Why does the catholic church consider birth control immoral?

[Edtharan]

All I wanted was for you to supply some sources to back up the assertions you made. I find that you are very good at that when you are on the science forums. Over here you seem to accept a much lower standard. And laughing at me ( ) and implying that I'm a dumbass ( ) isn't really adding much to the conversation.

Actually it was your quoting of what I wrote that didn't add to the conversation. You quoted out of context, leaving off the next sentance I wrote that showed why it was obvious (ie: basic maths that most people learn in primary school).

 

Either you deliberatly made that chocie or you just didn't read what I said. The fact that anyone who actually read my post would have seen this glareing mistake is why I facepalmed.

 

Too often people only grab the first thing that seems to support their case, but so often it is that with a little bit of thought, the "evidence" they provide actually disproves their arguments. I do find it amusing when people do this because it shows they are not really taking the argument seriously, or at least not seriously enough to think about their responses.

 

See your statistics, on the surface, seems to support your position, but with a little bit of thought, you would have known that Spain has active family planing centres and education. Where as Niger does not and discourages family planing.

 

My point was that in countries with family planning and education then the birth rate is lower, but in countries where these things are discouraged then the birth rate is higher. As your statistics directly demonstrated this, you obviously did not put much effort into it and so indicate that you are not taking this seriously at all.

 

If I laughed, it was because the statisitics were a joke.

[JohnB]

Moon, we already discussed in this thread why birth control inside marriage is wrong in the Catholic church. And if you are not Catholic, then this doesn't apply to you. I don't understand why it bothers you if others choose to join this group and live by its rules (or even ignore its rules).

 

Zapatos hits the nub of the issue here. There are rules that you are supposed to follow if you are a member of the "Catholic Club", just the same as any other club. If you aren't a member of the particular club, then the rules don't apply to you. Which also means that members of any given club don't have to justify themselves, or their rules to anybody else to that anybodys level of satisfaction. If asked, they may try if they so choose, but they don't have to. (And failure to understand the answer is not their fault.) I add that trying to explain one rule without considering the full philosophical context is totally pointless.

 

I'm not Catholic, their rules don't apply to me. If that is how they choose to live and so living doesn't hurt anybody else, then their rules are none of my bloody business.

 

I find it interesting that people from the "Land of the Free" are demanding that someone with a different philosophical outlook justify themselves and their philosophy.

 

Taking the religious out of it, but still in keeping with philosophic ideas. Would anyone here care to to justify the American system of government to me? To my satisfaction? Why should you? I'm an Australian and not effected by how your system works and so long as you don't pose a major threat to me and mine; 1. I don't care and 2. It's none of my bloody business.

[zapatos]

Actually it was your quoting of what I wrote that didn't add to the conversation. You quoted out of context, leaving off the next sentance I wrote that showed why it was obvious (ie: basic maths that most people learn in primary school).

 

Either you deliberatly made that chocie or you just didn't read what I said. The fact that anyone who actually read my post would have seen this glareing mistake is why I facepalmed.

 

Too often people only grab the first thing that seems to support their case, but so often it is that with a little bit of thought, the "evidence" they provide actually disproves their arguments. I do find it amusing when people do this because it shows they are not really taking the argument seriously, or at least not seriously enough to think about their responses.

 

See your statistics, on the surface, seems to support your position, but with a little bit of thought, you would have known that Spain has active family planing centres and education. Where as Niger does not and discourages family planing.

 

My point was that in countries with family planning and education then the birth rate is lower, but in countries where these things are discouraged then the birth rate is higher. As your statistics directly demonstrated this, you obviously did not put much effort into it and so indicate that you are not taking this seriously at all.

 

If I laughed, it was because the statisitics were a joke.

I apologize that my attempt to engage you on this topic was so inferior. I won't bother you again.

[pioneer]

The way I see it is liberal social policies created a sinking ship which needs birth control as one of the many socials mops to clean up their mess. Instead of looking at the big picture, we tend to focus on this particular mess, which taken by itself does suggest birth control being a reasonable mop. But the big picture involves a series of blunders, that created social problems which need solutions, which create problems, etc.

 

Liberal democrats do come up with good ideas, in theory, but they lack practical common sense. They were sort of like the wife who wants to expand the kitchen and can knows how she would like to set it up, but doesn't know a hammer from a nail or understand the cost. To her it just sort of happens and poof we have a new kitchen. But to the practical minded, it takes more planning or else you can create problems, which gets more expensive down the line.

 

What may have happened is the liberal wife wanted the kitchen but the husband was dragging his feet. He has the skills to turn the kitchen into reality, but is worried about the social cost. This is the churches. So the wife gets a sledgehammer and starts to knock down the walls. In the process she knocks down a support wall, now we have a problem. True, it is a good idea to add a header for support, but if it had been done right we would not have needed that header in the first palce. It may not be a good idea to have her do the plumbing next, since we already know we will be replacing the floors. After the floor is warped and stained by the water, we will be debating whether it is good to replace the floor. But in reality one side already knows this can be avoided if we let the experts do the plumbing.

 

If you look at Obama's health care, it is a good liberal idea. But only in theory, but not in terms of the nebulous state of liberal practicality. It is one of those kitchen remodelling jobs. Maybe the old kitchen needs to be expanded, but we really need to leave that to the practical minded who can avoid the need for as many mops.

[Edtharan]

I apologize that my attempt to engage you on this topic was so inferior. I won't bother you again.

It wasn't that it was inferior, it was that it wasn't thought through and seemed benieth what you have demonstrated in the past.

 

As a side note, I heard on the news the other day that the Pope was touring Spain and trying to convince them to stop using birth control. So although Spain is a predominently Catholic country, they are currently ignoring the church prohibition on birth control.

 

This is what I was meaning about how people just use statistic without thinking them through. You used the statistic because they seemed to support your point because birth control is prohibited in Catholocism and because Spain is highly Catholic then on the surface it would suggest that Spain does not have strong birth control policies.

 

But just a quick examination of Spain shows that they do have strong birth control acceptance, even among the Catholics. They may be Catholics, but they disagree with the church on this policy.

 

As my argument was that strong birth control acceptance reduces birth rate and a lower birth rate is an indication of a more proserous economy, then the statistic you supplied exactly agreed with my argument. It was that you only looked at the surface and then made assuptions about the conclusions that made your attempt so weak.

 

Wehn people do this, they only weaken their side of the argument, and if you want to be effective in discussions, then you need to use arguments that don't weaken your position.

[Marat]

Pope Leo XIII in the 19th century published a papal encyclical which stated as one of the reasons why condoms should be prohibited the principle that "wer suendet, soll zahlen," as the famous German formulation had it, or "he who sins should pay." The idea was that people using condoms so as not to get STDs from sleeping non-monogamously should pay for exercising their lust outside of marriage. The Church de-emphasizes this reason today, because it sounds too cruel and ridiculous for modern tastes.