| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
21 Mar 2007 08:15:00 PM |
| Object: |
Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
Posted on 03/19/2007 5:46:55 AM PDT by markomalley
The recent debate over contraception between Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of
Human Life International and nationally syndicated talk-show host Sean
Hannity has brought to center stage an issue which most Americans-and
most Catholics-simply do not understand. Let's review what's wrong
with contraception.
The intrinsic moral issue of artificial contraception is a marriage
issue. Contraception has little or no intrinsic moral relevance
outside of marriage. This contributes to the difficulty our culture
has in understanding the problem, because our culture doesn't
understand marriage either. After all, only about half of all couples
are formally married. For this reason, it is perhaps best to start
with what we might call the extrinsic moral issues associated with
contraception, which apply to all sexual relations.
The Consequences of Contraception
I am using the word "extrinsic" to apply to the consequences of
contraception as opposed to its own essential moral character.
Catholics are not consequentialists, and we don't determine the
morality of an act by attempting to foresee all its consequences. But
we do determine the prudence of an act by assessing its potential
consequences. For this reason, it is highly instructive to examine the
extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception.
Even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should
be selected or avoided accordingly. It is a morally neutral act, for
example, to dam a river, but one wants to be pretty sure of the
consequences before one builds the dam. So too, many moralists have
argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in
itself when considered outside of marriage. But contraception
suppresses the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, and in so doing
it has two immediate and devastating consequences.
First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. An
action which, because of the possibility of conceiving a child, makes
demands on the stability of the couple is stripped by contraception of
its long-term meaning. The mutual commitment of a couple implied by
the very nature of this intimate self-giving is now overshadowed by
the fact that the most obvious (though not necessarily the most
important) reason for that commitment has been eliminated. This
clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual
sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-
being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.
Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness
to pleasure. Naturally-speaking, the sexual act finds its full meaning
in both emotional intimacy and the promise of offspring. For human
persons, sex is clearly oriented toward love and the creation of new
life. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent
bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human
sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of
commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a
meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of
equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have
mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the
"contraceptive mentality". Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup
procedure based on the expectation that contracepton should render sex
child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and
physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.
The Intrinsic Evil of Contraception
Now all of these evil consequences apply both inside and outside of
marriage. Within marriage, however, there is an intrinsic moral
problem with contraception quite apart from its horrendous
consequences. Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already
disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these
ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant.
Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its
consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of
psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning).
But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception
itself becomes intrinsically disordered.
Within the context of marriage, the purposes of sexual intercourse are
unitive and procreative (as Pope Paul VI taught in his brilliant and
prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae). It is worth remembering that
there is no proper context for sexual intercourse apart from marriage;
this is why it is impossible for human persons to psychologically
separate contraception from the marital context. But the point here is
that marriage has certain ends (the procreation of children, the
stability of society, the mutual happiness of the couple, and their
mutual sanctification) and so does sex within marriage. The purposes
of the marital act are the procreation of children and the progressive
unification of the spouses. These two purposes are intimately related,
for it is through marriage that a man and a woman become "two in one
flesh", both through sexual relations and, literally, in their
offspring.
It is intrinsically immoral to frustrate either of these purposes. Let
me repeat this statement. It is immoral to choose deliberately to
frustrate either the unitive or the procreative ends of marital
intercourse. It is immoral to make of your spouse an object of your
pleasure, to coerce your spouse, or to engage in sexual relations in a
manner or under conditions which communicate callousness or contempt.
These things frustrate the unitive purpose. It is also immoral to take
deliberate steps to prevent an otherwise potentially fruitful coupling
from bearing fruit. This frustrates the procreative purpose.
Related Issues
Because it causes so much confusion, it is necessary to state that it
is not intrinsically immoral to choose to engage in sexual relations
with your spouse at times when these relations are not likely to be
fruitful. The moral considerations which govern this decision revolve
around the obligation married couples have to be genuinely open to
children insofar as they can provide for their material well-being and
proper formation. There is nothing in this question of timing that
frustrates the purposes of a particular marriage act.
