Author Topic: Contraception: an observer's view  (Read 86092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2008, 02:30:12 AM »
My experience, hitting the above points.  I give my wife ALL credit for what follows.  She is a saint.  If you believe in those!  ;):

My wife and I use NFP.  Of course, we've been married 9 years and have 5 children, 8,6,5,2,9 months.  Go figure! :o

We homeschool.  Our oldest is already reading books like the original Tom Sawyer and doing book reports.  Our 6 year old isn't as aggressive, but still reading books, writing, lots of art.  The 6 and 8 year old both take piano lessons. Our 5 year old still just kind of plays.  Our 2 years old is a terrorist and the 9 month old is already exhibiting sings of uncreated light.  A true angel.  Besides activities in Church, we have a great club athletic system here in Indianapolis so the oldest 3 are already in club sports.  They get along well with the kids, and our oldest really excels.  Scored a touchdown in every football game this year.  Just say this because if you are diligent you can homeschool your kids and get them plenty of healthy interaction with other kids.

At home, we pray together every night, we read the lives of the saints, we read the fathers.  Takes anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, more dependent on the ability of my wife and I to keep up with the kids, they'd go an hour or more every night.  We enjoy teaching the miraculous stories of the saints and the lives of the Holy Fathers.  As my kids know my miraculous story and others, these "stories" are all very real to them.

The greatest effect of homeschooling our kids, teaching and believing in the lives of the saints and the holy fathers? One good example, our Church at Nativity basically has a 5 hour service.  Starts at 8 with Matins and goes through the liturgy until about 1:30.  Isaac, my oldest, asked me if he could ask our priest if he could serve for all the services.  I said sure, the priest obliged.  He made it standing for 5 plus hours.  The other 2 acolytes/readers, one 15, the other a grown man, couldn't.  When he was done at one in the morning he ran to me with a smile on his face, jubiliant.  Then he begged me to take him to bed.

I have no quick and easy answers for people struggling with issues of faith and reason and science.  But I KNOW if you live your life with a faithfullness and belief in the Church you will be blessed.

"Come to me as children".  That's how I hear Christ.  Friends, try coming to the Church as a child, just for a little while.  Give it 6 months.  Pray, fast, read the saints lives, read the fathers, don't intellectualize, just believe. Like a child. What can it hurt?  You have the rest of your life to be a sceptic.  The biggest benefit of 5 kids, the constant reminders of a child's faith.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 03:20:36 AM by livefreeordie »

Offline St. Christopher

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #46 on: January 12, 2008, 04:19:05 AM »
I don't know if this question has been answered in some other topic.  If sex didn't exist before the Fall, how were Adam and Eve supposed to "be fruitful and multiply?"

I honestly don't know how anyone can seriously argue that marriage didn't exist before the Fall.  Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as the ideal of what God intended marriage to be.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #47 on: January 12, 2008, 04:35:28 AM »
Plenty of evangelical protestants avoid contraceptives because of some religious prohibition, and they have no cleric to make the decision.  I'm talking about the evangelicals who are each and every one a pope unto himself.

Sure they do, they're just obeying what 'Pastor Fred' told them, though he's convinced them it's their own idea.

Quote
I remember someone from NAMBLA saying something similar when I was working in D.C.

That's an entirely different question, the age at which someone can actually make that decision; I would agree that it's probably before 18, but it's certainly after puberty.

Quote
LOL.  A statement without substantiation, on a web site riddled with inconsistencies (they don't like moral absolutes, but say genicide is wrong.  Sorry, you can have the cake or eat it, but you can't have both).  Was it ex cathedra?

Ok, if we're going to start objecting to references, perhaps you could provide me with a statistic from an academic journal to counter the one I presented?

Quote
Won what?  for one thing, will you chorttle if the muslims outbreed us into oblivion? Look at Eurabia.

As I have posted elsewhere, I have no objections with nuking them into oblivion first...but now we're starting to drift dangerously close to politics.

Quote
I'm a bit amused from the smugness. A decade or so ago I was reading a study on demographics in early America.  The data showed a rise in newly weds having children less than 9 months after the wedding and other indications that the revolution against the king didn't stop there.  You didn't think that debauchery began in the 60s, did you?

LESS THAN 9 months...considering the length of homo sapiens gestation I think that kinda makes my point. ;)

Of course debauchery didn't begin in the '60's, we've been this way since before our species evolved, since the first reproducing organism arose from the primordial soup...it's just then that we ended our hypocracy and accepted reality for what it was.

Quote
And then there's the Romans.  You guys are pikers compared to them.  (that context, btw, is responsible in part for the viewpoints of the Fathers on this issue).

