Where Is The Praise?

[Removable Mind]

So?

......

Man, it takes sooooo little to wake you up, Mac.

So....so what? You read what I said. It's not in pig Latin...

 

[sangha]

See #15 what? Humanae Vitae is the reigning doctrine on the issue and it says no such thing.

Humanae Vitae is numbered. #15 explicitely states that in some circumstances, intefering with the procreative process is allowed.

 

[mac]

Man, it takes sooooo little to wake you up, Mac.

So....so what? You read what I said. It's not in pig Latin...

No, it's not...what it is is irrelevant. So, what was the point you were trying to make by saying some Catholics use birth control?

 

[sangha]

No, it's not...what it is is irrelevant. So, what was the point you were trying to make by saying some Catholics use birth control?

>90% equals "some"????

 

[mac]

Humanae Vitae is numbered. #15 explicitely states that in some circumstances, intefering with the procreative process is allowed.

Oh, I see what your saying. Think you're stretching though. That means that if the "contraception" also cures an ailment then it is not sinful. I don't see how that furthers your argument. It's still not saying that sex is only for procreation, or that sex for pleasure is wrong.

 

[mac]

>90% equals "some"????

Where did you get 90%?

 

[sangha]

Oh, I see what your saying. Think you're stretching though. That means that if the "contraception" also cures an ailment then it is not sinful. I don't see how that furthers your argument. It's still not saying that sex is only for procreation, or that sex for pleasure is wrong.

It doesn't "further" my argument that "sex is only for procreation" (which isn't what I said). It proves that what you said earlier (ie that any interference with the procreative process was sinful) was wrong.

 

[sangha]

Where did you get 90%?

Reality....

 

[choiceone]

1. The over 90% figure is all over the web based on surveys that have asked US women whether they have ever used birth control. In fact, apparently on the survey, about 95%? had used birth control and 98% of Catholic women had used it. I have no idea where this survey is, but I will look for it for you.

2. Hormonal birth control pills are used as a common medication for regularization of menstrual periods in cases of irregular menstruation and for keeping serious illnesses under control, e.g., endometriosis and some kinds of serious cystosis. FYI, the testimony that Darrell Issa refused to allow at the Congressional hearing was to concern a Catholic university that refused to allow the insurance provided for a student to cover these pills as a medication to control the student's serious cystosis. Since the student could not cover the expensive cost, she had to do without, had a huge medical emergency leading to surgical removal of a cyst and an ovary, and this problem led to constant pain and the threat of future infertility due to premature menopause by the woman's early thirties. Thus, the Catholic position was to deny legitimate health care, cause medical disaster, cause infertility and premature aging leaving a woman in the prime of life with high risks of heart disease, osteoporosis, etc. Look at what the Holy Spirit does, compare what the Catholic position does and what Obama's policy does, and tell me who blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

 

[mac]

It doesn't "further" my argument that "sex is only for procreation" (which isn't what I said). It proves that what you said earlier (ie that any interference with the procreative process was sinful) was wrong.

No, I was not wrong. You are conflating two different things.

 

[mac]

1. The over 90% figure is all over the web based on surveys that have asked US women whether they have ever used birth control. In fact, apparently on the survey, about 95%? had used birth control and 98% of Catholic women had used it. I have no idea where this survey is, but I will look for it for you.

2. Hormonal birth control pills are used as a common medication for regularization of menstrual periods in cases of irregular menstruation and for keeping serious illnesses under control, e.g., endometriosis and some kinds of serious cystosis. FYI, the testimony that Darrell Issa refused to allow at the Congressional hearing was to concern a Catholic university that refused to allow the insurance provided for a student to cover these pills as a medication to control the student's serious cystosis. Since the student could not cover the expensive cost, she had to do without, had a huge medical emergency leading to surgical removal of a cyst and an ovary, and this problem led to constant pain and the threat of future infertility due to premature menopause by the woman's early thirties. Thus, the Catholic position was to deny legitimate health care, cause medical disaster, cause infertility and premature aging leaving a woman in the prime of life with high risks of heart disease, osteoporosis, etc. Look at what the Holy Spirit does, compare what the Catholic position does and what Obama's policy does, and tell me who blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

K. Mind substantiating that?

 

[sangha]

No, I was not wrong. You are conflating two different things.

No, what it says is interfering with the natural process of procreation was sinful.

From the document

On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever

 

[mac]

From the document

Right, to cure bodily diseases. Not to prevent conception.

:shrug:

Read the whole thing.

 

[sangha]

Right, to cure bodily diseases. Not to prevent conception.

:shrug:

Read the whole thing.

You claimed it said that interfering with the natural process of procreation was a sin.

No, what it says is interfering with the natural process of procreation was sinful.

It says the opposite, and you think that proves you were right :lamo

 

[mac]

You claimed it said that interfering with the natural process of procreation was a sin.