Statistically, couples who avoid contraception find that their
marriages are strengthened, their happiness increased, and their
health improved. Some of these considerations are topics for another
day. But Fr. Euteneuer is clearly correct and Sean Hannity is clearly
wrong. Contraception is a grave evil within marriage and has grave
consequences not only within marriage but outside of marriage as well.
Both individual couples and society as a whole will mature into deeper
happiness by freeing themselves from the false promises of
contraception, and from its moral lies.
.
|
|
| User: "Brindal" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
01 Apr 2007 06:57:22 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" wrote:
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
I haven't read so much utter erroneous garbage in one place in a long
time.
Taking control of your own body is NOT wrong.
Bringing unwanted children into the world is.
Brindal
.
|
|
|
| User: "CafeWriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
01 Apr 2007 10:41:32 PM |
|
|
"Brindal" <brindal87@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175471842.614621.97530@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Sound of Trumpet" wrote:
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
I haven't read so much utter erroneous garbage in one place in a long
time.
Taking control of your own body is NOT wrong.
Bringing unwanted children into the world is.
Brindal
I agree with you!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jl" |
|
| Title: Re: Conception: Why It's Wrong |
25 Mar 2007 05:30:09 PM |
|
|
Because with conception we might suffer another infection of sound of
trumpet pathogens.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
22 Mar 2007 10:43:09 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote in message
news:1174526100.894403.58410@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Catholic Culture
Should be in a Petrie Dish.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "curmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
26 Mar 2007 03:30:51 PM |
|
|
*Celibacy is Natures frozen asset*
Jewish Proverb
"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "yossarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
27 Mar 2007 12:35:07 PM |
|
|
It is intrinsically immoral to frustrate either of these purposes. Let
me repeat this statement. It is immoral to choose deliberately to
frustrate either the unitive or the procreative ends of marital
intercourse. It is immoral to make of your spouse an object of your
pleasure, to coerce your spouse, or to engage in sexual relations in a
manner or under conditions which communicate callousness or contempt.
These things frustrate the unitive purpose. It is also immoral to take
deliberate steps to prevent an otherwise potentially fruitful coupling
from bearing fruit. This frustrates the procreative purpose.
MORE BABIES!!! As the priest says, there is always room for one more! Just
pop them out like loaves bread. BTW, did you know that Natick, Massachusetts
once had a Unitarian Church? It was not too far away from the mammoth
Catholic Church. The fire department was just around the corner. It took a
couple of days before the fire department put water on the dying embers.
Imagine that!
--
Yossarian
"Disable ALL suspicious cars in the area," from a cartoon on Adult Swim.
--
http://democrats-who-hate-hillary.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1978 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
22 Mar 2007 12:56:16 AM |
|
|
In article <1174526100.894403.58410@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
It's not.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "justiz" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
22 Mar 2007 02:07:42 AM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 7:56 am, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <1174526100.894403.58...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
It's not.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Sot.
You are not an Aids sufferer then? You are not a starvation victim
then? You are not an unwanted child?
WTF are you?
A moralizing myopic hypocritical recidivist who takes no
responsibility for the consequences of denigrating a legitimate method
of population control. Let's all out breed the opposition and screw
the consequences.
Who gave you the right to inflict your warped world view on normal
humans?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter B. P." |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
25 Mar 2007 10:01:01 AM |
|
|
On 2007-03-22 02:15:00 +0100, "Sound of Trumpet"
<sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> said:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1803121/posts
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Unprotected sex between fundies: Why It's Wrong.
