Abortion!

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ming
And if you don't believe it's murder... and you believe it is a personal right for a woman to have control over her own body, you kinda have to get fired up about it too.

where's a :puke: smiley when you need one?
My three favourite arguments of all time:

1) Atheists don't believe in pink unicorns
2) All skyscrapers represent phalluses
3) It's just a part of the woman's body

:puke: :puke:

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Ming
Let's see... abstain during fertile periods = avoiding having children

Contraception = avoiding having children

The difference is just a few days... They are BOTH forms of contraception.

If the intention is to exclude any possibility of conception, it doesn't matter what method you use. Part of the rationale for allowing the rhythm method is that it does not totally exclude the possibility of conception.

1) 'Artificial ' methods are not fool-proof. So there is room for debate about their use.
2) 'Natural' methods are condoned only inasmuch as the couple has the intent to have children at some point. If the rhythm method is used to exclude the possibility of conception, it is no more 'moral' (or in accordance with Church teachings) than any other method.

Come to the front of the class Bling Fing, you get a gold star in catechism.

Why the Church should view one as ok and others not is just plain stupid...

Oh, and try not to swallow your foot on the way

[Ming]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius


where's a :puke: smiley when you need one?
My three favourite arguments of all time:

1) Atheists don't believe in pink unicorns
2) All skyscrapers represent phalluses
3) It's just a part of the woman's body

:puke: :puke:

I guess it's easy to ignore the rights of women when you are a male...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius
If the intention is to exclude any possibility of conception, it doesn't matter what method you use. Part of the rationale for allowing the rhythm method is that it does not totally exclude the possibility of conception.

That's just bad post rationalization by the church... Reality is, they allow one form of birth control and not others.

2) 'Natural' methods are condoned only inasmuch as the couple has the intent to have children at some point. If the rhythm method is used to exclude the possibility of conception, it is no more 'moral' (or in accordance with Church teachings) than any other method.

Using that argument, it would then be ok to use other forms as well, as long as you had an intent in the future to have children. I have never heard a Catholic priest claim in church/school/private discussion that you can't use the rhythm method if you never plan to have children. The opposite is the case... They have said that if you want to avoid having children, that the rhythm method is the only form allowed by the church.
Now how silly is that.

Come to the front of the class Bling Fing, you get a gold star in catechism.

I probably got more gold stars in it then you did... plus I minored in it in college... how much formal education in religion do you have?

Oh, and try not to swallow your foot on the way

From reading your weak arguments, you should be the one that's used to tasting leather...

[Arrian]

See, abortion debates go nowhere. People are pretty spit over the issue (at least here in the US).

Birth control & sex ed is clearly the way to make progress.

To me, sex ed includes: a) this is how it's done; b) here are the possible negative (physical) outcomes (pregnancy, disease; c) the only way to totally avoid potential problems is to simply not have sex; d) if, however, you do have sex, here are the ways you can reduce the risks; e) talk to your parents... if not about sex in particular, at least about relationships.

And make birth control readily available. No, not by handing them out in sex ed class. A basket full of condoms in the nurse's office will do Hey, that's what they had at college. I found that useful for a time.

-Arrian

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure. Why would it be wrong for a husband and wife to have sex with each other when she is not fertile? If you said this was wrong, then they could only have sex with each other during her fertile periods.

The difference between this and the condom, is that how would you know whether the woman was fertile or not, if you always used condoms? You would use them all the time, since you would have no clue as to when she was fertile.

But say it's a couple that've already knocked out a few sprogs, and decided they don't want any more kids. Maybe the wife wants to go to work, or something insane like that. They know the fertile periods, and so they only have sex when she isn't going to conceive. They decided to start using condoms at the same time (But refrain from sex completely when she is likely to conceive): are they being immoral in using condoms?

It matters a great deal when you choose to become part of the Catholic church. You have to be willing to accept the teachings that are required as part of the Catholic faith. It's like your wedding vows, a promise that you make before you enter, and if you don't like making those promises, you should go elsewhere.

