Not the best of time for the |Catholic Church

[Blade96]

One further note: Modern Natural Family Planning is much more than the rhythm method; a few minutes on a search engine can turn up plenty about it. When done properly and consistently, it can be very effective. The problem is that it's not nearly as simple as using a condom or taking a pill.

Awwwwwwwight.....I'll bite.

I 'spent a couple minutes on a search engine' and looked at every link on the first page and on the second page as well. No offence but this post of yours is horseradish. Every page talked about how it is not a reliable way of BC due to the fact that it does not take into account that every woman is different; even in the same woman her cycles will not always be alike and a woman can ovulate even when she is having the period. It said the failure rate is like out of every hundred people a quarter or more will get pregnant trying to use this BS method of BC and the failure rates for teens are even higher due to the fact they are changing and going through puberty. more unpredictable.

In addition it says this method would probably kill more embryos than it saves because eggs fertilized during the cycle are newer than eggs fertilized on the fringes, as would happen using this method. so they might have damages.

 

[jks9199]

Awwwwwwwight.....I'll bite.

I 'spent a couple minutes on a search engine' and looked at every link on the first page and on the second page as well. No offence but this post of yours is horseradish. Every page talked about how it is not a reliable way of BC due to the fact that it does not take into account that every woman is different; even in the same woman her cycles will not always be alike and a woman can ovulate even when she is having the period. It said the failure rate is like out of every hundred people a quarter or more will get pregnant trying to use this BS method of BC and the failure rates for teens are even higher due to the fact they are changing and going through puberty. more unpredictable.

In addition it says this method would probably kill more embryos than it saves because eggs fertilized during the cycle are newer than eggs fertilized on the fringes, as would happen using this method. so they might have damages.

See HERE. I know people who have very successfully used NFP methods to prevent and control pregnancy. However, it requires strict adherence to the rules and principles for best success. The only PERFECTLY successful method of birth control is absolute abstinence. With one reported exception some 2000 years or so ago, nobody has gotten pregnant (we'll ignore technological intervention like in vitro fertilization) who has been absolutely abstinent.

 

[Sukerkin]

You may think you have no problem with religious people but your words betray you. You've got some issues with religion, sir.

And quite right too. I have as well, as should any other well-adjusted person with a basic grasp of biology and physics.

The only reason I am not going to take any further part in this thread, or any other discourse about religion here at MT is that there is no point. I'm not going to change anyones mind and there is no capital or enjoyment in it for me to needlessly antagonise people.

After all, I can't put all of those here who have belief systems on 'Ignore' can I? And even if I could, other than their views on non-existent Creators, I actually like most of them.

As to the OP, my views have not changed. It most certainly will not matter to anyone but this topic offends me deeply and no amount of 'Spin' is going to convince me that there is anything other than a sanctioned breach of morality before us.

Regardless, Ken said it much better way back on page 3 (that'll larn me to post before reading everything ). Also, this from Bill is very significant:

"I also fully accept that all of my religious beliefs could be no more than wishful thinking and imagination. That's OK with me, I didn't ask for proof or any promises. If it turns out I'm wrong, I don't feel I will have wasted my life or done anything that I would have done differently if I did not believe." That's a sentiment I entirely agree with, at an individual level at least. The problem only comes when you have powerful organisations pushing unproveable and untestable beliefs that are harmful to the development of civilisation.

So, to misquote the Dragon's Den, I'm out.

 

[JWLuiza]

See HERE. I know people who have very successfully used NFP methods to prevent and control pregnancy. However, it requires strict adherence to the rules and principles for best success. The only PERFECTLY successful method of birth control is absolute abstinence. With one reported exception some 2000 years or so ago, nobody has gotten pregnant (we'll ignore technological intervention like in vitro fertilization) who has been absolutely abstinent.

I'm not surprised the rates are in the mid to high 90s, but still, 3 pregnancies per 100 couples per year..... That stretches the definition of effective.

What parachute wold you rather have, the 99.95 one or the 97%? Of course, if you are following your religion, you've got to do what you've got to do.