(guess why yourself)
--
The world dislikes America because America doesn't give a rat's *****
about the world's opinion of it. -- Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail,
July 4, 2002
http://titancity.com/blog/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
22 Mar 2007 06:18:14 AM |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<sound_of_trumpet@warpmail.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1174526100.894403.58410@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
Thus enforcing the idiocy of this cult. Any reference to it should
make a reasonable person turn and run for their life.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "sara" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
22 Mar 2007 06:28:30 AM |
|
|
On 22 Mar, 11:18, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1174526100.894403.58...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
Thus enforcing the idiocy of this cult. Any reference to it should
make a reasonable person turn and run for their life.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice maybe Pro-Freedom but it's when it becomes
Pro-Convienience it leaves a heck of human litter
around for someone else to clean up,
signed,
'brokenhearted'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
22 Mar 2007 02:04:27 PM |
|
|
"sara" <sara-anon@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1174562910.441564.104160@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 22 Mar, 11:18, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1174526100.894403.58...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
Thus enforcing the idiocy of this cult. Any reference to it should
make a reasonable person turn and run for their life.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice maybe Pro-Freedom but it's when it becomes
Pro-Convienience it leaves a heck of human litter
around for someone else to clean up,
So?
Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
22 Mar 2007 04:19:26 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2007 04:28:30 -0700, "sara" <sara-anon@hotmail.co.uk> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1174562910.441564.104160@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 22 Mar, 11:18, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 18:15:00 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<sound_of_trum...@warpmail.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1174526100.894403.58...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus
Thus enforcing the idiocy of this cult. Any reference to it should
make a reasonable person turn and run for their life.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Pro-Choice maybe Pro-Freedom but it's when it becomes
Pro-Convienience it leaves a heck of human litter
around for someone else to clean up,
Oh? In what way? Aside from the necessary disposal of biowaste, of
course.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
| User: "sara" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
22 Mar 2007 05:52:27 PM |
|
|
H Dickmann;
Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom,
***** and Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
contraception has nothing to do with a happy relationship.
Mark A;
The Catholic church should be outlawed. The only thing good I can say
about them is that they eventually apologized for prosecuting Galileo, 300
years after the fact.
credit where its due.
Are you referring to all those people with push carts, sweeping
up all the aborted fetuses from the sidewalks?
are you asking me if I'm free for dinner tomorrow night?
and yes by the time the effing legal system and the guy
hands out for maintanence some women may well be advised
to eat the placenta before the freekin check arrived.
Charity?
sacscale@rsvl.net
That would explain the confessionals. I believe the Pope admitted that
condoms could protect a person from HIV.
but sadly it won't protect you from marriage,
Robert;
But no where near the litter from forcing a woman to have a unwanted
child.
exactly, who in their right minds would force a woman to
have children? it is in her nature to bear a child, but
not forced. If a woman chose contraception and abortions
above giving birth something isnt going right, so what the
hell is going wrong for them? and who the hell is/are raping
them?
Hatter;
Oh horror
there is one example
Ray Fische;
That's already happened and still the population is growing.And
still tens of thousands of people die every day of hunger.
and whats that to do with contraception at all? by somehow
being at YOUR convenience for free and cheap sex this in
someway prevents the rest of our world from starving? What!
do you think I'm some sort of charity! hey! lets adopt all
the starving children in the world and put them in our brothels
too!
skyeyes;
Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like*
children. It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why
does the rate of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have
access to higher education and personal choice? Do you think women
are intended to be nothing but baby machines?
Say it when you've had a baby/ies in a happy relationship,
but yeh! thats a puzzle, why is it when some women are
in higher ed do they never find the time or lose the
inclination to have a family? impractical for financial
gains, maybe?
Attila;
Those who practice such methods are called "Parents".
so whats wrong with that (oh bollox or fanny?), envious?
I guess! :)
Oh? In what way? Aside from the necessary disposal of biowaste, of
course.
miserable that you you can't have that child? did she/he
dump you? are you sure you're not only trying to tidy those
awful feelings of rejection and inhibition away somehows,
but prove to the rest of us that abortion was right!
sara
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
23 Mar 2007 05:34:05 AM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2007 15:52:27 -0700, "sara" <sara-anon@hotmail.co.uk> in
news message <1174603947.518502.307700@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
H Dickmann;
Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom,
***** and Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
contraception has nothing to do with a happy relationship.
Having children has nothing to do with a happy relationship. The
relationship with your mate should stand on its own merits. Decisions
that affect the relationship should be made together considering the
wants, needs, financial, and emotional well being of both people. One
of the most important decisions in a heterosexual relationship is if
or when to have children, and if the couple decides that a child isn't
necessary or wanted at any given moment, contraception has everything
to do with that decision.
