Leave a comment below!
So close to the EUropean way...and yet so far. Let's keep it that way.
Paul, don't you know that I have a right to my pleasure. Children have no right to be born or imperil that.
When you think of a world that is essentially hostile to children, though, well, it simply destroys hope.
There is no greater joy, no greater meaning and fulfillment than bringing a child into the world and caring for him; and nothing brings greater respect to the (ahem) marital act, for spouse to spouse, than knowing the power and aim of that act.
That seems to have been lobotomized from our culture mind and we sense the loss even if we don't seem to feel it.
"There is no greater joy, no greater meaning and fulfillment than bringing a child into the world and caring for him."
Well said, Mark. If you'll permit to quote U2, I believe they have captured, in a peculiarly poetic turn of phrase, the essence of traditional Christian teaching on birth control in their song "Miracle Drug":
Freedom has a scent
like the top of a newborn baby's head
It is in this sort of context that my remarks in this space last month on child-rearing in our time must be understood, and I didn't then do such a good job of it.
In short form, what I meant to point out is that because of the fact that our culture is, like no other before it, utterly inhospitable to the commonsense rearing of children, it therefore takes no less than someone of wisdom and heroic fortitude to do it today: and very few of us have that, I think. I know I'll go mad if I were put in that position....
Paul,
I won't try to argue that overpopulaltion is at the root of many of the world's ills, and that irresponsible breeding is a major part of the problem, because I'm sure you have been well inoculated against such ideas and perhaps will reply that life is a banquet in which any number of people can share and there are no limits to the Earth's carrying capacity because God will provide.
But, with respect, it is not hostility to children to want them to be born to people who have made a commitment to nurturing and raising them. Unless you believe that birth control is wrong just because the Catholic Church says so -- and frankly, because of your obvious intelligence, I would be disappointed in you if that's your position -- it is far better that children be conceived only under conditions that give them a reasonable chance to start life's difficult journey with loving care.
As for there being no such thing as unwanted pregnancies: come on, Paul, that is sophistry not wo
[continued]
... not worthy of you.
Mr. Darby: You can't argue the overpopulation canard because it has been exposed to be just that, a canard.
I also suspect that the conditions you would find adequate to bring forth a child into this world rarely occur.
Buttercup:
Your dismissal of the overpopulation issue is so dogmatic that there is no case to answer.
As to the second point, are you saying that there are so few would-be parents who have made a commitment to raising their children with loving care that we must enforce parenthood whenever we can, regardless of the potential parents' wishes?
"Enforcing parenthood" is a canard for sure. "Punishing murderers, including parents who murder their own children" is the correct framing of the issue.
Wanted or unwanted really doesn't come into it.
Mr. Darby:
As much as I hate to disappoint you, I must admit that, though I am not a Catholic, I find the Church's teaching on birth control very persuasive (and recall that before 1927, it was the teaching of all Christian churches). I assure you, however, that my judgment is not a simple deference to the Church. Indeed, it is the other way 'round: I have begun to take Roman Catholic claims more and more seriously precisely because I discover by my own reasoning how solid her opposition to contraconception is.
I agree with you that "it is far better that children be conceived only under conditions that give them a reasonable chance to start life's difficult journey with loving care" -- but the answer is not birth control, it is chastity.
In short, anyone truly concerned with overpopulation must concern himself with reducing the incidence of sex. The really insane thing about the overpopulation doomsayers is that they will not even enter into the issue of sexual morality; they prefer sexual hygene.
Paul, for a moment there, while reading your last two comments, I thought Malcolm Muggeridge had come back from the dead.
Paul,
Thanks for the clarification. I must admit to being surprised to learn that you are not a Catholic. But I, too, have found myself becoming increasingly sympathetic with the Church in many respects, as it is one of the few remaining major institutions in the Western world that insists there is a spiritual reality that takes precedence over the materialism that dominates modern life.
I still can't fathom the Church's opposition to birth control, though. It is true that for those who wish to devote themselves completely to the spiritual life, the sexual urge is a distraction and probably ought to be re-directed toward a yearning for God. But many people are not ready for or willing to undertake such a total commitment, and I don't see why we should demand that they live like monks and nuns.
[continued ... ]
[continued]
As one who believes that overpopulation contributes to social ills and degrades the quality of life -- not a "doomsayer" -- I'm happy to acknowledge that chastity is one valid means of abstaining from procreation, for population stabilization or for any other reason that people choose. But why should that be the only means?
Bill:
(gulp) I've never actually read any Muggeridge . . .
Mr. Darby:
But many people are not ready for or willing to undertake such a total commitment, and I don't see why we should demand that they live like monks and nuns.
Why must they live like monks and nuns? They can simply live as mothers and fathers.
I'm happy to acknowledge that chastity is one valid means of abstaining from procreation, for population stabilization or for any other reason that people choose. But why should that be the only means?
Because the others are evil.
Well, Mr. Cella frankly I'm shocked. All your impressive breadth of reading and you haven't read Muggeridge. At the risk of gloating, given my meager reading compared to yours, I'm happy to disover that I've read someone of importance that you haven't. Now, what was my point?
