Where Is The Praise?

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, no. We are only a few pages in on this one...and it only recently began to veer...

18 pages =/= a few

also people saying the same things about abortion over and over is boring. At least this is interesting.

so in the end, i shall continue to do it because it amuses me and I like being amused.

If you don't like it, too bad.

 

[mac]

18 pages =/= a few

also people saying the same things about abortion over and over is boring. At least this is interesting.

I guess my pages are longer than yours...I'm on page 5...but, if abortion threads bore you then, well...:shrug:

 

[OKgrannie]

Originally Posted by OKgrannie
NJ, I know this will shock you, but.....I have been past the age of reproducing for several years now, and yet (I know, OLD people having sex, GROSS) I enjoy a healthy sexual relationship with my husband. Are you going to tell me we can't do that?

No! wow people are really misunderstanding me. Have sex if you are in a marraige have fun whatever. Sex only (normaly) causes problems outside of marriage. Also my point on contraception is that it is better to just practice abstanance then use ovulation when your married if you dont want to concieve. Thats all ive said.

Actually, you said it is wrong to have sex unless you're risking pregnancy when you do.

 

[choiceone]

Ummmmmmm you are missing the point no offense I must just not have made this clear, but what meant was with contraceptives you 100% take away the ability to concieve (unless the pill doesnt work or something) where with watching ovulation to try and avoid a unwanted pregnancy you maybe have a 50% chance of avioding a baby and therefor you could still concieve. Any sex without the chance of conception is, by christian teaching, wrong.

I do not understand you. You said before that it is not a woman's fault if she is sterile. A man can be, too. But suppose either of these hypothetical people (I know of examples of both) got married and then found out about the sterility issue. Every time they had sex, they would know that they had zero chance of the woman getting pregnant. By your own words, sex in that marriage by Christian teaching would be wrong. No? So for that reason they should not "come together." But if they don't, they will be going against other words cited earlier from the Bible. Please elaborate.

 

[cpwill]

I'm shocked. I'm really, really shocked that Anti-Choice (Pro-Life, if you will) advocates in DP haven't come forward and given praise for the following news.

Teen pregnancy rates in US drop to 40-year low, study shows

Reuters quoted the researchers as saying the decline in teen birthrates was largely attributable to increased contraceptive use by teens of both genders.
"Teens are also using more effective forms of contraception," said Kathryn Kost, a Guttmacher Institute demographer who co-authored the analysis.

Actually, I'm not shocked. The next complaint - "Teens are still having sex - now stop it, kids, stop it!"

1. yes, it is good that teen pregnancy is decreasing.
2. yes, it is also bad that our society is teaching young people to hump like jackrabbits

 

[Your Star]

1. yes, it is good that teen pregnancy is decreasing.
2. yes, it is also bad that our society is teaching young people to hump like jackrabbits

Teaching them about BC, condoms, etc is not teaching them to hump like jackrabbits. Just teaching them how to do it safely and responsibly. You don't need to teach them how to hump like jackrabbits, they're already going to do that, you can't stop it. It's good to be responsible and teach them how to do it safely, so they don't end up getting pregnant, and have a kid they can't support, or get an STI.

 

[jasonxe]

We should be praising mtv's teen mom.

 

[cpwill]

Teaching them about BC, condoms, etc is not teaching them to hump like jackrabbits. Just teaching them how to do it safely and responsibly. You don't need to teach them how to hump like jackrabbits, they're already going to do that, you can't stop it. It's good to be responsible and teach them how to do it safely, so they don't end up getting pregnant, and have a kid they can't support, or get an STI.

45% of women age 20-24 test positive for HVP

society does indeed teach our kids that having unmarried sex with multiple partners starting at a young age is fine. that one of those results (unwed teenage pregnancy) is finally being mitigated doesn't mean that does not remain a problem. saying "young people are going to do that anyway" is to mistake the drive for the indulgement, like arguing that hunger is responsible for our obesity rates.

 

[Your Star]

45% of women age 20-24 test positive for HVP

society does indeed teach our kids that having unmarried sex with multiple partners starting at a young age is fine. that one of those results (unwed teenage pregnancy) is finally being mitigated doesn't mean that does not remain a problem. saying "young people are going to do that anyway" is to mistake the drive for the indulgement, like arguing that hunger is responsible for our obesity rates.

No it doesn't. And young people are going to do it, because all people do it, it's our nature. You can't stop people from having sex, also teaching kids how to have safe sex is not promoting that they have sex. It's just educating them on the subject, the people who are going to have sex at that age, which lets be honest, is most of us, are going to do it anyway. You can either have them not know how to protect themselves, and hope they wont have sex, or you can live in the real world and educate them.

 

[choiceone]

Just because sex ed does not teach young people to have sex does not mean that society does not teach them to do it. Almost all societies teach them to have sex. Societies want people to get married and have sex because 1) most people do it and they want self-validation, 2) most people who do it want grandchildren, 3) society prefers self-replication to immigration. It starts with interpretation of fairy tales. Most parents would be horrified if little girls took away from "Cinderella" a main message of "Cinderella is better looking and gets to live in a castle, but the fairy godmother has a better job" and would "correct" it. Stories, films, TV, and all sorts of other stuff teach an ideal of romantic love that ultimately leads to reproduction. Christianity does not teach its children in church that it is better to follow Christ, but rather that it is better to get married and have children and thus be saved by someone else's following Christ. Sex is all over advertising, how much fun it is, how bad life must be for people who do not indulge in it, how loveless the lives of people who choose friendship over sex and children, etc. Therefore, of course,mpressionable young people want to do it. To override this, girls would have to be taught that the fairy godmother really does have a better job, that Sleeping with the Enemy is a real risk of marriage, that neither Christ nor Buddha recommended marriage and sex as anyone's best option, and every single risk of pregnancy and childbirth, including serious infection leading to quadruple limb amputation. But that will not happen.

