odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 313
  • Posts: 8713
March 5th, 2012 at 12:28:00 AM permalink
I didn't miss the second paragraph by getting miffed by the first one, Padre. It's his best argument. Nonetheless I can not sign on to the Church's position.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
March 5th, 2012 at 12:29:58 AM permalink
Quote: Wavy70

See even me and Evenbob agree. The world is comming to the end!



90% is far worse odds than a slot machine offers. You
will get pregnant, its just a matter of time. All NFP does
slows down the chances, it doesn't prevent anything.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
March 5th, 2012 at 12:42:28 AM permalink
Quote: Wavy70

See even me and Evenbob agree. The world is comming to the end!



As usual it is not a good idea to agree with Bob. His statements about NFP's effectiveness and enjoyability are incorrect. I also think it's crazy to say that because one does not have sex they can't speak about the topic. Can there be a male gynecologist?

Anyway, your particular situation is obviously difficult. If for good reason you did not want to have children you are correct NFP will give you only a 99% chance of avoiding pregnancy. With that 1% chance of getting pregnant I don't know what the chances would be of having a child with MS, but from your thoughtful post I imagine the chances would be excellent that any child of yours would be special, wonderful, beautiful, and loved just like how you see your wife.
PopCan
PopCan
Joined: Feb 15, 2012
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 178
March 5th, 2012 at 2:43:41 AM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

As usual it is not a good idea to agree with Bob. His statements about NFP's effectiveness and enjoyability are incorrect. I also think it's crazy to say that because one does not have sex they can't speak about the topic. Can there be a male gynecologist?

Anyway, your particular situation is obviously difficult. If for good reason you did not want to have children you are correct NFP will give you only a 99% chance of avoiding pregnancy. With that 1% chance of getting pregnant I don't know what the chances would be of having a child with MS, but from your thoughtful post I imagine the chances would be excellent that any child of yours would be special, wonderful, beautiful, and loved just like how you see your wife.



Do you have any studies to back that up? Here's a snippet from a study I found:

Quote:

Of the 900 women, 322 used only STM and 509 women used STM with occasional barriers during the fertile time. Sixty-nine women did not document their sexual behaviour. Out of the women who documented their sexual behaviour and abstained from sex during their fertile period ("perfect use") the unintended pregnancy rate was 0.4 per 100 women and 13 cycles [2], and 0.6 for women who used STM plus a barrier if they had sex during their fertile period. For cycles in which couples had unprotected sex during the fertile phase, the pregnancy rates rose to 7.5 per 100 women and 13 cycles. The drop-out rate from using STM for reasons such as dissatisfaction or difficulties with the method was 9.2 per 100 women and 13 cycles, and compared well with the drop-out rates from other methods of family planning, which can be as high as 30%, although direct comparisons are difficult due to methodological problems. "This demonstrates a fairly good acceptability for this particular FAB method," said Prof Frank-Herrmann.



Ok, so there were 322 of women who used only NFP (called STM in the study) without another means of birth control. Of the 900 in the study, total, about 8% didn't report in. Those 8% may have been women who had an unplanned pregnancy and then chose to not finish the study. So they gave a rate 0.4/100 with a sample size of only 300? And it wasn't really 300 since they only selected the women who had a "perfect use" of the system. That study seems a bit flawed to me.

Also, and damn I have to agree with EvenBob too, it's not crazy to say that someone that utterly lacks experience on a topic may not provide the best prospective.

A few more things:

-NFP means to use sex for other than a procreative purpose. If it's "unitive" sex, then why is one form of birth control allowed (NFP) and another is not? Is St. Peter making a list of all the angels wiping their cervical mucus across their fingers versus the demons that use an artificial method?

-With NFP a woman can't have sex during the time she craves it and would enjoy it the most. You Catholics really have it out for women.

-What's with the Big Brother argument in Humanae Vitae? What does that have to do with an individual's right to choose a family planning method? Why does one potential use of artificial contraceptives make them wrong for the individual?

-"human beings...need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law." Yet you support the casino industry by frequenting them?