Mr. Darby,
You throw up the classic straw man that to discuss virtue regarding sex would be the only choice. Could we not start with, at the very least, discussing sexual chastity as a viable option and at least be honest with people on the real risks of sexual promiscuity even with so called protection? Instead it is only the sexual freedom with protection option that is ever presented. I'm confident that there are some people wise enough to appreciate the pragmatic advantages of obstaining from sex out of marriage even if they don't necessarily appreciate the moral argument.
Mr. Gilbert:
Actually, I think we agree. While I see nothing evil about birth control, society should acknowledge that abstention is to be respected as another valid choice. I'd agree that for teenagers, it should be strongly recommended.
But that's a far cry from Mr. Cella's comments that began this thread, to the effect that practicing birth control in any sex that he disapproves of constitutes "chlling ... hostility to children."
Overpop. Bad parents. Unwanted kids.
To put it crudely - so effing what!
I'm so sick of world fixers, classic male pride that we can problem solve all of life if we just make enough new laws and enforce them. More education! Stop people doing bad things! We can save everything if we only try hard enough!
Well, guess what. The world's still here, some folks thrive, some don't and nothing you can do will change that. You can only change yourself.
Have a kid and do your duty for him and wife, and quite worrying about things you can't ever fix. Do your moral duty to God and man, and let Providence take care of the rest.
After all, when did worry ever add a cubit to a man's height?
"...that practicing birth control in any sex ... constitutes 'chilling ... hostility to children.' "
A society that is unable to grasp this - that any birth control whatsoever is inherently hostile to children - is a society whose days are numbered.
it is far better that children be conceived only under conditions that give them a reasonable chance to start life's difficult journey with loving care
Why stop there? Is it not far better for anyone to live only under optimal conditions? Line up the poor, elderly and infirm and shoot them. And viola! Overpopulation solved! The logic that unwanted pregnancy is best resolved by birth control rather than self-control is the same logic that poverty is best solved by ridding us of poor people.
In short, its the mentality that we should eliminate the product of our destructive behavior rather than modify our behavior to no longer be destructive.
The problem with bc is that demographics are destiny. When Christ said the poor shall inherit the Earth, He wasn't just wishfully thinking - He was clueing us in on a basic fact of demographics. As a society becomes more materialistic, it has less room for the self sacrifice it takes to have kids (ie, increase bc usage so we can have the fun w/o the cramp in our lifestyle), and presto! Good bye whitey.
Paul:
I'm coming to this exchange late. Some of the comments made me laugh out loud. The Muggeridge comment particularly.
As a Catholic I will say this. The Church is not opposed to birth control, per se. It is opposed to artificial birth control. What seems to be a "too subtle by half" argument may well be critical to the discussion and to understanding the Church's teaching.
You nailed the discussion with the word chastity. The word itself lives on in remote monestaries as a sad and lonely refugee from normal conversation, pining for its once esteemed central position in our Western society. It is now erroneously coupled with the word abstinence.
Unfortunately, sexually obsessed children of the sixties exiled chastity from the Western World's vocabulary because it realized it could not coexist in peace (hey man) with the emerging flower dudes who were determined to convert from the faith of their fathers and mothers to worshipping the pagan god Hedon. As I understan
(Sorry, I didn't know comments could be truncated.)
As I understand it, the followers of Hedon are called Istics. Many Catholics became Istics during the sixties and seventies.
Pope Paul VI wrote in the sixties that artificial birth control would lead to abortion and abortion to euthanasia. Today doctors in Holland routinely decide whether to kill a newborn baby with disabilities. I wonder whe they'll start on the adults.
As they embrace the cult of death, Europe is committing demographic suicide. Whole cities are beginning to depopulate. And yet Istics think Paul VI was the crazy one. You shall know them by the fruit they bear. SHALL KNOW THEM BY THE FRUITTHEY BEAR.
Well, despite my appreciation for and agreement with many of Paul Cella's little essays, I seem to be a minority of one on this thread, and I'll just have to wear it.
For the record, I place a high value on spirituality and deplore the exclusive emphasis on materialism that animates so much of the social and political scene, including country-club conservatism.
Nevertheless ...
[continued]
[continued]
... although chastity is perfectly valid for those who choose it, demanding it, or insisting that it's my duty to go forth and multiply, has the ring of authoritarian coerciveness.
And to assert that birth control is "evil" (a word not to be used lightly), or that anyone who supports the right to practice it is apt to line up the poor and shoot them, and that any form of birth control is hostility to children, is -- what's the word I'm searching for? Oh, right. Demented.
Some practicalities:
How does a relience on absentism affect a society? Who does it affect? Who gets hurt?
See http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2005.../
bader0105.html for an examination of the issue?
Also, being from another country, I don't understand, why in America there is a desire to take away other people's freedom's to have sex however they want? How does it affect you if I use a condom when I sleep with my wife? Can someone explain?
Cheers
Dave
Mr. Darby:
I use the word evil advisedly. As John the Mad very sanely points out, the Catholic Church teaches that all artificial birth control is indeed evidence of hostility to children. Is it your position that the Church is demented?
I wonder if you have mistakenly conflated chastity with celebacy.
Dave:
"Also, being from another country, I don't understand, why in America there is a desire to take away other people's freedom's to have sex however they want?"
There is no such freedom, so it cannot be "taken away."
Paul:
By freedom, I mean in Australia (where I'm am) no one says that we shouldn't use condoms. Pretty much we're encouraged so as to avoid AIDs and diseases. I'm just curious why the anti-condom league is so big in America?
What do you attribute it to?
Dave,
Have it your way everyday if you like. I won't force you to procreate or be chaste, but then don't force me to pay for your consequences or world saving schemes.
Look, the world and all its wickedness will go on its merry way regardless of what I say. It always has.
If you would give up the insane notion of fixing the problems that immorality causes -- well, this is the drunk loving his drink but insisting that the world cure his hangover or never have one.
(2
Jesus said: I stood in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found them all drunk, I found none among them thirsting; and my soul was afflicted for the sons of men, for they are blind in their heart and they do not see. For empty came they into the world, seeking also to depart empty from the world. But now they are drunk. When they have thrown off their wine, then will they repent.
Dave:
Have you no Catholics in Australia? I'm sure Cardinal Pell is loyal to his Church's teaching on contraception.
Paul:
You write: "I use the word evil advisedly." I take it that you mean you understand the gravity of using the word evil, as distinct from, say, unfortunate or misguided or even wrong.
If you think artificial birth control is evil, then, you scare me almost as much as Muslim fanatics do.
Mark -If you would give up the insane notion of fixing the problems that immorality causes -- well, this is the drunk loving his drink but insisting that the world cure his hangover or never have one.
You should join Islam. They have a no drinking policy.
Paul: We do have catholics in Australia. It's just not a polictical or social issue.
What is the position? Is it the wearing of condoms is wrong. Or is it sex that isn't designed to produce children is wrong. Or is it sex that is outside marriage. When is sex wrong and when is it right?
Sex is right when engaged in between two people who have committed themselves to each other for life, and the act is open to the creation of new life (after all, that is what it is for).
In practical terms, this means a man and woman who are married and are not artificially thwarting the biological realities of the act, either by barrier, chemical, interruption, etc.
Artificial birth control is, in fact, a statment that "on my own terms, I do not want this act to create children". Therefore, it is anti- child. It also says, I do not respect the biological realities (eg, natural fertility cycle) so in a sense, is anti-human as well.
Not sure about all the rules in Aussie Football, but artificial bc would be equivalent to cheating - ie, not playing by the rules. In football's case, the rules are established by the Aussie Football Association. In the case of sex, the rules are set by nature (and ulimately, nature's God).
Before you go all "we cheat nature all the time" on me by examples of cars, medicine, etc., you also have to consider the ends. The end of improving transportation is to get you somewhere faster. Whether by walking, running, driving or flying, the end of getting you there is completely in tact.
What is the end of the sex act? Well, it has two ends - to create an intimate bond between the people engaging in it, and to create life. Artificial bc, while it meets the first end, it intentionally thwarts the second end without respect for the natural rules. Natural bc while it may or may not result in the second end being achieved, it does not act outside the rules, but within them (sort of like using the three time outs allowed, vs. cheating by taking a fourth time out not allowed by the rules).
Its the difference between using/working with nature, vs. abusing/working against nature.
To summarise:
Using natural methods is ok. So standard intercourse, mutual masterbation, oral sex, anal sex (greek style) between a man and a woman, the rhythm method are OK.
Using constructed methods - like something that was constructed by a factory - condoms, IUDs, Birth Control pills, is wrong.
What about using natural contraceptives - like lemon slices they use in parts of Asia (don't try this at home, I don't know the exact details but I do know it is used as a method of contraception)?
Where does beastiality fit into the picture - interspecies sex? What about masterbation?
Are any sexual positions more good than others? Is doggy style bad, but missionary good?
Forgive my ignorance, we don't have this sort of stuff in Australia and I'm intrigued.
...demanding it, or insisting that it's my duty to go forth and multiply, has the ring of authoritarian coerciveness
Is it authoritarian to point out (without necessarily advocating a specific legal regime) to point out that certain acts are objectively evil? If so, then pretty much everyone is authoritarian, even someone who is an absolutist when it comes to moral relativism.
...mutual masterbation, oral sex, anal sex (greek style) between a man and a woman, the rhythm method are OK.
No. All of the above are evil acts - acts which are objectively hostile toward children - with the exception of the rhythm method (as it involves abstaining from sex acts, not performing a modified sex act in which fecundity is deliberately thwarted). And even that exception only applies in grave circumstances.
Inchastity is, in fact, evil. What can or should be done about widespread inchastity as a legal and social matter is something else entirely; but the objective moral fact remains.
...insisting that it's my duty to go forth and multiply...
It isn't your duty to go forth and multiply. It is your duty to accept parenthood as the single most morally critical natural consequence of sex.
Wow. That's amazing.
More questions.
Can I still carry out sexual fantasies (ie dress ups/role palying) before I attempt to make children? Or is that forbidden.
What about bondage and S&M? It's a sexual activity for some, and it's not about producing children but it doesn't necesarily entail sexual intercourse. Is it morally wrong?
What about the use of dildoes and vibrators while having sex, Is that ok if we're having sex with the idea of creating children?
What about masterbation? Is that morally wrong?
Can I have sex after she goes through menopause? Since she can't have children anymore, can we still have sex? Are wives with barren husbands allowed to have sex, even though they both know a child won't be produced.
Am I allowed to enjoy sex in any way, or is it just a mechanical act - putting tab A in slot B - as it were.
Are wet dreams/noctural emissions morally wrong?
"Can I still carry out sexual fantasies (ie dress ups/role palying) before I attempt to make children?"
Sure.
"...but it doesn't necesarily entail sexual intercourse. Is it morally wrong?"
If you are climaxing and deliberately avoiding fertility that is morally wrong.
"What about masterbation? Is that morally wrong?"
Yes, masturbation is a mortal sin.
"Can I have sex after she goes through menopause? Since she can't have children anymore, can we still have sex?"
Sure, because you are not deliberately interfering with the fertility of the act. Lots of couples have "surprise" children late in life. If you would welcome such a surprise child with grateful loving affection, then natural sex between a man and a woman that is naturally barren is good.
"Am I allowed to enjoy sex in any way, or is it just a mechanical act -"
The idea that modern narcissists enjoy their shallow gratifications more than married people
"Am I allowed to enjoy sex in any way, or is it just a mechanical act -"
The idea that modern narcissists enjoy their shallow gratifications more than married people enjoy sex as it ought to be is ridiculous.
"Are wet dreams/noctural emissions morally wrong?"
It is only possible to do something wrong in making a deliberate choice. So no, of course not, nothing that is not a deliberate choice can be morally wrong.
So to summarise the position.
Any form of sex, between a married man and woman, not aimed at producing children is morally wrong - with the exception of sex after menopause and sex between barren couples.
Sexual acts, such as oral sex, role playing, sex with objects are acceptable as long as they are used within an set of acts culminating in sexual intercourse which is aimed at ultimately producing children.
OK. I can appreciate your value system. I think it's limited, and denying a whole host of human emotions, but your values are your values.
So - to continue. Why do you want other people, such as non-Christians, not to engage in immoral sex. How does it affect you?
Dave--Since eventually you might get past all the puerile questions and into some substantial ones, here's a good place to start reading up on those:
http://jkalb.org/node/6
Then at least Zippy gets a break.
And:
From "It is only possible to do something wrong in making a deliberate choice. So no, of course not, nothing that is not a deliberate choice can be morally wrong."
we can conclude that choice precedes responsibility. So those people who don't have a choice in their actions aren't acting immorally when they carry out those actions - such as wet dreams.
Can't the same thing be said for homosexuality? What's the position on that? What about addictions - not to sex, but to things like heorin or cigarettes? If addiction removes choice, how reponsible is the person inflicted by it?
Chris Floyd:
Being from another country, I've never encountered such views. They're quite fascinating.
Chris:
Read the article:
'Among other things, private consensual sex gives rise to babies, family life, knife fights, betrayal, self-sacrificing devotion, and STDs.'
Especially liked the following. I had no idea that sex could lead to knife fights. I'll be more careful from now on.
"Any form of sex, between a married man and woman, not aimed at producing children is morally wrong..."
That overstates it. Any form of sex that is not welcoming to children is morally wrong. It is not morally necessary to be disappointed if a given sex act does not produce a child.
"How does it affect you?"
Everything about a culture affects everyone in that culture.
"Can't the same thing be said for homosexuality?"
Yes, it can, actually. There is nothing morally wrong with feeling a homosexual attraction. There is something wrong with acting on it.
"If addiction removes choice..."
Addiction does not remove choice. If your body performs some involuntary process while you are asleep, you did not choose it. If you move the glass to your lips and drink, you have made a choice. It may be a very difficult choice, and indeed it is sometimes very, very difficult to do the right thing. But the right thing is the right thing, no
But the right thing is the right thing, no matter how difficult.
I had no idea that sex could lead to knife fights.
Then you haven't been paying any attention to the actual, real world of actual, real people.
Dave writes, "Being from another country, I've never encountered such views. They're quite fascinating."
Then you have not explored the opinions of your own country. I say again, are there no Catholics in Oz? Yes, there are; and some significant percentage of them are loyal to their Church's teaching on human sexuality. The Pope would not elevate a man (Pell) to the rank of Cardinal if he were a noted apostate from a teaching that the Pope is, as he must be, quite firm about.
Your comment demonstrates your narrow-mindedness.
I think Dave has been doing a bit of wanking off here.
I always love that question - how does someone else doing something affect me?
Hmm, let's see, the guy next door who murdered his entire family, well, that didn't affect me in the least, did it?
But immoral acts, even those that are private affects others. How?
Your private immoral acts make you less than the person you could be if you developed a stronger character and greater wisdom.
Your immaturity combined with that of so many others is deleterious to everyone else. You lower the store of good will in men.
Wow. Thanks Ziggy.
So it's the intent to produce a child that is integral to morality of the act.
It seems a bit loose around the idea of sex after menopause or sex between barren couples (so I'll hope none of you get caught in that situaion) and I'll let that pass.
But how are other things viewed:
For example, if a husband wants a child, but his wife is reluctant to, and the man forces himself on his wife, is that morally acceptable?
Is consent important?
What constitues a sex act? Kissing, french kissing, groping, flirting? When does heavy petting end and sex begin?
What would happen if one of your Christian friend's confided in you that he had had sex - what would you do? Would you still talk to him? What about if it was your son who confided that he had sex?
Where does pornography fit into the picture. The sex act isn't committed by the viewer, but is he still condemned.
What about cases of rape. If a woman from the congregation is raped by an ousider,
What about cases of rape. If a woman from the congregation is raped by an ousider, how would you respond to her?
Bishop Pell:
Be careful mentioning him. He's not too popular over here.
See http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content...04/
s1183277.htm
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/...sp?
article=2567
Mark:
Your private immoral acts make you less than the person you could be if you developed a stronger character and greater wisdom.
I don't understand. Don't we gain wisdom and build character from experience combined with self analysis.
Imagine if you locked yourself away in a room for your whole life without access to the outside world. How would you learn anything, grow any character?
It seems cutting yourself off from sex amounts to much the same thing?
Can you explain how an absence of experience creates wisdom?
"So it's the intent to produce a child that is integral to morality of the act."
No. It is not intent to produce a child. (Again. I said this already). It is openness, love, and welcome for any child which may result. One of the ways to exhibit hostility to children is to modify the act in such a way as to deliberately rule out the possibility of children.
"It seems a bit loose around the idea of sex after menopause or sex between barren couples (so I'll hope none of you get caught in that situaion) and I'll let that pass."
Not at all. There are plenty of naturally infertile sex acts between all married couples, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with a sex act between a married couple that happens to be infertile (as opposed to a sex act deliberately constructed to be infertile through a modification of the act as it occurs).
It isn't even slightly ambiguous or "loose".
"...the man forces himself on his wife, is that morally acceptable?"
No.
[...]
"Would you still talk to him?"
I have friends and family who have done all sorts of morally wrong things. I myself have done all sorts of morally wrong things. Nonetheless, as shocking as it may seem, we all still talk to each other. What is more, the fact that we love each other and talk to each other does not magically transform all of our various morally bad acts into morally good acts.
"Where does pornography fit into the picture. The sex act isn't committed by the viewer, but is he still condemned."
What is the point to the question? If someone says "murder is wrong" does it make sense to ask "what about yelling at someone, is that wrong too?" The answer may be "yes", but nevertheless two quite different kinds of acts are being discussed.
"What about cases of rape. If a woman from the congregation is raped by an ousider, how would you respo
"What about cases of rape. If a woman from the congregation is raped by an ousider, how would you respond to her?"
So far we haven't really discussed how to respond to people (including innocent rape victims) in various situations. We have discussed some specific acts which are (always and everywhere) objective moral wrongs: acts such as masturbation, sodomy, and contracepted intercourse.
Zippy, your patience is impressive, especially considering the narrowness of your correspondent.
Dave:
Cardinal Pell's popularity (much less his popularity with Liberals, which is the audience and source of your linked articles) is perfectly irrelevant to the point at hand. His existence alone is enough to demonstrate your ignorance of the opinions of your own country.
Zippy, you're patience is impressive, especially considering the narrowness of your correspondent.
Dave:
Cardinal Pell's popularity (much less his popularity with Liberals, which is the audience and source of your linked articles) is perfectly irrelevant to the point at hand. His existence alone is enough to demonstrate your ignorance of the opinions of your own country.
"Imagine if you locked yourself away in a room for your whole life without access to the outside world. How would you learn anything, grow any character?
It seems cutting yourself off from sex amounts to much the same thing?"
You mean cutting yourself off from experiencing sodomy, masturbation, and contracepted sex? Not at all. Cutting yourself off from the experience of commiting murder or embezzling from your employer is not the same things as locking yourself in a room. Experience-qua-experience divorced from all moral evaluation is not a good in itself. It is better to not experience being a murderer, or a thief, or a sodomite.
"Zippy, you're patience is impressive, especially considering the narrowness of your correspondent."
It has been suggested that I can at times be persistent to a fault.
Zippy, you're patience is impressive, especially considering the narrowness of your correspondent.
Yes I agree. I have little understanding of the issue - seeing that this stuff never enters the public eye in Australia - but I find your answers very illuminating. I must admit I have begun thinking about sex and its relationship with producing children.
Thanks for your patience. I know it must be trying. (Paul - you should take a book out of Zippy's book - he's very good -stop with the diatribes and start explaining stuff.)
The answer may be "yes", but nevertheless two quite different kinds of acts are being discussed.
I'm interested to see the whole picture. I can understand you better by understanding how you view different acts - which are similar but not the same. So where does being the victim of rape sit on the moral scale? Is it immorral to be forced or tricked into sex?
The position as you describe it is now:
It is openness, love, and wel
I'm interested to see the whole picture. I can understand you better by understanding how you view different acts - which are similar but not the same. So where does being the victim of rape sit on the moral scale? Is it immorral to be forced or tricked into sex?
The position as you describe it is now:
It is openness, love, and welcome for any child which may result. One of the ways to exhibit hostility to children is to modify the act in such a way as to deliberately rule out the possibility of children.