So you DO follow the church's teachings that evolution happened and ID is a load of rubbish? I'm glad to hear!

[Arrian]

Sure. Why would it be wrong for a husband and wife to have sex with each other when she is not fertile? If you said this was wrong, then they could only have sex with each other during her fertile periods.

They're having sex for fun, then. Accordingly, sex for fun is ok. Accordingly, using a condom or other birth control to have sex for fun is ok. Why wouldn't it be? Because it's "unnatural" or somesuch bull****? So are antiboitics. So what?

My wife's on the pill. We do not wish to have a child, at least right now. We may later. WE WILL PERISH IN FLAMES! [/Keymaster]

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

I love this discussion of "fertile periods" like a woman's a farm by which you can set your watch.

[Gibsie]

Well it's true apparently! It works very well in many Americans communities...

[Ben Kenobi]

But say it's a couple that've already knocked out a few sprogs, and decided they don't want any more kids. Maybe the wife wants to go to work, or something insane like that. They know the fertile periods, and so they only have sex when she isn't going to conceive. They decided to start using condoms at the same time (But refrain from sex completely when she is likely to conceive): are they being immoral in using condoms?

If they are going to use condoms in the end, why bother to know when she is fertile or not? I can't understand their rationale for using condoms.

So you DO follow the church's teachings that evolution happened and ID is a load of rubbish? I'm glad to hear!

I specifically said that there are certain beliefs that are essential to being a Catholic. ID vs evolution is not one of them.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I specifically said that there are certain beliefs that are essential to being a Catholic. ID vs evolution is not one of them.

Uhhhh... and who makes the call on which beliefs are essential... because I think the Vatican would disagree with you on what is considered essential.

[Arrian]

I can't understand their rationale for using condoms.

Because, um, the "rhythm method" is the least effective type of birth control? Relying on it is a bad idea.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Vatican paper hits 'intelligent design'

By NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.

The article in Tuesday's editions of L'Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials - including the pope - on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.

The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution "represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth."

He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s, and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.

"This isn't how science is done," he wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."

Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.

"It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes."

Supporters of "intelligent design" hold that some features of the universe and living things are so complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism - a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific language and say it does not belong in science curriculum.

Facchini said he recognized some Darwin proponents erroneously assume that evolution explains everything. "Better to recognize that the problem from the scientific point of view remains open," he said.

But he concluded: "In a vision that goes beyond the empirical horizon, we can say that we aren't men by chance or by necessity, and that the human experience has a sense and a direction signaled by a superior design."

The article echoed similar arguments by the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne, who said "intelligent design" wasn't science and had no place in school classrooms.

Where does it say Pope Benedict rejects ID? This is just an article in the Osservatore Romano defending evolutionary theory.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-pope13.html

Pope sides with 'intelligent design' advocates

November 13, 2005

BY NICOLE WINFIELD

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an ''intelligent project'' and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Benedict made the off-the-cuff comments during his general audience Wednesday. The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published the full text of his remarks in its Thursday editions.

Benedict focused his reflections for the audience on scriptural readings that said God's love was seen in the ''marvels of creation.''

He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, ''fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance.''

Remarks hailed by advocates

''How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order,'' he said.

''With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word -- this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos -- is also love.''

His comments were hailed by advocates of intelligent design, who hold that the universe is so complex, it must have been created by a higher power. Proponents of the theory seek to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation -- camouflaged in scientific language and does not belong in science curriculum.

John Paul's remark 'rather vague'

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution came up in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times op-ed piece, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was ''more than just a hypothesis.'' Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was ''rather vague and unimportant.''

Schoenborn attended Wednesday's audience

[Ben Kenobi]

and who makes the call on which beliefs are essential... because I think the Vatican would disagree with you on what is considered essential.

You were a catechism minor, ming. What beliefs must all Catholics accept as true in order to be Catholic?