-If NFP works so well, isn't it also contributing to the moral decline by making sex less risky? A woman who knows when she is not fertile can cheat like any other, or any man with her.

Quote: FrGamble

I agree the cat is out of the bag and it has caused devasting consequences. Hopefully by having the topic of contraceptives in the news lately many people will honestly look at the issue and see that the Church has been 100% correct about this all along.


What contraceptive news? What devastating consequences? Also, the Catholic Church should be wary of the glass house they live in when it comes to reading the news. Hell, an objective outsider who read a few history books would be disgusted by the horrors inflicted upon people and the wars due to the Catholic religion.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
March 5th, 2012 at 4:26:12 AM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

I also think it's crazy to say that because one does not have sex they can't speak about the topic. Can there be a male gynecologist?

That's not relevant. How can you compare a Doctor who is a Hands-On specialist with some man in a dress who quite literally pontificates about something he has no experience at? Actually, I know the answer. It's because you have dedicated your career path to fostering a belief in a bronze age invisible friend, on people who are pre-disposed to believe it. More and more people are realizing that the Catholic church and all of its popes are 100% wrong on the issue of contraception. And that's a blessed thing.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
March 5th, 2012 at 7:05:31 AM permalink
I just really, really, feel, that the contraception argument is not an issue that anyone should be talking about in any election cycle. It's just a very dumb issue for Republicans to be talking about. It alienates women for one. How many women are going to vote for Santorum when clearly, his comments are just alienating.

Here is a link to a study. I'll quote from it! Link
Quote: study


• Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98%).
• Some 68% of Catholic women use a highly effective method (pill, sterilization, IUD) , compared with 73% of Mainline Protestants and 74% of Evangelicals.
• Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family planning; this is true even among Catholic women who attend church once a month or more.



Of course, the Catholic Church feels the way it does. It's the way that they belittle women.

I'm sorry, but I strongly feel that given that the church is still covering up its sex scandal (it took a few courageous priests and bishops to expose the truth) and I think its position on contraception is very outdated and needs an overhaul.

Overpopulation and poverty is a very real problem in this world, and no natural planning method is going to resolve this issue. It is much, much, better to increase the standard of living overall in the 3rd world and provide free contraception in order to curb population growth and ensure that fewer people have access to a decreasing pool resources.

I totally agree that the advent of easy to obtain contraception, be it the pill, condoms, IUDs, the rate of intercourse has gone through the roof, and that the rate of adultery has also increased, significantly.

The church should rightly focus on adultery and extramarital affairs, not the "tool". If all of the contraception in the world all of a sudden didn't work, you'd see some people choose to focus on abstinence and some focusing on NFP. But the abortion rate probably would go through the roof.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
March 5th, 2012 at 7:26:45 AM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

As usual it is not a good idea to agree with Bob. His statements about NFP's effectiveness and enjoyability are incorrect. .



UhHuh. Here's an article from the American Pregnancy Association that explains NFP in great detail.

Quote:

"When fertility awareness is used correctly and consistently, it may reach effective rates around 90%. The effectiveness depends on your diligence to track and record your fertility pattern and your commitment to abstaining from sexual intercourse or using a barrier form of birth control during your fertility window. Typical use, which refers to the average use, shows a failure rate of approximately 25%."

All the studies that say its 99% effective were put
out by (wait for it) the Church! Or they were paid
for and endorsed by the Church. The average
failure rate is 75%! Thats why couples who use NFP
tend to have much larger families (look it up) than
people who use more effective methods. The biggest
drawback to NFB is the average woman has to abstain
from sex 10 days out off the month, or 33% of the year.
And its non effective against STD's, unlike condoms.

Why does the Church endorse such a complicated and
ineffective method? They believe and always have
believed that sex is the root of all evil. Its for hetero's
only and never for recreational purposes, only for
when a couple wants a baby. NFP slows everything
down. How can you have sex with a stranger, or even
with your girlfriend without jumping thru all these hoops
to prevent pregnancy? This isn't about preventing
babies as much as it is to stop people from having sex
as much as possible. Catholics have been utterly obsessed
with sex for the last 1000 years, much to their detriment.