Thought 1:
What's more hostile? If I have two children and only earn enough money to support two children. It seems that if I try to produce a third child I am hostile to the existing children, because it forces us into poverty. It seems the less hostile act is not to produce the third child.
What are your thoughts on this one?
You say doing things to prevent yourself from having a child is hostile to them - and name contraception as the example. It seems preven
You say doing things to prevent yourself from having a child is hostile to them - and name contraception as the example. It seems preventing yourself from having sex is also hostile to children. If you are able to produce children isn't abstinence a hostile act to that potential person?
Because you don't have sex at that point in time, that potential person will never result.
Private immorality causes disintergration of society.
I don't see the connection between private immorality and the disintergration of public society. I think the disintergration with society has more to do with the unequal distribution of wealth and power and other various such things.
But I do know that society can be improved and I do appreciate that one of the ways you guys are trying to improve society is abstaining from sex.
What other things do you do to improve society? Do they have a greater impact than telling people to refrain from protected sex? For example, donation drives, v
What other things do you do to improve society? Do they have a greater impact than telling people to refrain from protected sex? For example, donation drives, vounteer work, demostrations against social policy?
Thanks again
Dave
"What are your thoughts on this one?"
That it is a false choice: that if you literally can't afford to have another child (which generally employs a very plastic notion of "can't"), then you can't afford to have sex. As anyone who has experienced fantastic sex knows, it isn't like stale bread: it is like a ferrari. You can live without it if you really have to.
"You say doing things to prevent yourself from having a child is hostile to them - "
Not quite. Having sex while simultaneously doing things to prevent yourself from having a child is (objectively) hostile to children. Abstaining from sex is not hostile to children any more than naturally infertile(say post-menopausal) sex is hostile to children.
These is one of my thoughts on hostility to children.
I think we can determine what makes a child thrive and what makes a child not thrive by looking at thriving and non-thriving children. For example, if my child doesn't get enough food, it will not thrive. Famine is an example of this. We can therefore conclude that lack of food is hostile to children.
But the same rule doesn't seem to apply to sex. People who engage different forms of sex have thriving children - for example, my parents and indeed, the rest of my country.
This would seem to dispute that engaging in non-child producing sex is hostile to children.
What are your thoughts?
Correction:
I meant to say:
I think we can determine is hostile to children by seeing what makes a child thrive and what makes a child not thrive.
instead of the 1st sentence.
I don't think "hostile" means what you think it means. Lack of food isn't hostile to children. Lack of food doesn't even describe the same sort of thing that the word "hostile" describes, since "lack of food" is a factual state of affairs while "hostile" is the interior disposition of a moral agent toward a thing.
"This would seem to dispute that engaging in non-child producing sex is hostile to children."
Nobody has contended, in this discussion, that "non child producing sex" (or a moral agent's decision to engage in non child producing sex) is hostile to children. It is modifying a particular sex act in order to rule out the possibility of conception which is (clearly) a reflection of hostility toward children.
Zippy: Nice arguements. Really, really clear. Paul - are you taking notes.
I must admit that from discussing things with you, I have come to understand more about the thoughts of sex and children - both what I think are yours and mine.
It is coming to my mind, that yes, I can accept Zippy's thoughts on contraception and children - provided he doesn't try and get me to live to the same conditions. Is that the aim? Is it to have all people subscribing to the same sexual practices?
I think I would also be hurt if you tried to prevent my child from receiving sexual education - is this a necessary part of your beliefs?
And I still have more arguments.
It seems to me that your argument contains a tautolgy.
Having protected sex is hostile to children because hostility to children is defined as things like having protected sex.
Do you see the circularity in the proposition?
"Is that the aim? Is it to have all people subscribing to the same sexual practices?"
Certainly. If something is a categorical good, we ought to wish that categorical good for all people. As a practical matter though that doesn't mean sending in the brownshirts to force everyone to do what is right. It does mean trying to be consistent legally and socially with the fact that chastity is an unmitigated good.
"Having protected sex is hostile to children because hostility to children is defined as things like having protected sex."
I haven't defined 'hostility', I have merely made use of it. I have described what category of thing it is and is not.
Building a day care center or elementary school where children are not allowed is objectively an expression of hostility to children. We have taken something where children are a naturally central part of the thing, and we have expressly excluded children from it. That is an expression of hostility toward children.
A day care center that is naturally empty of children may be a sadder thing than a full one, but it is not an expression of hostility toward children.
It is the same with sex. Sexual where children are not allowed is taking something where children are a naturally central part of the thing and have constructed it as something where children are not allowed. It is not possible to do so without, as an objectiv
It is the same with sex. Sexual relations where children are not allowed is taking something where children are a naturally central part of the thing and constructing it as something where children are not allowed. It is not possible to do so without, as an objective matter, expressing hostility to children.
Excellent arguments.
consistent legally and socially with the fact that chastity is an unmitigated good
I think you get in to trouble calling it an unmitigated good. From a Catholic point of view, it is a good. From a non-catholic, no it isn't - it's just another sexual practice.