I'm also 100% convinced that the virgin birth concept is a mistranslation, but I'm a godless heathen

 

[Carol]

The Church, the dioceses, and the priests are not quite as rigid as some people think they are. I used artificial birth control at the start of my marriage for a specific medical reason. After discussing the reason why with our priest during our pre-cana conversations, his reaction was "Oh, that's why? That's no big deal...I won't even ask you to confess that."

Now? I think modern family planning takes the subject of birth control of the table for discussion. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under the age of 45 that doesn't have more than 3 kids....and I don't think the reason for that is entirely because modern family planning is effective.

 

[Carol]

...who has been absolutely abstinent.

Well yeah, being single sucks. But I digress. Although I think the committed gay couples have a pretty good idea of how not to get pregnant as well. :lfao:

 

[Ken Morgan]

And quite right too. I have as well, as should any other well-adjusted person with a basic grasp of biology and physics.

The only reason I am not going to take any further part in this thread, or any other discourse about religion here at MT is that there is no point. I'm not going to change anyones mind and there is no capital or enjoyment in it for me to needlessly antagonise people.

After all, I can't put all of those here who have belief systems on 'Ignore' can I? And even if I could, other than their views on non-existent Creators, I actually like most of them.

As to the OP, my views have not changed. It most certainly will not matter to anyone but this topic offends me deeply and no amount of 'Spin' is going to convince me that there is anything other than a sanctioned breach of morality before us.

Regardless, Ken said it much better way back on page 3 (that'll larn me to post before reading everything ). Also, this from Bill is very significant:

"I also fully accept that all of my religious beliefs could be no more than wishful thinking and imagination. That's OK with me, I didn't ask for proof or any promises. If it turns out I'm wrong, I don't feel I will have wasted my life or done anything that I would have done differently if I did not believe." That's a sentiment I entirely agree with, at an individual level at least. The problem only comes when you have powerful organisations pushing unproveable and untestable beliefs that are harmful to the development of civilisation.

So, to misquote the Dragon's Den, I'm out.

Well said.

Side note, there are many, many reasons we follow different paths, I shall mention as most of my family still lives in Northern Ireland, I won't even mention how much my family over there has been hurt by religion...and how it has "helped" me in finding my current beliefs.

 

[Blade96]

See HERE. I know people who have very successfully used NFP methods to prevent and control pregnancy. However, it requires strict adherence to the rules and principles for best success. The only PERFECTLY successful method of birth control is absolute abstinence. With one reported exception some 2000 years or so ago, nobody has gotten pregnant (we'll ignore technological intervention like in vitro fertilization) who has been absolutely abstinent.

That is a religious pro life site. so that is gonna be biased. That isnt biological or extremely scientific. They are primarily basing it on their pro life stance rather than on science. Of course they would say that it works. Show me actual scientific studies please, not a pro life propaganda site.

Secondly, I am a woman and having periods since I was 12. I can honestly say that most of that is BS in my case. Wont go into specific because it'll be TMI

Also, it doesnt address what I also said about embryos born near the fringes not being as viable.

The site also says against sex being for pleasure as making a woman feel used. More BS.

but NFP when there was no pill or anything....didnt work in my grandma's day.....all four of my grandparents had large family....9 kids apiece.

My grandma has said that if there was BC she wouldnt have had so many and even today says she never wanted all her kids.

 

[jks9199]

We're shifting pretty off topic with birth control.

To return to the topic at hand... Yes, I detest the actions of the priests who abused children. I absolutely support prosecution. And I think that simply moving them and not even so much as warning the new pastor about the issue is akin to handing a toddler a jar of nitroglycerin and being shocked when something goes BOOM! Especially the cases where a priest was moved more than once for the same reasons. Anyone involved in that should at least be investigated, and probably charged.