Anybody watch 60 Minutes yesterday?
The Archbishop of Dublin turned over 65,000 pages
of documents detailing what goes on inside the Church
when grown men are forced to abstain from a completely
natural act. All hell is unleashed, apparently.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 181
  • Posts: 3835
March 5th, 2012 at 7:40:28 AM permalink
Here's the thing.

Folks like to fuck. I'd say "have sex", but you know me: when a word fits, I'm going to use it. Because the debate isn't about "sex". It's about FUCKING. Because it's fucking that we like. Sex is laboratory stuff, sex is biology. Fucking, that's oil and scents and sweat and sleaze and moaning and all that good stuff. That's what we want, a good fuck. It feels good. It's satisfying. And THAT is what the morality police are after. Not sex. They're after our fucks.

It's also a drive, an urge, a need. We use a lot of energy figuring out ways to do it. We spend a lot of money on it. We spend a lot of emotion on it, and we spend a lot of time thinking about it.

It leads to babies. And that's a good thing, because it's our primal, #1 drive. If ever there was an argument to be made about intelligent design, I'd start with that one (although I wouldn't agree with it personally): the urge we have the most is what propagates the species.

From here, there are a lot of good arguments to be made for artificial contraception. The first one is that humans are a species that controls its environment. Recent studies show that that control is most likely the reason we won the evolutionary sweepstakes against the Neanderthal, Denisovan, "hobbits", and others. (Further reading: How We Won the Hominid Wars.) We control weather, we control water, we control elevation, speed, we fit the world to us. As rational thinkers, and as feeling, emotional beings who like to fuck, it only makes sense for us to want to control our families, our futures, and our pleasure. Simply put, we want to be able to fuck without consequence. So, being who we are, we figured out a way to do that. Science is wonderful!

All the other reasons, they'll all lead the same direction: we want to be able to fuck without consequence. Me, I really don't see a problem with that.


Here's the next thing.

This is being framed as a women's issue. But it isn't. It's a men's issue, too. Because the fucking that you need the pills for, you need a man in there somewhere. And if it's an issue for both men and women, then that means it's a societal issue.

As a societal issue, we can look at it a few different ways, but for the current discussion, people are framing it mostly as either an economic argument or as a moral argument.

As an economic argument, any attempt to pose discounted or free access to birth control as fiscally irresponsible is ridiculous on its face. Unwanted children are immeasurably more costly than contraception pills, in so many ways that I could write a book. (Let's put aside the contradiction that it is almost absurd to oppose abortion on one hand, and to also oppose artificial contraception on the other.) Insurance companies would much rather pay for pills than child birth; ask them.

As a moral argument, it still fails. There is no sane reason for a government to control fucking. Childbirth, perhaps.... maybe by ensuring that health insurance pays for contraception. But fucking itself? WHY? The people like it, it's free, there's no harm in it (other than unwanted pregnancy, and there's a solution for that.) Trying to control fucking is way, way more insane than trying to control alcohol consumption, and we all know how that worked out. There's nothing morally wrong with fucking.

People are people. Folks is folks. Folks want to fuck. I say, let 'em.
NO KILL I
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
March 5th, 2012 at 7:51:38 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

There's nothing morally wrong with fucking.



I remember when I first heard the Church
wouldn't let girls wear patent leather shoes
because they were so shiny a boy could
possibly see up a girls skirt. Do you realize
how utterly obsessed with sex you have
to be to come up something so ridiculous?
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
WongBo
WongBo
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2126
March 5th, 2012 at 7:52:40 AM permalink
It's really weird to me that a gambling forum has a section for religious discussions.
It's even weirder that the catholic church is still hypocritical enough to be discussing sexual taboos.
Last I checked having homosexual relations with preadolescents was both a sin and a crime.
In my opinion the catholic church should be prosecuted under RICO statutes and Interpol statutes
And the pope should barred from the US and the EU.

But I guess when you are running the worlds most successful 2000 year old pyramid scheme,
You will do or say whatever it takes to keep the gold flowing in....
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief. - Proverb.

  • Jump to: