micro

yeah, kinda icky seeing someone go in, regardless poor bastard. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

same thing as the condom really. you're still putting a barrier b/t you and your partner. in the catholic view, when the couple unites in intercourse what they in essence are saying with their bodies is, "I love you with everything that I am, my body, my soul, even my generative capacity, if that be a possibility." this is true EVEN when a couple is using NFP as well b/c they are not doing anything to DELIBERATLY frustrate the bodies capabilities to procreate of fully unite. in contraceptive sex, i.e. w/ a condom, a diaphram, foam, the pill, etc., what the "language" of that act says instead is, "I love you and want to give myself to you, but, mmmmm.. not THIS part.... you can't have this part of me. You can't have my egg. You can't have my sperm. You can't have access to my egg or whathaveyou." Does that make more sense? Maybe not. In our culture, that has been so super-saturated in the artificial birth control and safe sex mentality for so long, it's hard to parse out the difference here, and there is a difference, in spite of what certain posters are asserting. I'm trying my best to explain it. I really am. It took me a long time and an awful lot of reading to get this. This link below is to a transcription of a talk given by Janet Smith, PhD, a philopher who has written extensively on this topic. This talk was given to a largely lay, non-professional audience, hence the tone of the article. If you're interested, give it a read. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

It's too easy, really

FAITH is the belief in something in the face of facts. Don't start John. We're having a nice little debate w/o you adding barbs. Your entire argument at this point is based on your re-definition of a word in the English language to suit your position. That is something you do repeatedly in this forum. John. Do me a favor. You always accuse me of trying to bend definitions to suit my argument. You are a smart guy. Do your own research into the differences b/t NFP and artificial birth control. Being in Chicago, there are many good Catholic resources at your disposal. There really is a difference and I'm not playing semantic games. I've tried to elucidate that in this thread. If I fail to an adequate job, so be it. My original intent was to argue how NFP was vastly different in kind from artifitial forms of contraception. While it's possible to have a contraceptive mentality w/ NFP, there still, at root, is an openess to life FUNDAMENTALLY b/c the couple IS NOT DOING ANYTHING to thwart the possibility of conception. There can still be breakthrough ovulation in spite of signs of fertility. It happens and this fact is recognized in NFP literature. The male is not WITHOLDING seed from the woman by the use of a barrier and the woman is not trying to withold her egg by using chemical barriers. The sexual act is NOT STAINED by artificial means and each partner is still giving THERE ENTIRE BEING to the act. THIS is the fundamental difference b/t NFP sex and sex using artificial contraception. There IS no seperation b/t the unitive and procreative aspect. There is a clear distinction and it has been widely and more eruditely elucidated by folks than me. I refer you to the likes of Janet Smith, PhD, Christopher West, John Paul II, etc... for a more thorough and cogent analysis b/t the two. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Explain this statement please. B/c the way I read what you wrote. there isn't a damned thing "natural" about taking a "pill" (although the woman isn't sick!) to prevent something natural from occuring in her body! Artificial birth control is one of the most unnatural things one can do to the human body, putting it in such a hormonal state. I remember this being debated in my high school biology class. When someone pointed out that periodic, selective abstinence was a natural method of birth control, the teacher said that there was nothing natural about it: it meant ignoring one of the most powerful drives of nature, akin to the drive to eat and drink. Thus, he said, so-called "artificial" methods of birth control are more "natural" than abstinence is, since it allows you to do what comes naturally. Seemed logical to me then. Still does now. I don't see how selective abstinence is any more a natural thing to do than fasting is. By the way, the real meaning of NFP is "no fucking, please." Nothing natural about that. If you use this logic, then you MUST satisfy your every urge EVERY time they occur. You want a cheeseburger, you must have one. You want to fuck, you must fuck. That argument reduces you to nothing more than a base animal with no volitional will at all. If that's what you believe about humans, well, there's not much sense in debating. There are many reasons for NOT having sex. I may want it -badly for some reason- but my wife may have an illness. Do I take her by force b/c I "need" to fuck? Of course not. The examples here could be endless. Do you always eat every time you're hungry? No. It's not always prudent nor possible. I'm afraid your biology teacher was misguided to say that ARTIFICIAL birht control was somehow more "natural" than NFP. That is the most backwards thing I've ever heard. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

FAITH is the belief in something in the face of facts. Don't start John. We're having a nice little debate w/o you adding barbs. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