Only amongst the aristocracy, our great accomplishment was to bring this freedom to everyone, rich or poor. It's become a part of our entire culture, not merely a symbol of the corruption of the rich enjoying freedoms denied to the general populace.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #48 on: January 12, 2008, 04:37:50 AM »
I'm glad. So many people think the Pill is like candy.
lubeltri,

I know you feel very strongly about NFP and artificial contraceptives, and I respect that.  But please remember that the Faith Issues section is not the place for you to teach the doctrines of your Roman Catholic faith, even if that be your personal opposition to artificial birth control in keeping with Humanae Vitae.  Thank you in advance for complying with my request that you be more careful in this regard.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 05:14:40 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline prodromas

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,239
  • Greek Orthodox
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2008, 04:43:56 AM »
I'm glad. So many people think the Pill is like candy.

Lubertri personally I think that I agree with your statement but a better way to have worded it would be "I find it distressing that some people give hardly any thought to using the contraceptive pill" that I believe everyone can agree on but I doubt any Christian would use the pill without seriously thinking about the consequences about that decision.
The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2008, 06:41:14 AM »
From the little I read
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2008, 08:28:24 AM »
Sure they do, they're just obeying what 'Pastor Fred' told them, though he's convinced them it's their own idea.

Actually, among the many I know and know of, there was one in particular I was thinking of:had 5 miscarriages and then 6 kids (something like that, I don't remember the numbers).  In that case 'Pastor Fred' told him to become Orthodox, to which he balked. 

Sorry to break it to you, but 'Free thinkers' are not the only ones who can think for themselves.  And I've been around the stambede of the herd of independent minds enough to doubt how much thinking for themselves they do.

Quote
That's an entirely different question, the age at which someone can actually make that decision; I would agree that it's probably before 18, but it's certainly after puberty.

Why different?

One of the loviest case law precedent I've come across (because the abuse occured partly in Illinois: the case was decided in the resident state of Kansas): baby sitter commits statutory rape with boy (teenager) and conceives.  Boy is judged responsible for child support although at 15 couldn't legally work and also couldn't have legally conceived the kid.  Mom, of course, got off scott free.  Notice the run of female teachers in this position? (double entendre).

Quote
Ok, if we're going to start objecting to references, perhaps you could provide me with a statistic from an academic journal to counter the one I presented?

I'm sorry, that's not how it works.  You make an assertion, you have to back it up.  I don't have to prove it wrong.

I'll help you though: it would seem that your "source" is getting their information from a study done by the Guttmacher Institude (on them, it is interesting that they had to come out with policy paper on "Minors rights as parents," another amassing mess from their mentality.  And don't give me it's abtinence programs: I know plenty of adults, at least chronologically, who don't think contraception when their mind is on something else.  And you expect it of teenagers?).  I think one of the reasearchers involved in it was Lawrence Finer.

I notice that you haven't addressed the issue of Masters and Johnson.  I add the even more indefensible Dr. Kinsley: look at his own private sex life, his methodology, bias (for one, he refused to use blacks, I understand) results and the relationships thereof, and you see how agenda driven this 'data' has been, and how it has necessitated revision (how many militant homosexuals toss out the "10%", as if that meant anything, not recognizing that more recent studies have come up with around 2% at most.

[Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics revealed that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005)].

Btw, concerning sources, that's how it's done. :police:


Quote
As I have posted elsewhere, I have no objections with nuking them into oblivion first...but now we're starting to drift dangerously close to politics.

Your "source" would evidently have a problem with that.  They mention Kosovo and Bosnia.

Quote
LESS THAN 9 months...considering the length of homo sapiens gestation I think that kinda makes my point. ;)

No, I believe that was my point.  The study went on to say that the 1800's clamped down on that and got with the Victorian Age.

Quote
Of course debauchery didn't begin in the '60's, we've been this way since before our species evolved, since the first reproducing organism arose from the primordial soup...it's just then that we ended our hypocracy and accepted reality for what it was.

How much contracepting was going on in the primordial soup?

Sort of reminds me of feminists promoting the worship of the great mother goddess, without stopping to notice that the great mother goddess is the deification of the concept of woman as only a baby making machine.

Evolution arguing for contraception.  Interesting concept.  I guess we'll bring back murder of the less than fittest.  Ooops! I forgot, we already have.....

Quote
Only amongst the aristocracy, our great accomplishment was to bring this freedom to everyone, rich or poor.


Yes, the freedom of the train to run off the rails.  You know how that ends up, no?

I'm afraid both literary, documentary and archeological sources won't back up your assertion.  Temple prostitution, for instance, did a brisk business among ALL classes.  The lessers fully followed their betters (or in this case, their worses).

Quote
It's become a part of our entire culture, not merely a symbol of the corruption of the rich enjoying freedoms denied to the general populace.

