Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (110544)	4/21/2005 12:08:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793794

I assume you are implying that the church objection to contraception is a very different thing than its objection to abortion and other pro life matters? It is. One is, in the Church's opinion, and improper use of sex and sexuality, the other is considered basically murder. As an aside years ago a friend of mine(catholic) told me that he was taught that sperm and egg were life even prior to conception and that anything that kept them apart in marriage was viewed as sinful. I don't think your friend understood the position very well or at least the reasoning behind it. They did not and do not consider a gamete to be a human life. Their opposition to the use of contraception is based on their view as to how human sexuality should properly be exercised. Outside of marriage you were sinning if you had sex whether you used birth control or not. Is it a double sin then if one has sex and uses birth control? I don't know the church would consider use of birth control when engaged in an "immoral" sex act something that would make the situation that much more sinful. Basically if you are engaged in a sex act that is not "open to procreation", and/or is not in the context of a marriage, the church views the action as incorrect. Exactly how they express their opinion about this "immorality", might vary from priest to priest, and might vary over time, but the basic idea behind it has been consistent. Of course it’s a basic idea that a lot of people disagree with. I'm not defending it as being correct. I am taking issue with the idea that because the church changes in one way that it should have no problem with any other kind of change. Tim