But NFP works just as well to GET pregnant as to avoid pregnancy. AND it doesn't seperate the UNITIVE and PROCREATIVE aspects of sex, as taught by the Catholic church. In that aspect, it is NOT the same as artificial contraception. Just to clarify. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

NO NFP is NOT contraception. That is a fallacy. They are NOT the same, not in the least! If you followed your logic through to it's conclusion is that a couple could only have sex when the female is in estrous. In the case of artificial contraception, the couple is deliberately doing something to thwart the natural, procreative capacity of either hte maile or the female in their actions while engaging in intercourse. Therein lies the "sin" according to the church. In NFP, the couple is not acting when there is a possibility of conception and the couple, with sufficient reason, wishes to avoid conception. There is no "sin" in NOT acting. When the couple DOES engage in intercourse, the are NOT doing ANYTHING to deliberately withold any lifegiving possibility in the marital act. The woman has not withheld her egg (as if she could voluntarily do that anyway) and the man has not voluntarily withheld his sperm. There is still, at root, an openness to life. That is the difference. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Plus we're both liberal douchebags. *runs from the wrath of Kallend* OMG, I'm peeing my pants!!! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Bring the noise LEE!!!! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Nope. Not true. If I want data on the drug Copaxone for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis, who has amassed that data? The company that makes that drug which happens to be Teva Neuroscience (my employer). If I want data on the drug Viagra, who has amassed the preponderance of THAT data? You guessed it, PFIZER! You have wrongly assumed that the Couple to Couple League has only amassed research that is favorable -and therefore biased- to it's method of NFP. That is incorrect. If you were to go there for yourself, you'd see this. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Sometimes bill, I don't think you read too well... What I said what this, verbatim and in italics... They could have just been really shitty teachers or shitty adherants to the practice of NFP. There is a BIG difference. But now you've ceased to debate. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

If he were a devout catholic, he wouldn't have developed something that divorces the unitive and procreative meaning of intercourse. Concraception has been verboten in the Church for ages. It is not a "morally permissible variant" according to the church. Never has been, never will be. Perhaps a consultation of Church documents such as Humanae Vitae and others are in order. That's not true either, unless you're looking at this from a purely biological perspective. But from the church's perspective, we're not just animals. However, I'm much more inclined to agree w/ that statement, b/c it's my view that marriages are far more stable and families much more happy, enjoyable, etc. when they are LARGE. In fact, I seem to recall some research on that very thing, but I can't recall the dudes name... something about the divorce rate decreasing as the number of children increasing... ah well... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

If you're going to poke fun at me, at least do it where I can hear next time. we really weren't making fun of you, honestly. rob and linder just linked the vegan thread to me in pm's... honest engine. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

He's just... wha? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

you and kallend would get along famously then. admittedly, model rockets ARE quite fun. my oldest two kids and I have had lots of fun w/ them in the past year.

JESSEFS JESSEFS JESSEFS I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

That's an overgeneralization and IMO, an unwarranted assumption. They could have just been really shitty teachers or shitty adherants to the practice of NFP. I've known a lot of NFP teachers and have been to the Couple to Couple Leagues offices in Cinncinnati, where a lot of the teaching occurs and where they have amassed alot of data on NFP research. What you are describing is just not the norm. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Explain this statement please. B/c the way I read what you wrote. there isn't a damned thing "natural" about taking a "pill" (although the woman isn't sick!) to prevent something natural from occuring in her body! Artificial birth control is one of the most unnatural things one can do to the human body, putting it in such a hormonal state. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

No Bill. What we have here is a problem with society. We fail to give gangbangers the appropriate outlets for them to use to blow off steam and take the guess work out of who's home. What we need to do is construct an arena out of plate steel and concrete where each rival gang can play a game of paintball and settle their differences -- only without the paint. Instead, the last gang standing is given a wonderful award -- all the crack they can inhale, until they fall peacefully and permanently asleep. We would be getting rid of rival gangs by giving them the opportunities they so deserve while finding a constructive way to dispose of confiscated drugs and saving innocent lives. [/Jonathan Swift] What a GREAT IDEA! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I've asked for some evidence of the claim that the HIV virus molecule cannot pass through the condom, assuming the condom is not broken. As I mentioned earlier, I have heard this from places other than from w/i the church. (In fact, I have NOT heard this from w/i the church, at least I don't recall). I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

you are correct! can I kiss your booty too? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

oh how I love you. you are so much better at this than I am. can I just hire you to argue for me from now on? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Nevermind, Rob helped me find this... Man I missed a good thread that day! (Not making fun of you at all, btw!) I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...