It says the opposite, and you think that proves you were right :lamo

Dude...read what you posted. "provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever"

 

[sangha]

Dude...read what you posted. "provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever"

DUde, read what YOU posted

No, what it says is interfering with the natural process of procreation was sinful.

"provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever" means that interfering with the natural process of procreation is NOT necesarily a sin, as you falsely claimed it was

 

[Bodi]

Because that's what extremists do

I thought that you had an actual argument...

 

[mac]

DUde, read what YOU posted



"provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever" means that interfering with the natural process of procreation is NOT necesarily a sin, as you falsely claimed it was

As long as it is not the intent to. Use of the medications is only not a sin if it is used for other than contraceptive purposes. Not difficult, Sangha, really.

 

[sangha]

As long as it is not the intent to. Use of the medications is only not a sin if it is used for other than contraceptive purposes. Not difficult, Sangha, really.

No,. it's not difficult, and yet, you got it wrong anyway

No, what it says is interfering with the natural process of procreation was sinful.

 

[mac]

No,. it's not difficult, and yet, you got it wrong anyway

You're unbelievable dude. If you think you can twist the intent of the Pope by trying to selectively highlight some words in his encyclical...you go right ahead. The intent of that paragraph is pretty clear, and it's not to condone the use of contraceptives for the purpose of contraception. Using contraceptives for the sole purpose of inhibiting conception is a sin, according to the Catholic Church. You can't prove otherwise, and you just look foolish trying to play word games with it.

 

[sangha]

You're unbelievable dude. If you think you can twist the intent of the Pope by trying to selectively highlight some words in his encyclical...you go right ahead. The intent of that paragraph is pretty clear, and it's not to condone the use of contraceptives for the purpose of contraception. Using contraceptives for the sole purpose of inhibiting conception is a sin, according to the Catholic Church. You can't prove otherwise, and you just look foolish trying to play word games with it.

I'll explain it simply for you. Try to read it slowly. You can move your lips if it helps

You said

what it says is interfering with the natural process of procreation was sinful.

What it really says is that "interfering with the natural process of procreation" is sometimes sinful, and sometimes not.

 

[mac]

I'll explain it simply for you. Try to read it slowly. You can move your lips if it helps

You said


What it really says is that "interfering with the natural process of procreation" is sometimes sinful, and sometimes not.

No, son, you don't get it. You're ignoring intent, and intent is what makes things sinful or not.

 

[choiceone]

K. Mind substantiating that?

On the Congressional hearing:

The university is Georgetown University (founded by first Catholic bishop in the US John Carroll). The Issa hearing concerned the claim of the Catholic church that Catholic organizations other than the church, including institutions that were for-profit universities, should not have to provide insurance that covers birth control for any reason, nor should it have to provide insurance that does not cover birth control if the government is going to demand that the insurance company offering the insurance make a separate offer of such coverage to the women who have policies the institutions do provide.

Though the committee hearing under Issa was, of course, a Republican committee, the congressional rules allow the minority party to select one person to testify. The Democrats asked Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School. At first, Issa claimed that her name had been submitted too late. When this was contested by Dems, Issa said Fluke was not qualified to speak because the issue was not birth control/contraception but freedom of religion. Fluke will be testifying in a counter hearing called by Nancy Pelosi for this express purpose on Thursday this week. The Republicans have said they will block television coverage of this hearing. Fluke was interviewed on a variety of news shows this weekend. One of these was the Ed show on MSNBC. There is a video and transcript including the information on the insurance victim. See:
video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/46421856#46421856, "Powerful testimony the GOP needs to hear."

 

[mac]

On the Congressional hearing:

The university is Georgetown University (founded by first Catholic bishop in the US John Carroll). The Issa hearing concerned the claim of the Catholic church that Catholic organizations other than the church, including institutions that were for-profit universities, should not have to provide insurance that covers birth control for any reason, nor should it have to provide insurance that does not cover birth control if the government is going to demand that the insurance company offering the insurance make a separate offer of such coverage to the women who have policies the institutions do provide.

Though the committee hearing under Issa was, of course, a Republican committee, the congressional rules allow the minority party to select one person to testify. The Democrats asked Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School. At first, Issa claimed that her name had been submitted too late. When this was contested by Dems, Issa said Fluke was not qualified to speak because the issue was not birth control/contraception but freedom of religion. Fluke will be testifying in a counter hearing called by Nancy Pelosi for this express purpose on Thursday this week. The Republicans have said they will block television coverage of this hearing. Fluke was interviewed on a variety of news shows this weekend. One of these was the Ed show on MSNBC. There is a video and transcript including the information on the insurance victim. See:
video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/46421856#46421856, "Powerful testimony the GOP needs to hear."

How does this substantiate the 90% claim?

 

[mac]

Maybe you should have a look at this:

The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul - The Washington Post