I think the goodness of the act depends on the person viewing it - it's not an objective good, rather a relative one.
Hence, you can't say it's unmitigated - which I take to mean absolute or objective - good and ask others to follow it because it is a good.
Protected sex is morally wrong because it involves a contradiction - sex is designed to produce children, but by messing with the process with condoms and the like, it does not.
I think this is the position. Previous points also entail that the act is the important things - so I can't bring in examples of desires - eg having cold showers to thwart sexual desires as an example of a how the principle can be applied to di
Excellent arguments.
consistent legally and socially with the fact that chastity is an unmitigated good
I think this is the position. Previous points also entail that the act is the important things - so I can't bring in examples of desires - eg having cold showers to thwart sexual desires as an example of a how the principle can be applied to different stages arbitrarily.
It's getting tricky now to find fault within your argument. But I will try.
I think a flaw exists in that you say that the purpose of sex is only to have children. I think that sex has many purposes. One that comes to mind is to add a closeness to the relationship.
In seeing sex in just it's biological context and not how it is used in the social context produces a flawed idea of its purpose - which then produces the flawed contradiction.
Thoughts?
Correction:
Ignore the odd bits above 'I think this is the position' in my last post. I guess I didn't delete them properly.
"I think the goodness of the act depends on the person viewing it - it's not an objective good, rather a relative one."
I think that moral relativism is self-contradictory. It effectively asserts that it is absolutely immoral to treat morality as absolute.
"I think a flaw exists in that you say that the purpose of sex is only to have children. I think that sex has many purposes."
Not that children are the only purpose of sex, but that children are central to sex. A day care center exists for many purposes: to employ people, to provide an addition to the tax base, to provide profits for the owner, etc. But nevertheless to establish one where children are not allowed is inherently hostile to children.
"From a Catholic point of view, it is a good. From a non-catholic, no it isn't - it's just another sexual practice."
Sexual morality is a matter of natural law: that is, it is something everyone is able to know through the light of their own reason. It does not involve any leaps of faith. This is similar to knowing that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc: these are things everyone is capable of knowing without any special revelation or faith.
Using natural methods is ok.
Not exactly what I said, or meant. You can use natural methods to work against nature - in other words, just because the method is natural does not mean you are employing that method consistent with nature. Using a flint rock and dry hay to burn down a rain forest for the sheer pleasure of watching it burn, is a natural method, but is not used in congruence with nature and its proper ends.
I think that moral relativism is self-contradictory.
Very true. I had forgotten this argument.
Not that children are the only purpose of sex, but that children are central to sex.
I had a thought last night that we are confusing purpose with effect/results. The analogy is, instead of saying that one of the effect's of the sun's rays hitting the earth is the growth of crops, we are saying that the purpose of the sun's rays hitting the earth is to grow crops. This, I think, is incorrect.
Instead of saying, one of the results of sex is children, we are saying the purpose of sex is children - which I think as nonsensical as the sun example.
Sexual morality is a matter of natural law: that is, it is something everyone is able to know through the light of their own reason.
Sexual morality is, I think, a matter of faith. Only if you believe in a catholic God then you can accept the catholic arguments of sexual morality. Faith is outside reason - we
Faith is outside reason - we believe despite reason being unable to deliever the facts. Hence, you can't rely on reason to deliver you sexual morality.
Using a flint rock and dry hay to burn down a rain forest for the sheer pleasure of watching it burn, is a natural method, but is not used in congruence with nature and its proper ends.
Nice analogy. I agree.
This is similar to knowing that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc: these are things everyone is capable of knowing without any special revelation or faith.
Intrigued. How do we know these things are wrong without faith?
"Intrigued. How do we know these things are wrong without faith?"
We know they are wrong without special revelation or faith in a special revelation. We know them within the same epistemological boundaries of certainty that we know about pretty much anything: physics, math, love, consciousness, time, you name it. Knowledge of right and wrong (at the natural law level) is every bit as certain and valid (or invalid and uncertain) as knowledge of math, physics, etc. It isn't a specifically Catholic thing, it is a basic rationality thing.
"Instead of saying, one of the results of sex is children, we are saying the purpose of sex is children..."
And again, not that children are the only purpose of sex, but that children are central to sex. The sun analogy might make sense if we were attempting to pass moral judgement on the actions of the sun, but I personally see no obvious reason to believe that the sun is a sentient moral agent.
Of course if someone is irrational enough to categorically disbelieve in purpose-qua-purpose then there isn't much purpose in further discussion with that person.
Zippy:
Of course if someone is irrational enough to categorically disbelieve in purpose-qua-purpose then there isn't much purpose in further discussion with that person.
Is purpose-qua-purpose the idea that children are central to sex? I'll assume so.
Fair enough. Many non-Catholics would not be able to support the purpose-qua-purpose - they would argue that sex is not only about children but other things - like an important expression of unity between two people, a source of fun and entertainment, a leisure activity, a joining of two souls in a physical way.
You say there's no point arguing with those people who don't accept that children are central to sex. ,This should entail that there's no point in trying to preach sexual morality to the above people - why bother?
Also, the creation of babies is not central to menopausal or non-fertile sex. Those guys seem to be getting their rocks off - with out being damed for it. If I should be so lucky.
