Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

Oh come on! it's a trade off?!? Did you ever notice how the easiest form of birth control is the condom but instead we decide we will force women to trade-off and balance their health vs. protection? Or we stick some kind of artificial plastic device in her?

Do you know any place in the West where women are kidnapped and forcibly implanted with IUDs? or where someone holds a gun to their heads every day and forces them to take the pill? Or where they are fined or jailed if they don't use birth control marked as "disapproved by the Catholic church?"

Seeing as how you represent an organization that manipulates people through guilt and shame, I'd go easy on the word "force."

Quote:

If you don't have a problem with contraception just wear a condom

But Francis and many of his very old, very male, very chaste and very childless predecessors say condoms are Satan's party balloons, no?

Quote:

or get to know the woman long enough to understand her menstrual cycle.

And her shoe size. That will do you more good in the long run (i.e any as opposed to none).

Quote: FrGamble

but they lead to promiscuity .

You say that like promiscuity is a bad thing.

7 Reasons Why Promiscuous Women Shouldn’t Be Shamed

https://www.babble.com/relationships/7-reasons-why-female-promiscuity-should-not-be-shamed/

Quote: FrGamble

They don't cause cancer but they lead to promiscuity and they don't protect against HPV, which causes cervical cancer and other problems.

Thank science for the HPV vaccine.

Quote:

They also aren't foolproof in preventing pregnancy.

There are two foolproof ways of preventing pregnancy: 1) menopause, 2) death. Everything else is a statistical proposition, with some methods providing better chances than others. Again, it involves trade-offs.

Quote: FrGamble

They don't cause cancer but they lead to promiscuity and they don't protect against HPV, which causes cervical cancer and other problems. So they lead to cancer, infidelity, broken homes, broken hearts, and other diseases. They also aren't foolproof in preventing pregnancy.

Everything you said applies to the rhythm method. Even the bit about promiscuity.

But that is a bit of departure - you implied that the church wants to keep birth control pills away from women because they might cause cancer.

That of course isn't the real reason, because they are also opposed to condoms, which do not cause cancer.

Is the church against the HPV vaccine like some of those conservative Christian churches?

Speaking of keeping carcinogens away from women, what is the church's position on smoking?

Quote: Dalex64

E]That of course isn't the real reason,

The real reason the Church has always
been opposed to BC is because the
more kids a Catholic has, the more
the Church's future is set. A Catholic
woman's goal in life as far as the Church
is concerned, is to produce more Catholics.
The founding fathers of the Church weren't
idiots, they were always planning for the
future, they thought Catholicism would
rule the world for eons. The say Jesus will
return, but they don't really mean it. That
would totally screw up their business plan.

Quote: Nareed

Do you know any place in the West where women are kidnapped and forcibly implanted with IUDs? or where someone holds a gun to their heads every day and forces them to take the pill?

Planned Parenthood, based on their founder and their immoral activity would be for forced sterilizations in Africa and in poor minority communities were they set up shop. There is also a chauvinistic culture that has doctors looking at you strange if you don't take the pill, it is practically forced on young girls.

Quote:

But Francis and many of his very old, very male, very chaste and very childless predecessors say condoms are Satan's party balloons, no?

No, take a look at Pope Benedict's comments on the issue.

Quote: Nareed

There are two foolproof ways of preventing pregnancy: 1) menopause, 2) death. Everything else is a statistical proposition, with some methods providing better chances than others. Again, it involves trade-offs.

It is interesting that you don't mention abstinence. You continue to think it is trade off to take a healthy woman with a healthy cycle and give her an amount of artificial hormones that stop a very healthy thing in a woman and is proven to lead to cancer. Why you don't see something wrong with this is strange.

Quote: Dalex64

Everything you said applies to the rhythm method. Even the bit about promiscuity.

However, it doesn't apply to Natural Family Planning. In NFP you have to actually plan and talk to the woman to make sure she is open to and ready or not ready to have sex. Imagine that, the man would actually have to respect a woman's body and not just treat her as a piece of meant or an pleasure object.

Quote:

But that is a bit of departure - you implied that the church wants to keep birth control pills away from women because they might cause cancer.

That is one of the reasons the Church is against the pill and on this reason anyone with a brain should also be against the pill.

Quote:

Is the church against the HPV vaccine like some of those conservative Christian churches?

Of course not.

Quote:

Speaking of keeping carcinogens away from women, what is the church's position on smoking?

Women shouldn't smoke. Just kidding, we all shouldn't smoke. Of course I say that and at the same time I do use chewing tobacco. Any of these things when they become addictive and you use them over and over again which can cause bad things to happen to your health the Church is against. However, I don't think in moral theology an occasional cigar or pipe is forbidden. Just like an occasional drink of alcohol is not against the Church's moral law.

Quote: FrGamble

However, it doesn't apply to Natural Family Planning. In NFP you have to actually plan and talk to the woman to make sure she is open to and ready or not ready to have sex. Imagine that, the man would actually have to respect a woman's body and not just treat her as a piece of meant or an pleasure object.



That is one of the reasons the Church is against the pill and on this reason anyone with a brain should also be against the pill.



Of course not.



Women shouldn't smoke. Just kidding, we all shouldn't smoke. Of course I say that and at the same time I do use chewing tobacco. Any of these things when they become addictive and you use them over and over again which can cause bad things to happen to your health the Church is against. However, I don't think in moral theology an occasional cigar or pipe is forbidden. Just like an occasional drink of alcohol is not against the Church's moral law.

My point is the church in this case is not opposed to the use of a known carcinogen.

So the fact that something might cause cancer is not a reason for the church to oppose something, or if it is, the church isn't being consistent.

The fact is, the church has their reasons for opposing the pill, but logically preventing cancer can not be one of those reasons - it is just something potentially bad that is piled on as a "reason" when clearly it is not. Otherwise, the church would either oppose smoking, or approve the birth control pill if it were used 'in moderation' consistent with their tobacco policy.

As for a man and woman needing to talk - if a promiscuous girl was aware of her cycles and did not want to use other contraception, and only went out when she didn't think she was fertile, she certainly needn't tell her partner, and from what I heard at least in the past some men are opposed to wearing a condom, so they wouldn't ask either.

As a contraception, the rhythm method and NFP are the same thing. I didn't use the term NFP because I was talking about contraception, not family planning.

Now, since the church is not opposed to the HPV vaccine, you can remove one of your objections to condom use, if the people have been vaccinated.

Quote: Dalex64

The fact is, the church has their reasons for opposing the pill, but logically preventing cancer can not be one of those reasons

The Church sets an agenda, then goes about
finding phony baloney reasons for the agenda
to exist. Their religion is about warm bodies
at mass, the more the better. If they were for
BC, this would go against the basis for the
religion. Having as many Catholics in the
world as humanly possible.

FrG of course thinks this is just more crazy
talk, which I've come to learn means I've just
hit it on the head.