Friday, January 6, 2012

Lucia Contraception Factoid

Until 1930, EVERY Christian church taught that contraception was wrong. There were no exceptions. I point this out because today only some Christians agree with Catholics that contraception use is un-Biblical and un-Christian. Not using contraception and welcoming every life that came from the unhindered marital embrace was a major point of difference between pagans and Christians. Until 1930 that is, when the Anglicans cracked open the door ...

Read more: Contraception: Why Not? ~ Janet Smith, Catholic Education Resource Centre

13 comment(s):

leftrightout said...

So, up until the 1930's all xtain churches were teaching something and that makes it right forever and a day? I don't think so. Look at how much else has changed in xtian teaching, not just in 80 years, but over the 2000 year history.

I have no problem with you decling contraception, it is, after all, your choice. So how about making your choice and leaving others to make theirs? Isnt that waht "free will" is all about?

Andrei said...

Of course it is all about choice LRO - that free will thing

But there are good choices and bad choices. The Church is all about helping us make good choices and avoiding making bad ones, though we all do make bad ones sometimes.

ZenTiger said...

I think the point of the post was to reveal something few people realised. The rights and wrongs of it are a different debate, but reading the link would be a good start.

leftrightout said...

andrei, the problem is with lucia's desire for contraception to be illegal, that is, her free will trumping eveyone else's.

As for the church, it has helped so many poeople make so many bad choices I don't understand why anyone still listens.

ZenTiger said...

A fifteen year old boy who goes into the doctor's office and says, "Doctor, you know, I want to get the girls. I want the girls," he says. "And the way to get the girls is to have big muscles. So, would you please give me some steroids." Any doctor worth his salt will say, "Son, get out of here. Join the wrestling team. Lift weights. Do push-ups. I'm not going to give you steroids. They're bad for you. They could ruin you. I'm not giving you steroids." But, a fifteen year old girl trots into a doctor's office and says, "Doctor, I want to have sexual intercourse with my boyfriend or boyfriends." And the doctor says, "I'll write you a prescription."

ZenTiger said...

LRO, OK, you are railing against Lucyna wanting to make laws that curb personal choice (along with drug laws, alcohol, alcohol and driving etc). We all get that. The chances of that happening though are a zillion zillion to one, so after you're done worrying about that, have a read of the article.

leftrightout said...

ZT, I had a look at the article but it was filled with "I think', "the pope says", "in a poll" but no hard evidence.

Sure, there is more access to contraception and more divorce, but where is the factual link?

Divorce is now easier to get, at lot less stigmatising, but that isn't related to contraception.

Most of the anti-contraception stuff I read seems to be because the anti contracetive person thinks that people will now use sex for something in addition to making babies, something that is fun and good to do. Orgasm is a magnificent reliever of stress.

Newsflash, I know people who eat for reasons other than simply preserving life, they eat becuase it feels good, is fun and gives them pleasure.

Must we give up our condoms and our filet steak?

leftrightout said...

ZT, I had a look at the article but it was filled with "I think', "the pope says", "in a poll" but no hard evidence.

Sure, there is more access to contraception and more divorce, but where is the factual link?

Divorce is now easier to get, at lot less stigmatising, but that isn't related to contraception.

Most of the anti-contraception stuff I read seems to be because the anti contracetive person thinks that people will now use sex for something in addition to making babies, something that is fun and good to do. Orgasm is a magnificent reliever of stress.

Newsflash, I know people who eat for reasons other than simply preserving life, they eat becuase it feels good, is fun and gives them pleasure.

Must we give up our condoms and our filet steak?

ZenTiger said...

It was an article, not a peer reviewed study, although the article lays out good arguments for their proposition. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily need to cite other studies. It's to make you think.

Of many different points it made, it briefly addressed the one argument you advance, and your comment here seems to miss the point of the article and not counter or discuss that point in any way.