Question:
Question:
What views do you hold about the non-standard ways of the creation of children - for example, IVF.
It would seem to be that the the creation of children is central to the act of IVF. Do you also infer that anyone tampering with the IVF process is also acting immorrally - like having protected sex?
You misunderstood the comment about purpose-qua-purpose. I ought to know better than to use "qua" in a ablog comment.
"... they would argue that sex is not only about children but other things ..."
I have not once argued that sex is only about children. Ever, in fact, let alone in this comment thread.
"What views do you hold about the non-standard ways of the creation of children - for example, IVF"
The Catholic view: that IVF is completely, utterly immoral and ought to be rejected completely by any civilized society.
"The Catholic view: that IVF is completely, utterly immoral and ought to be rejected completely by any civilized society."
I don't understand. IVF allows infertile Catholic couples to have children they otherwise couldn't, it produces more Catholics in the world, it allows people to experience the joy of children who otherwise couldn't.
Why is it wrong?
IVF is wrong because it is wrong to produce ten children in a test tube, kill nine of them, and nurture one. Even if you decided not to kill them (assuming it was possible to avoid killing them in the process, which it is not) putting children in a freezer just in case they are wanted in the future is (like contraception) inherently hostile to children.
In addition to its immediately heinous moral aspects IVF also serves as a ritual of secular scientism; a ritual which inculcates habits of thought that go against the public good and which will probably destroy the social order from within.
The very notion that there are "wanted" children and "unwanted" children reduces children to a commodity to be bought and sold on the capitalist markets along with every other indulgence and perversion. The market in freeze-dried children and stem cells taken from children-farms is a natural consequence of post industrial liberal capitalism.
I was struck by the suggestion in the original article that part of the problem was that some women don't have access to insurance that provides contraceptive coverage. That mindset shows how completely bass-ackwards we've gotten the concept of insurance when it comes to health care (and that's without even getting to the question of whether contraceptives count as "health care" at all). The entire point of insurance is to spread risks that are predictable in the aggregate but not in particular cases. Thus, if statistically you can predict that X number of your policyholders are going to have their houses burn down this year, and that it will cost $Y to rebuild them, but you don't know which houses they will be, then you charge everybody an equal premium that, in the aggregate, will be enough to rebuild those houses (as well as provide for administrative expenses and profit). Similarly, if you know that X number of your policyholders will become pregnant this year, and that t
(continued)
Similarly, if you know that X number of your policyholders will become pregnant this year, and that their prenatal and maternity care will cost $Y, you charge everybody (or every woman, or every woman between 14 and 44) a premium that will be enough in the aggrgegate to cover the costs of prenatal and maternity care for those who get pregnant. On the other hand, the fire insurance company doesn't pay benefits to reimburse policyholders for smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, because those are entirely predictable expenses, nor should the health insurance company pay benefits for contraceptives. (For the same reason, auto comprehensive insurance doesn't cover the cost of oil changes.)
To the extent that health insurance covers contraceptives, we have moved from the realm of insurance into the realm of wealth redistribution--from the rich to the poor, and from those who don't use contraceptives (but must pay premiums to cover contraceptive benefits) to those
(continued again)
To the extent that health insurance covers contraceptives, we have moved from the realm of insurance into the realm of wealth redistribution--from the rich to the poor, and from those who don't use contraceptives (but must pay premiums to cover contraceptive benefits) to those who don't.
Seamus: Very elegant. I will have to think on it.
The very notion that there are "wanted" children and "unwanted" children reduces children to a commodity
True. I hadn't thought of that.
The very notion that there are "wanted" children and "unwanted" children reduces children to a commodity
To say that there are not unwanted children is to deny reality. People do end up with children they don't want. As a blunt example, a raped woman may become pregnant.
To say that there is no such thing as an unwanted child is to live in an illusion.
It isn't saying that there are no unwanted children as a matter of fact that is wrong, either factually or morally. There are lots of 'unwanted' people, meaning specifically in this case persons that another person wishes did not exist. That is why there are murders, as a matter of fact. To say that there are no murder victims is to deny reality; but to say that murder is inherently hostile to murder victims is nevertheless true. Just as it is true that contraception is inherently hostile to children.
When you think of a world that is essentially hostile to children, though, well, it simply destroys hope
Not just hope, but quite literally, that world itself.
Faith is outside reason - we believe despite reason being unable to deliever the facts. Hence, you can't rely on reason to deliver you sexual morality.
Quite the contrary, faith is based upon reason.
If I place a postage stamp upon a letter correctly addressed and mail it, I have faith that it will be delivered to the addressee. This faith is based upon my past experience of such actions leading to that very result. I reason that, if I take the same steps with the current letter, the same result should follow. Thus, I have faith that my action will lead to the desired result.
Likewise, experience has shown that sexual immorality, once it pervades a society, has disastrous consequences (see Roman Empire, fall of, see Europe, demographic decline of). The Catholic Church, with its 2,000 years of experience, has "faith" that sexual immorality in modern times will lead to the same results as it has in the past, b/c it in fact has. Thus, its sexual morality reflects a faith based upon reason.
Commenting by HaloScan