Maybe we should legalize murder next.  After all, we all can't afford the likes of Johnny Cochran.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 08:57:40 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2008, 08:33:44 AM »
I have two children and they are well-behaved. I would never use the pill because it messes with a woman's hormones.

Actually, it's messing up with everyone's hormones.

The hormones are excreted by the woman taking it, and they do not dissolve in water (if they did, they wouldn't do their job in the woman's body), where they get into water supply.  The link is being investigated between this and fish populations (think about all the warnings on eating fish) and world wide plumeting sperm counts (a trend of the last 20-30 years.  What a coincidence! that men for instance in the UK in their teens and twenties have much lower sperm counts than men in their forties and fifties).  So much for "it's my personal business."

I'm glad. So many people think the Pill is like candy.

Lubertri personally I think that I agree with your statement but a better way to have worded it would be "I find it distressing that some people give hardly any thought to using the contraceptive pill" that I believe everyone can agree on but I doubt any Christian would use the pill without seriously thinking about the consequences about that decision.

Depends on how serious they take their decision for Christianity.

lubeltri,

I know you feel very strongly about NFP and artificial contraceptives, and I respect that.  But please remember that the Faith Issues section is not the place for you to teach the doctrines of your Roman Catholic faith, even if that be your personal opposition to artificial birth control in keeping with Humanae Vitae.  Thank you in advance for complying with my request that you be more careful in this regard.

- PeterTheAleut


You don't have to kow tow to the pope of Rome and place Humanae Vitae on a par with Holy Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils (exageration for rhetorical effect) to question the morality of the pill, etc.  I do neither, and the pill is suspect just from a medical perspective (I also remember the pill's eugenics past: it was created for an agenda, and Sanger was unrepentent to the grave).  As for NFP:


Speaking gf "success" rates, condoms win out by far over NFP.   Condoms have a failure rate of 7%  (i.e. result in pregnancy.)  By contrast NFP has a failure rate of 1%.  So your chances of an accidental pregnancy with condoms are much higher than with NFP.

But, as I said, with a miniscule 3% of Catholics using NFP, it's hardly an issue to debate or take much notice of.

Lubeltri,

You response has no connection with what I wrote.  I never even addressed sin.

I was pointing out that when it comes to people'e preferences and practices of birth control, any discussion on NFP is about as useful as discussing green chocolate from Mars.  I was pointing out that even in the Roman Catholic Church which disallows all other forms of birth control, a mere 3% of married people use it.   In that case, how many people do you imagine are using it outside the Catholic Church?

So I was not interested in sin but in what amounts to the wholesale rejection of NFP.

I know plenty of Orthodox and Protestants who practice NFP. I know practically nobody under Rome who does (in fact I cannot think of anyone, except my step-uncle, now in his seventies so its a none issue).  I know a number of said couples who after years of aritificial contraception are having severe problems conceiving, and other problems.

I tried it, after the birth of our first son (we contracepted before) unfortunately with a wife who had a contraceptive mentality (I was informed at some point, after the birth of our first, that her mother and she had decided that WE wouldn't have anymore children.  Though contracepting, God had other plans evidently, because we got my second joy (her "mistake": she got mad because I "got [her] pregnant."  She didn't explain where she was and what she was doing when "I" was getting her pregnant.  She then got an IUD, without discussing it with me because "it wasn't any of [my] business."  I raised the issue that unless she was sleeping with someone else (which she did years later) it very much was my business (as was the adultery). My concerns about the IUD were besides the abortifacient possibilities (I never touched thereafter during her fertile periods, easy to tell because with the IUD she would bleed during that time), the fact that they do not know how it works tells me you should have nothing to do with it (her doctor had told her otherwise, but I pointed out the unknowns in the literature that the same doctor had given her.  And then there was that bleeding that the doctor didn't seem to be able to explain....).  Btw, since the divorce (4 years) she has gone around accusing women of having affairs with me at present, as if it were her business (she filed for the divorce, although, as our priest said, I had all the grounds).  She bought into the divorce is the solution to all problems promise of the divorce industry.  She had has a number of diagnosed mental health issues that only became apparent after the marriage (like her self medicating).  The contraceptive mentality and divorce promise just got mixed in with those.

Sorry for the gruesome details.  I post them only to point out to some that contraception is not the simple, harmless (and victimless) solution that some seem to be making it out to be.  I know that for a fact, both statistically, anecdotally, and personally. And I say that as someone who couldn't care less if Humanae Vitae is ex cathedra, and who doesn't accept it as Holy Writ, and who does NOT accept (at least 100%) the Pope of Rome's stance on it.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 01:16:43 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #53 on: January 12, 2008, 02:29:36 PM »
Actually, among the many I know and know of, there was one in particular I was thinking of:had 5 miscarriages and then 6 kids (something like that, I don't remember the numbers).  In that case 'Pastor Fred' told him to become Orthodox, to which he balked.