 

[nathanjames1791]

Catholic doctrine often is and that's where I take issue with it.

? I meant that there are more verses in bible about this issue, not actually something completely outside of the bible all together.

 

[nathanjames1791]

Actually, you said it is wrong to have sex unless you're risking pregnancy when you do.

Well obviously this doesnt apply when you are physically incapable of having children.

 

[nathanjames1791]

I do not understand you. You said before that it is not a woman's fault if she is sterile. A man can be, too. But suppose either of these hypothetical people (I know of examples of both) got married and then found out about the sterility issue. Every time they had sex, they would know that they had zero chance of the woman getting pregnant. By your own words, sex in that marriage by Christian teaching would be wrong. No? So for that reason they should not "come together." But if they don't, they will be going against other words cited earlier from the Bible. Please elaborate.

Well I dont believe God is going to damn someone because they are physically incapable of having children. Sex inside of marriage is fine, by catholic doctrine, as long as there are no contraceptives are used.

 

[prometeus]

Well obviously this doesnt apply when you are physically incapable of having children.

Then it is lust and a no, no.

 

[nathanjames1791]

Then it is lust and a no, no.

Look Im not going to argue about this. It is rediculous to think God would damn somone becuase they are physically incapable of having children. Again sex is ok as long as it is in marraige and there are no contraceptives.

 

[OKgrannie]

Look Im not going to argue about this. It is rediculous to think God would damn somone becuase they are physically incapable of having children. Again sex is ok as long as it is in marraige and there are no contraceptives.

Then tubal ligations and vasectomies are acceptable?

 

[Slartibartfast]

? I meant that there are more verses in bible about this issue, not actually something completely outside of the bible all together.

Oh, I figured you were going to quote a pope or thomas acquinas or something.

 

[nathanjames1791]

Then tubal ligations and vasectomies are acceptable?

Ok now what you're talking about is differnt. That is a person's choice and therefore not the same thing as being born barren

 

[nathanjames1791]

Oh, I figured you were going to quote a pope or thomas acquinas or something.

No, and just saying but that is a common misconception about catholics. Catholic popes and cardinals are not allowed to pass anything as Catholic doctrine unless there is some sort of proof coming straight from the bible.

 

[GreenvilleGrows]

No, and just saying but that is a common misconception about catholics. Catholic popes and cardinals are not allowed to pass anything as Catholic doctrine unless there is some sort of proof coming straight from the bible.

"Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."

"It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others..."

But, it's interesting that the author quotes 2 Tim 3:16-17 which says that Scripture was provided so that man could be equipped. How can man be equipped with Scripture if he also needs tradition?

 

[prometeus]

Look Im not going to argue about this. It is rediculous to think God would damn somone becuase they are physically incapable of having children.

Please, at least attempt to maintain a small level of intellectual integrity. Misrepresenting posts is not a convincing argument.

Again sex is ok as long as it is in marraige and there are no contraceptives.

If procreation is not possible it is lust and lust is a sin.

 

[nathanjames1791]

Please, at least attempt to maintain a small level of intellectual integrity. Misrepresenting posts is not a convincing argument.

If procreation is not possible it is lust and lust is a sin.

Please explain how I was representing it? You are basically saying that I think God would damn somone for their inability to have children. As I have said many times sex is fine inside of marriage and without some sort of contraceptive. Also if sex in marraige is only about lust then something is seriously wrong with the marriage. I should think it would be about love by that point.

 

[prometeus]

Please explain how I was representing it?

My comment was about lust NOT inability to procreate and you used the inability to procreate as a counter argument.

You are basically saying that I think God would damn somone for their inability to have children.

No, I am not saying that at all so you either are unable to understand simple sentences or are dishonest.

As I have said many times sex is fine inside of marriage and without some sort of contraceptive.

As long as it is for procreation. If procreation is not possible and that is know, then sex is nothing more than satisfaction of lust and that is a sin.

Also if sex in marraige is only about lust

Again you are misrepresenting. At no time was the word "ONLY" mentioned by me. If you really do not understand what I post ask and I will do my best to clarify.
Sex to satisfy lust is a sin, sex to procreate is not.

 

[nathanjames1791]

My comment was about lust NOT inability to procreate and you used the inability to procreate as a counter argument.

No, I am not saying that at all so you either are unable to understand simple sentences or are dishonest.

As long as it is for procreation. If procreation is not possible and that is know, then sex is nothing more than satisfaction of lust and that is a sin.

Again you are misrepresenting. At no time was the word "ONLY" mentioned by me. If you really do not understand what I post ask and I will do my best to clarify.
Sex to satisfy lust is a sin, sex to procreate is not.

It is becoming obvious that we arent going to agree on this but let me just say sex, especially in marriage, should never be about lust according to the bible, it should be about love.

 

[prometeus]

It is becoming obvious that we arent going to agree on this but let me just say sex, especially in marriage, should never be about lust according to the bible, it should be about love.

To be fair I was going by Catholic doctrine. Sex outside procreation is lust and thus a sin.