Liz #658 BAAWA
They all agree on what their god wants. Each theist will tell you
that what the only true god wants, and what he, himself, wants, are
exactly the same. -- Al Klein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
23 Mar 2007 06:57:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:34:05 -0500, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
One of the most important decisions in a heterosexual relationship is if
or when to have children
Probably in a homosexual relationship also, Liz - just in a different
way, and contraception has nothing to do with it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
23 Mar 2007 05:53:23 AM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2007 15:52:27 -0700, "sara" <sara-anon@hotmail.co.uk> in
news message <1174603947.518502.307700@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
[-----]
skyeyes;
Newsflash: not all women want children. Not all women *like*
children. It's funny, if having children is so bloody wonderful, why
does the rate of childbirth go down whenever and wherever women have
access to higher education and personal choice? Do you think women
are intended to be nothing but baby machines?
Say it when you've had a baby/ies in a happy relationship,
You don't seem like a happy person. Are you in a happy relationship?
but yeh! thats a puzzle, why is it when some women are
in higher ed do they never find the time or lose the
inclination to have a family? impractical for financial
gains, maybe?
Some believe that women have more value than simply as a breeder.
Merely producing "baby/ies" doesn't accomplish anything. "Baby/ies"
aren't pets. Their purpose isn't to make their parents feel fulfilled
or good or needed. Children must learn and grow mentally and
emotionally to become well-rounded adults. If you are a parent, your
only goal should be to enable your children to happily leave you with
the skills they need to become a contributing member of the society in
which they live. Some women have both children and an education
realizing that they can impart both knowledge and a sense of their own
worth to their children, giving them more than any uneducated
caretaker ever could.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with
a passionate need for external authority and guidance,
pretending not to trust their own judgement. - Alan Watts
.
|
|
|
| User: "sara" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
23 Mar 2007 12:39:43 PM |
|
|
Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
...and making love comes easy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
23 Mar 2007 01:55:29 PM |
|
|
On Mar 23, 12:39 pm, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
Apropos to nothing I said . . .all of which was snipped . . .
..and making love comes easy
Eliza? Is that you?
Liz #658
.
|
|
|
| User: "sara" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
24 Mar 2007 05:47:48 AM |
|
|
On 23 Mar, 18:55, "Liz" <mtst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 23, 12:39 pm, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
Apropos to nothing I said . . .all of which was snipped . . .
..and making love comes easy
Eliza? Is that you?
Liz #658
may I call you Liz?
True story. A few years ago someone was in a hurry
to travel a fair distance between cities (city A. is
where you are, and city B. is where you see yourself
going) Having no money for travel and wanting to give
the best impression for the interview s/he went to an
expensive motor car showroom and convinced the
salesperson that they really wanted to have that model
of vehicle and was offered a free hour or more spin
to 'TRY BEFORE YOU BUY'
After some milage and an excuse by phone that there had
been a delay and furious apology to the vendors, the
vendors asked if the car had been good enough to buy?
the response was that there was a fault here or there
the seat wasn't quite comfortable enough, the interior
was tacky and the driving wasn't responsive. The keys
were then handed back.
and we're not machines either way,
Do you or did you ever do so called 'phone sex'? same
thing you need to get from A to B with the minimum of
hassel and you don't have that special someone to share
that in your relationship! its not easy to keep good
relationships together but its an example of how
you might keep that telephone bill to a minimum.
Heres a scary one too,
Women have the rights as a man, educate your daughter
as you would educate your sons etc, so why do women
choose the rights of women instead then? If you go
hawking the rights of freedom in the name of a so called
liberation of female gender that are based in being
equal to male, you are a male aren't you!
Back on topic, NON of this has anything to do with
evil contraceptions
sara
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
24 Mar 2007 07:33:39 AM |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2007 03:47:48 -0700, "sara" <sara-anon@hotmail.co.uk> in
news message <1174733268.876569.303800@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
On 23 Mar, 18:55, "Liz" <mtst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 23, 12:39 pm, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
Apropos to nothing I said . . .all of which was snipped . . .
