic For a Free Choice reports the following survey results:

• Only 22% of Catholics agree that abortion should be illegal.
• 87% of Catholics support abortion in case of serious threat to a woman's health.
• 79% of Catholics support abortion in cases of rape.
• 58% of Catholics believe you can be a good Catholic without following the bishops' teaching on abortion.
• 75% believe you can be a good Catholic without following the bishops' teaching on birth control.
• Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women in the general population.
• 96% of sexually active Catholic women above the age of 18 have used a modern method of contraception.
• Less than 2% of sexually active Catholic women use church-approved family planning methods.
• 88% of Catholics are in favor of sex education in the public schools.
• 83% of Catholics believe birth control information should be available to teenagers.
• 58% of Catholics believe that birth control should be available to 14- to 16-year-olds, even if their parents don't approve.
• 93% of Catholics support the use of condoms to prevent HIV and other STDs.
• Only 7% of Catholics believe that the views of the bishops are "very important" in deciding who to vote for.
• 74% of Catholics believe they have no religious obligation to vote against candidates who support legal abortion.

The main effect of the Church's hardline stance seems to be undermining the moral authority of the bishops.

 

[Quiddity]

Well this topic is about meddling with public policy based on those beliefs. That's not in the arena of "respect my faith" anymore. That's out where "I believe," - without evidence other than religious and moral assertions to support the policy one is advocating - is not entitled to be taken seriously when there are real problems to fix and lives at stake.

Any individual can believe whatever they want about the value of sperm, eggs, zygotes, chromosomes . . . .whatever. And any religious authority can tell them to believe and do whatever they can convince their followers to go along with . . . . but the OP is about meddling in matters of government and public policy based on personal and sectarian religious creeds. It's this sort of thing that is giving religion a bad name.

Giving an alternative view is "meddling in matters of government and public policy" ?

How is calling it archaic and backwards (not saying you did) serve to argue against it exactly?

 

[doppelganger]

Giving an alternative view is "meddling in matters of government and public policy" ?

Straw man. Read the OP. They are pushing a policy.

How is calling it archaic and backwards (not saying you did) serve to argue against it exactly?

If it's backwards in terms of achieving goals like public health, reducing abortion, reducing overpopulation, poverty, STDs, then calling it archaic and backwards has EVERYTHING to do with arguing against it.

 

[Quiddity]

Catholic For a Free Choice reports the following survey results:

• Only 22% of Catholics agree that abortion should be illegal.
• 87% of Catholics support abortion in case of serious threat to a woman's health.
• 79% of Catholics support abortion in cases of rape.
• 58% of Catholics believe you can be a good Catholic without following the bishops' teaching on abortion.
• 75% believe you can be a good Catholic without following the bishops' teaching on birth control.
• Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women in the general population.
• 96% of sexually active Catholic women above the age of 18 have used a modern method of contraception.
• Less than 2% of sexually active Catholic women use church-approved family planning methods.
• 88% of Catholics are in favor of sex education in the public schools.
• 83% of Catholics believe birth control information should be available to teenagers.
• 58% of Catholics believe that birth control should be available to 14- to 16-year-olds, even if their parents don't approve.
• 93% of Catholics support the use of condoms to prevent HIV and other STDs.
• Only 7% of Catholics believe that the views of the bishops are "very important" in deciding who to vote for.
• 74% of Catholics believe they have no religious obligation to vote against candidates who support legal abortion.

The main effect of the Church's hardline stance seems to be undermining the moral authority of the bishops.

Perhaps if the Bishops extend Lent to all the year? Or maybe penance a bit stricter?