What is the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse? It seems to me to be quite clear. It's for two things. It's for babies and it's for bonding. And that's what happens when you have sexual intercourse – you have babies and you bond. My view is, if you don't want to have babies and you don't want to bond, then you shouldn't be having sexual intercourse. My view is that the babies and bonding that comes with sexual intercourse belong only within marriage. I would love some "rap group" to put together a little song for me on this. "If you don't want babies and bonding you shouldn't be having sex. You shouldn't be having sex if you're not married because that's where babies and bonding are appropriate." We have a whole culture that says that having sex, and having babies and making bonds, are two different things; absolutely two different things. Today one can say, "I want to have lunch with you, I want to play tennis with you, I want to go to the movies with you, and I want to have sex with you." No big deal. It's the contraceptive that allows us to do this. Again, if a woman finds herself pregnant, she's shocked. If two individuals find themselves attached to each other, they're shocked. We all know all these really wonderful women who seem to be attached to these terrible men. "How does this happen?" She can't let him go. She's engaging in sex with him – that's bonding.

So, our society has this view that these three things – sex, babies, and bonding, are separate and the Church says, "No, they're together." Now some people want to say, "Well, no, no, no. You've left something out here. Clearly, sex is for pleasure. And those who are having sex, they're doing what sex is for; they're having pleasure." And I'll say, "No, no, no. You've missed the point." There are lots of things that have pleasure attached to them. Pleasure is not the purpose; pleasure is the motive; pleasure is the consequence; but it's not the purpose. As a matter of fact, God attached pleasure to the things that he really wants us to do, that are necessary for our survival and for our happiness. So, it's pleasurable to eat and it's pleasurable to drink and it's pleasurable to sleep and it's pleasurable to exercise, and it's pleasurable to have sexual intercourse. It's pleasurable. That's not the purpose. That's not the reason we eat though some of us do. That's not the reason we sleep though some of us do. That's not the real purpose for these acts. They're restorative in many ways. They're necessary for our survival.



If you read another part of the article it will be possible to discover that you can still have pleasurable sex (no reason why you shouldn't), but that does not follow that you need artificial contraception to achieve that.

Indeed, to turn about and give to you the same requirement you placed on the author: show me the study that requires a person to be on contraception to be able to have sex for pleasure, and conversely, that people not using contraception cannot do this.

leftrightout said...

NO ZT, the question is not about whether or not contraception is essential to pleasurable sex, it is about whether or not the bigotted and ill-informed should deny the use of contraception to all.

If you choose to have sex without contraception I will not stand in your way. Why should you, or Lucyna, or Santorum, or any other person not accord me the same privelege of having sex the way I want? With contraception.

Because you are blue noses who seem to think there is something wrong about sex without consequences.

Heine said...

Why did your god allegedly create the clitoris or the orgasm if we were not allowed to have pleasure during sex?

ZenTiger said...

Heine, didn't realise you had a clitoris. Don't know what my God was up to when he created you, but he does move in mysterious ways. Perhaps he wanted to help you be able to actually find it?

I also find your suggestion mysterious. Pleasure is definitely part of sex, and I checked the religious manuals*, and there doesn't seem to be any restrictions on giving and receiving pleasure, when one's motivations are pure.



*yes, it's true. Once you are initiated into the secret orders you get access to all the good stuff - water to wine, loaves and fishes and some serious begetting.

ZenTiger said...

LRO. You are going around in circles. I answered your question, and you revert to the first issue again - you've gone all panicky that Lucia Maria is in a position to change the laws of the land and ban contraception.

If you choose to have sex without contraception I will not stand in your way.

Thank goodness for that. You being in my bedroom would really put me off.

However, it's funny you mention that because a few liberal fascists used to go around saying how evil it was for people to have large families. Just the type to want to do the reverse - make contraception mandatory. Those liberal fascists (and I hope you aren't one of them) also demand contraception handed out in schools and think its a great idea to virtually encourage kids to have sex. They don't even have to wait until they are 16, condoms will dolled out to 13 and 14 year olds. Maybe they get turned on by that kind of stuff?


Why should you, or Lucyna, or Santorum, or any other person not accord me the same privilege of having sex the way I want? With contraception.

Rest easy, it wont be me. No plans to make such things illegal. And I doubt Santorum will be the next leader of NZ, so that just leaves Lucia to worry about. I'm beginning to suspect you liberals know something I don't. You reckon if she runs for PM she'll sweep to victory? That damn democracy "suck up to the majority" could be your undoing. Stock up on cheery flavoured condoms whilst you can mate.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.