However, I also distinguish between the actions of individuals and an organization. Because the LAPD Rampart division was corrupt, is every gang cop corrupt? Because there are a few corrupt cops, is every agency and every officer corrupt? No. Nor are police or the justice system at fault for the actions of those individuals -- even when a chief was involved. (And I can name cases where chiefs were involved.) In the same way, the institution of the Roman Catholic Church is separate from the people that make it up. I am Roman Catholic by faith; I was raised Catholic, but made my own choices as well. My faith -- which I admit is, by definition, unprovable! -- tells me that the institution of the Church is true; it's teachings on faith and morals are correct and infallible. That is separate from the people who make it up, who are quite fallible. Too often, tragically so.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now? I think modern family planning takes the subject of birth control of the table for discussion. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under the age of 45 that doesn't have more than 3 kids....and I don't think the reason for that is entirely because modern family planning is effective.

I'm nearly 49. No kids. Catholic. Care to try that again?

 

[Carol]

I'm nearly 49. No kids. Catholic. Care to try that again?

Gladly.

I don't think the reason for that is entirely because modern family planning is effective.

 

[CanuckMA]

No, I like discussing religion and such. If I didn't, I wouldnt have started a discussion about God with my sensei (and i also talk about religion with others as well) I like hearing what do people believe and why do they believe this. I like to get to know people. and my sensei and I are good friends.

Its just when they implicitly or explicitly say my beliefs are naive and they think they have the truth that gets my goat.

Oh, the irony...

 

[Blade96]

Oh, the irony...

what are you on about, canuckma?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Gladly.

I meant this part:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under the age of 45 that doesn't have more than 3 kids

Yet here I am. How hard was that? By the by, my three younger sisters? One has 4 kids. One has 3. One has 2. All are done having kids, so that's the final score.

However, to be more scientific, according to the 2000 US Census, the average number of children for all US families is 3.14. That's more than 3, all right. And according to other sources, there is no statistical difference between family sizes for Catholics and that of other religions in the USA. Outside the USA, then yes, Catholics tend to have larger families.

 

[Carol]

Ack. Sorry :asian: Too many negatives in that statement. And you are correct, I was referring to inside the U.S.

I meant you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic under the age of 45 that HAS more than 3 kids. Roman Catholic families across the board in the US are much smaller than they have been and I don't think the answer is exclusively because of NFP.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ack. Sorry :asian: Too many negatives in that statement. And you are correct, I was referring to inside the U.S.

I meant you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic under the age of 45 that HAS more than 3 kids. Roman Catholic families across the board in the US are much smaller than they have been and I don't think the answer is exclusively because of NFP.

Ah, now I understand. Yes, it is widely assumed that many US Catholics do not follow the Vatican's stance on use of contraception. I can tell you that my family certainly did. I am one of four children, and my father slept on the couch from as long as I can remember. I believed "Get the hell away from me" was a term of endearment.

 

[Carol]

Ah, now I understand. Yes, it is widely assumed that many US Catholics do not follow the Vatican's stance on use of contraception. I can tell you that my family certainly did. I am one of four children, and my father slept on the couch from as long as I can remember. I believed "Get the hell away from me" was a term of endearment.

Heh. My family did too. My parents thought (in so many words) the Creator intended them to have one child and that was it....until I showed up. I still have people looking at me a bit strangely when I say my late father was a WWII vet.

 

[CanuckMA]

what are you on about, canuckma?

This part

Its just when they implicitly or explicitly say my beliefs are naive and they think they have the truth that gets my goat.

You don't like religious people saying that to you, but look around this board and see how atheists view and belittle us who are religious.

 

[Aikicomp]

Ack. Sorry :asian: Too many negatives in that statement. And you are correct, I was referring to inside the U.S.

I meant you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic under the age of 45 that HAS more than 3 kids. Roman Catholic families across the board in the US are much smaller than they have been and I don't think the answer is exclusively because of NFP.

I DO! I DO! I was 43 when we had our 5th child. What do I win?

Michael

 

[Carol]

I DO! I DO! I was 43 when we had our 5th child. What do I win?

Michael

THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!

[yt]nHGOl-jfUK0[/yt]