In light of abortion, should refusing to have sex be grounds for divorce?

[Removable Mind]

:shrug: I guess I'm just an old fashion kind of guy. As far as I see it, the whole purpose of marriage is to reproduce and care for those children.

Obviously, that isn't always possible. I wouldn't think badly of anyone in that situation. However, I would question the priorities of someone who just blatantly never intended to have children even if they had the ability.

As far as Catholic Doctrine goes, I don't think that the Church's position is in any way inconsistent. It actually rather reasonable.

They recognise that a person might not be able to simply go around popping out children left and right and be able to sustain themselves, so they make allowances for certain methods of preventing this. As long as a person is at least open to the possibility of having a child at some point, there is no real harm in that.

The Church opposes barrier method birth control because it fosters the wrong attitudes towards sex. They emphasize undisciplined petty lust over consumate union and procreation.

However, this is ultimately a rather soft condemnation. As I said before, the Church is against (anal) sodomy for many of the same reasons, but occasionally engaging in either behavior isn't going to send you to straight to Hell.

The Church's opposition to hormonal birth control is a bit more serious, as the argument could be made that many forms of hormonal birth control actually induce abortions. This is considered to be a rather serious sin as it might very well be tantamount to murder.

Obviously, you might not agree with any of this. However, that is the short explanation of the RCC's view of the matter.

So people of other faiths or agnostics, or atheist don't have a right to live by their belief systems...because the RCC makes claims regarding reproduction, which they say all people should have to meet the standards set by the church?

Here's the thing about religious tenets. That are just that. People who become members of any given religion do so voluntarily. Religions aren't...nor should they be political or authoritarian entities.

No member of any church is legally bound to follow the tenets or beliefs (dogmatic doctrine) disseminated by any church. And certainly the public at large isn't legally bound by those tenets.

While I do try to respect your rights to believe whatever you wish...I also expect you to respect my rights and not impose your beliefs on me...or others as far as that goes.

I think the problem is that people who claim to hold certain beliefs...aren't a living example of those beliefs.

If I see you living your life in a certain way...and I think that I'd like to know more about why you live your life the way that you do...then I think I would make inquiry. If I liked what you say...then I might entertain engaging in practicing living my life by the tenets that you do. But I sure as hell don't want anybody to attempt to force their beliefs on me.

Does any of the above make the slightest sense to you?

 

[Gathomas88]

So people of other faiths or agnostics, or atheist don't have a right to live by their belief systems...because the RCC makes claims regarding reproduction, which they say all people should have to meet the standards set by the church?

Here's the thing about religious tenets. That are just that. People who become members of any given religion do so voluntarily. Religions aren't...nor should they be political or authoritarian entities.

No member of any church is legally bound to follow the tenets or beliefs (dogmatic doctrine) disseminated by any church. And certainly the public at large isn't legally bound by those tenets.

While I do try to respect your rights to believe whatever you wish...I also expect you to respect my rights and not impose your beliefs on me...or others as far as that goes.

I think the problem is that people who claim to hold certain beliefs...aren't a living example of those beliefs.

If I see you living your life in a certain way...and I think that I'd like to know more about why you live your life the way that you do...then I think I would make inquiry. If I liked what you say...then I might entertain engaging in practicing living my life by the tenets that you do. But I sure as hell don't want anybody to attempt to force their beliefs on me.

Does any of the above make the slightest sense to you?

Did I ever say that the Church's viewpoints should be imposed on society at large? I'm not about to campaign for the banning of condoms, sponges, or any other number of barrier method birth control devices.

I will campaign against Abortion. However, that is a slightly different matter. I simply cannot sit idly by and turn a blind eye to what I perceive to be mass scale institutionalized murder in good conscience.

Birth control is a more complicated issue concerning which I am willing to pick my battles. I have faith in the ability of modern technology to come up with non-abortive substitutes on a more long term basis.

Frankly, I've never been much of a "Bible thumper" to begin with. I'll talk about my beliefs when asked, but I do not go out of my way to force them on to people.

 

[Removable Mind]

I'll talk about my beliefs when asked, but I do not go out of my way to force them on to people.

Groovy...

Thread/Like

 

[choiceone]

Wow, what a declaration! If a person is unwilling to ever have a child that person has no business getting married.

The question of this topic, of course, isn't NEVER having a child, but being pregnant the immediate 9 months and then a baby then and overall the question of unplanned babies a person doesn't want to have - or have at that time. Of course, that would exclude elderly folks ever marrying, but probably you didn't mean that.

Your's really is the Catholic doctrine view. Most people would say if a person is NEVER willing to have a child, to get a vacetomy or tubes tied. Quite a few people marry (or remarry after a divorce), planning not to have any more children - or certainly not for quite a while.

There also is the factor that some women can become pregnant at a very old age with a very high risk of birth defects and very possibly her body can't handle it. And there are women for which it is known that any pregnancy seriously risks her life due to other health issues. My wife is one of those women - though she takes the risk. I truly wish she wouldn't and while not refusing her nor trying to pressure her not to, I did seek diversions that worked for a while - not exactly forum topics. Others from her parents to friends beg her not to. Ultimately it is her choice much as I don't like it. But it would appear Catholic doctrine is that she has to take that death-risk at least to some degree.

The other confusion I have is IF marriage really is primarily for making babies, then why does Catholic doctrine allow ANY means of contraceptives? What is the theory behind its ok for a couple to have sex while she's menstrating to avoid pregnancy, but not for him to wear a condom? Do you know the doctrinal basis given for that?

I'm trying to avoid any more ridicule in this thread and more am curious of how the thinking works and what loopholes pro-life creates, if any, not to be judgmental, but just to understand the reasoning. VIRTUALLY everyone finds various loopholes and excuses around strict rules of moral conduct.

I actually do not agree that people who are unwilling ever to have children have no business getting married. There is a whole community online of people who have chosen to have child-free marriages, couples who decide from the start that they do not want kids and do not have them and their marriages last for decades that way. And there are people who get married when the woman is over 50 - you think that woman is going to get pregnant? You think it'd be easy for that couple to adopt?

It's my understanding that this sort of couple defines marriage as primarily a love relationship, not a relationship for raising a family. One gets to choose one person to be his/her true next of kin. You don't get to choose your parents or siblings. Even with contraception, abortion, and even in the case of adoption, it's not like people usually get to choose their kids, because they are rarely able to get to know even the kids they adopt before they adopt them. So a spouse is the only next of kin that you can have whom you can actually know well beforehand and say, I want to be related to this one.

Marriages much earlier in history and even now in various cultures are mainly for raising a family. In many societies, you didn't get to choose your spouse and even if you did, the whole point was family, not individuals choosing to be related to each other, choosing to be genuine best friends. Hence, most women had their female friends, most men had their male friends, and most spouses weren't best friends at all.

There is an increasing number of people in some societies today who simply don't want to have kids, the way some people don't want to have pets. And I can't resist saying that, while only humans and bonobos tend to have sex for fun and affection and only humans have it for intimate social bonding and romance, all the lower species do it as part of biological reproduction. So these new child-free couples are emphasizing the most human and least animalistic aspect of a sexual relationship.