..and making love comes easy
Eliza? Is that you?
may I call you Liz?
That is my name so that would be appropriate. Although after asking
permission, you didn't bother to follow through. Rather strange.
True story. A few years ago someone was in a hurry
to travel a fair distance between cities (city A. is
where you are, and city B. is where you see yourself
going) Having no money for travel and wanting to give
the best impression for the interview s/he went to an
expensive motor car showroom and convinced the
salesperson that they really wanted to have that model
of vehicle and was offered a free hour or more spin
to 'TRY BEFORE YOU BUY'
After some milage and an excuse by phone that there had
been a delay and furious apology to the vendors, the
vendors asked if the car had been good enough to buy?
the response was that there was a fault here or there
the seat wasn't quite comfortable enough, the interior
was tacky and the driving wasn't responsive. The keys
were then handed back.
I know a Christian couple who didn't have the money to buy a video
recorder, but wanted to videotape their daughter's wedding. So they
"purchased" a video recorder taped their daughter's wedding and
returned it for a refund. Do you think that this type of behavior is
immoral?
and we're not machines either way,
Neither are we mountains, but the grass grows in the meadow in
springtime nonetheless.
Do you or did you ever do so called 'phone sex'?
No, but I have been considering it as a second career after I retire.
It's safe, lucrative, and it doesn't matter how you look as long as
you have a good voice. Plus you could be doing household chores such
as folding laundry while you are earning $2.00 a minute for talking
smutty to losers. It would take only 83.3333 hours to fund that 28
day cruise to the Galapagos, Easter Island, and the west coast of
South America I have my eye on.
same
thing you need to get from A to B with the minimum of
hassel and you don't have that special someone to share
that in your relationship!
But I do have that special someone, if you mean a mate, and other
special someones, like my daughter and son-in-law and granddaughter
and friends with whom I share my life, so I don't know if I can relate
to your meandering analogy about lying to a car dealership so that you
don't need to pay for renting one.
its not easy to keep good
relationships together but its an example of how
you might keep that telephone bill to a minimum.
Maybe you should rent a mate for the weekend . . . if what you want
is "the minimum of hassle". Real relationships with real people often
take some work.
Heres a scary one too,
Oh oh, I will be on guard for the booga, booga effect. Eeek! Okay, I
think I am prepared to go on now.
Women have the rights as a man, educate your daughter
as you would educate your sons etc,
I educated my children with no regard to their sex. I do not value a
person primarily on the basis of sex, but rather whether I like them
as a person. That means that I have good friends, both male and
female, whose friendship is irrelevant to their availability as a
potential ***** partner. You should try it. It is very liberating and
you wouldn't come across as so desperate and pitiful.
so why do women
choose the rights of women instead then? If you go
hawking the rights of freedom in the name of a so called
liberation of female gender that are based in being
equal to male, you are a male aren't you!
What rights do men have that women do not have? What rights do women
have that men do not have? What rights do men have that women should
not have? What rights do women have that men should not have?
Back on topic, NON of this has anything to do with
evil contraceptions
Obviously, but it was a sightseeing excursion into a nonlinear mind.
Of course, I was simply "borrowing" the trip so don't expect me to pay
you for it.
Liz #658 BAAWA
It's an incredible con job when you think about it, to
believe in something now in exchange for something after
death. Even corporations with their reward systems don't
try to make it posthumous. -- Gloria Steinem
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
24 Mar 2007 02:20:24 PM |
|
|
On Mar 24, 4:33=EF=BF=BDam, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 24 Mar 2007 03:47:48 -0700, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> in
news message
It's an incredible con job when you think about it, to
believe in something now in exchange for something after
death. =A0Even corporations with their reward systems don't
try to make it posthumous. =A0-- Gloria Steinem
And to even contribute money to it, but I believe life insurance is a
common job benefit. I also believe people attempt to achieve
immortality in other ways such as having descendents or producing
great works. I'm sure to find out if there is a life after death soon
enough but looking forward to it strikes me as a death wish and the
belief in an apocalypse as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems
Christianity promotes individual responsibility but it is my
understanding that admittance to "heaven" is predestined and dependent
on "divine grace". It is my concern that this absolves a person of any
responsibility for their selves or consequences of their actions to
the society of which they are a part or to the environment we are all
dependent on for our (mortal) existence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
23 Mar 2007 11:18:37 AM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 2:52?pm, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
H Dickmann;
Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom,
***** and Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
contraception has nothing to do with a happy relationship.
..
..
..
sacsc...@rsvl.net
That would explain the confessionals. I believe the Pope admitted that
condoms could protect a person from HIV.
but sadly it won't protect you from marriage,
Robert;
But no where near the litter from forcing a woman to have a unwanted
child.
exactly, who in their right minds would force a woman to
have children? it is in her nature to bear a child, but
not forced. If a woman chose contraception and abortions
above giving birth something isnt going right, so what the
hell is going wrong for them? and who the hell is/are raping
them?
Teenage girls are becoming fertile at 13 and 14; do you believe they
have the self-control necessary for abstinence or the ability to raise
a child? Should they be pressured into marriage? Unfortunatley there
are plenty of sexual predators out there and although our police keep
it within acceptable levels rape is often unreported.
Mike Purcell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
24 Mar 2007 12:03:59 PM |
|
|
On 23 Mar 2007 09:18:37 -0700, "sacscale@rsvl.net" <sacscale1@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:52?pm, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
H Dickmann;
Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom,
***** and Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
contraception has nothing to do with a happy relationship.
.
.
.
sacsc...@rsvl.net
That would explain the confessionals. I believe the Pope admitted that
condoms could protect a person from HIV.
but sadly it won't protect you from marriage,
Robert;
But no where near the litter from forcing a woman to have a unwanted
child.
exactly, who in their right minds would force a woman to
have children? it is in her nature to bear a child, but
not forced. If a woman chose contraception and abortions
above giving birth something isnt going right, so what the
hell is going wrong for them? and who the hell is/are raping
them?
Teenage girls are becoming fertile at 13 and 14; do you believe they
have the self-control necessary for abstinence or the ability to raise
a child? Should they be pressured into marriage? Unfortunatley there
are plenty of sexual predators out there and although our police keep
it within acceptable levels rape is often unreported.
Mike Purcell
Acceptable level of rape? IMO zero rapes is the only acceptable level
for rape. Keep in mind that many rapes, that are reported, never
happened. And some consensual sex is considered rape. Like between a
15 year old and a twenty year old.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
25 Mar 2007 08:31:13 AM |
|
|
In article <16ma039blhdbg8uiifr608hi1oqbiqoddc@4ax.com>, Robert
<robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007 09:18:37 -0700, "sacscale@rsvl.net" <sacscale1@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:52?pm, "sara" <sara-a...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
H Dickmann;
Condoms did not give women confidence to sleep with every Tom,
***** and Harry, to have one night stands and commit adultery.
contraception has nothing to do with a happy relationship.
.
.
.
sacsc...@rsvl.net
That would explain the confessionals. I believe the Pope admitted that
condoms could protect a person from HIV.
but sadly it won't protect you from marriage,
Robert;
But no where near the litter from forcing a woman to have a unwanted
child.
exactly, who in their right minds would force a woman to
have children? it is in her nature to bear a child, but
not forced. If a woman chose contraception and abortions
above giving birth something isnt going right, so what the
hell is going wrong for them? and who the hell is/are raping
them?
Teenage girls are becoming fertile at 13 and 14; do you believe they
have the self-control necessary for abstinence or the ability to raise
a child? Should they be pressured into marriage? Unfortunatley there
are plenty of sexual predators out there and although our police keep
it within acceptable levels rape is often unreported.
Mike Purcell
Acceptable level of rape? IMO zero rapes is the only acceptable level
for rape. ...
€€ Does that apply to altar-boys, Robert ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
25 Mar 2007 07:51:46 AM |
|
|
On Mar 24, 9:03?am, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
Acceptable level of rape? IMO zero rapes is the only acceptable level
for rape. Keep in mind that many rapes, that are reported, never
happened. And some consensual sex is considered rape. Like between a
15 year old and a twenty year old.
A 15 year old is considered too immature to give consent and I would
suggest not placing yourself in a situation where an accusation of
rape can be made. Since rape does occur, zero rapes are not the only
acceptable level. I was just reading that Americans are 19 times as
likely to be raped than Japanese.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
25 Mar 2007 02:51:02 PM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2007 05:51:46 -0700, "sacscale@rsvl.net" <sacscale1@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:03?am, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
Acceptable level of rape? IMO zero rapes is the only acceptable level
for rape. Keep in mind that many rapes, that are reported, never
happened. And some consensual sex is considered rape. Like between a
15 year old and a twenty year old.
A 15 year old is considered too immature to give consent and I would
suggest not placing yourself in a situation where an accusation of
rape can be made. Since rape does occur, zero rapes are not the only
acceptable level. I was just reading that Americans are 19 times as
likely to be raped than Japanese.
Being in a loving marriage for over forty years, any young lady that
accused me would be a liar. The proper charge for a adult having sex
with a minor, not a child, should be contributing to delinquency of a
minor, like providing them with cigarettes, or alcohol.
One forcible rape is one to damn many, any one that forces another to
submit to sex is a sick pervert, that needs to be removed from
society, to protect society. But rape laws need a overhaul. Seduction
of a minor, is considered the same and has the same penalty as holding
a knife to their throat. That is wrong.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
25 Mar 2007 05:55:01 PM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 11:51=EF=BF=BDam, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
On 25 Mar 2007 05:51:46 -0700, "sacsc...@rsvl.net" <sacsca...@aol.com>
wrote:
A 15 year old is considered too immature to give consent and I would
suggest not placing yourself in a situation where an accusation of
rape can be made. Since rape does occur, zero rapes are not the only
acceptable level. I was just reading that Americans are 19 times as
likely to be raped than Japanese.
=A0 Being in a loving marriage for over forty years, any young lady that
accused me would be a liar. The proper charge for a adult having sex
with a minor, not a child, should be contributing to delinquency of a
minor, like providing them with cigarettes, or alcohol.
=A0One forcible rape is one to damn many, any one that forces another to
submit to sex is a sick pervert, that needs to be removed from
society, to protect society. But rape laws need a overhaul. Seduction
of a minor, is considered the same and has the same penalty as holding
a knife to their throat. That is wrong.
Many fathers of children or minors would consider murder and infection
by HIV could be considered murder. Removal from society does not
address a cause of rape (other than simple opportunity) or usually
attempt to rehabilitate or cure the "sick pervert" (so that society is
safe only as long as the prison term) and usually means state support
(housing, food, clothing, health care, etc.) of the rapists. It's
curious that no one in this thread has questioned why the Japanese
would have such a lower rate since it could provide suggestions as to
how to lower ours. Or do Americans just have a higher acceptance of
rape?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
25 Mar 2007 09:16:59 AM |
|
|
On 25 Mar., 14:51, "sacsc...@rsvl.net" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 24, 9:03?am, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
Acceptable level of rape? IMO zero rapes is the only acceptable level
for rape. Keep in mind that many rapes, that are reported, never
happened. And some consensual sex is considered rape. Like between a
15 year old and a twenty year old.
A 15 year old is considered too immature to give consent and I would
suggest not placing yourself in a situation where an accusation of
rape can be made. Since rape does occur, zero rapes are not the only
acceptable level.
Who accepts them?
I was just reading that Americans are 19 times as
likely to be raped than Japanese.
And decent people in both countries do not accept them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Contraception: Why It's Wrong |
25 Mar 2007 09:58:53 AM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 6:16=EF=BF=BDam, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 25 Mar., 14:51, "sacsc...@rsvl.net" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
I was just reading that Americans are 19 times as
likely to be raped than Japanese.
And decent people in =A0both countries do not accept them.
Then why do they occur? I was referring to society in general;
obviously different individuals will have different moralities. I
would think that a person who did not accept rape would do something
towards eliminating it but most people just seem to ignore it and
refuse to accept it's occurrence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|