Sorry to break it to you, but 'Free thinkers' are not the only ones who can think for themselves.  And I've been around the stambede of the herd of independent minds enough to doubt how much thinking for themselves they do.

Religion does the most psychological damage to children; if evangelical or charismatic protestantism it is ingrained in your immediate surroundings and culture for decades even 'Pastor Fred' can't break that, he can only manipulate you within the system, but it's the system, the religion itself, that has the true power over you. That's hardly evidence of free thinking, not that all so-called 'free thinkers' think freely either, far too many follow the orthodoxy of previous generations.

Quote
Why different?

Why is the question of 'if two mentally capable people can made a mutual decision' and 'if one mentally capable person and one who is mentally incapable can make a mutual decision' different? Well I would think it's obvious, but for starters, in the first situation there is mutual agreement, both parties are capable of consenting to the act or objecting to it, since both agree, there can be no victim, any hardship is brought upon oneself, there can be no wrongdoing. When one person is mentally incapable be it on account of youth or even mental retardation, they can not positively contribute to the agreement, they are not competent to entering into this 'contract' of sorts, there is far more opportunity for abuse of power by the one who is mentally capable, and we cannot know with certainty if the agreement is mutual. Thus, there very well could be a victim, and if there is a victim there is wrongdoing.

I can't believe I actually had to spell that out, to compare consensual adult sex to pedophilia is just absurd.

Quote
One of the loviest case law precedent I've come across (because the abuse occured partly in Illinois: the case was decided in the resident state of Kansas): baby sitter commits statutory rape with boy (teenager) and conceives.  Boy is judged responsible for child support although at 15 couldn't legally work and also couldn't have legally conceived the kid.  Mom, of course, got off scott free.  Notice the run of female teachers in this position? (double entendre).

One one level I would agree with this position, 15 is probably old enough to make a decision about ones sexuality, it certainly is from a biological perspective the only question is how much has society retarded the social development of teenagers; I'm sure the judge could see that this was consensual sex and he judged the father competent to make such a judgement of consent and ruled accordingly.

But, while I don't object to this case in vacuum, I do object to it because of matters of consistency within the law. It is certainly not fair to rule this situation consensual then turn around and charge another couple where the two partners are of similar ages (I don't know how old the babysitter was, I'd guess 18 or 19 considering the outcome of the case -- but at those ages statutory rape with someone 15 or over is often just a misdemeanor depending on the state) and give them legal penalities, this inconsistency is unjust, it undermines the concept of equality under the law. Two post pubescent teenagers within say four years of age having sex really shouldn't be subject to legal control since they are both equally capable of making decisions on this matter and thus there is not the power dynamic that would be there if a 30 year old and 15 year old were to have sex.

Quote
I'm sorry, that's not how it works.  You make an assertion, you have to back it up.  I don't have to prove it wrong.

I did back it up, and you simply dismissed the source out of hand without giving me better or even equal quality research to back up your objection. 'I don't like their morals and mindset' does not constitute disproving academic research. Sounds like the arguments creationists use against Biology.

Quote
I'll help you though: it would seem that your "source" is getting their information from a study done by the Guttmacher Institude (on them, it is interesting that they had to come out with policy paper on "Minors rights as parents," another amassing mess from their mentality.  And don't give me it's abtinence programs: I know plenty of adults, at least chronologically, who don't think contraception when their mind is on something else.  And you expect it of teenagers?).  I think one of the reasearchers involved in it was Lawrence Finer.

That's nice and you still haven't addressed research methodology or given me any good reason to dismiss the research.

Quote
I notice that you haven't addressed the issue of Masters and Johnson.  I add the even more indefensible Dr. Kinsley: look at his own private sex life,

His private sex life followed the liberal objective view of sexuality he publically advocated, nothing wrong there it was perfectly consonant with his research on sexuality. Now if he had had an adverterous sexual lifestyle and argued that it was somehow immoral, that hypocracy would have been a problem.

Quote
his methodology, bias (for one, he refused to use blacks, I understand) results and the relationships thereof,

Probably a poor call in his research, but, without computers to properly analyze large amounts of data he probably considered it best to limit cultural variables by restricting the research to a single culture. Of course, today we can more easily model practices accross culture and develop programmes to find similarities inorder to help reduce the noise brought into the field by culture. It would have been theoretically possible in his day, but far more difficult. But even then, people should probably be grouped by genetic similarities for proper research, this hasn't even been possible before about ten years ago and still isn't practical though the field of genomics is rapidly advancing. In the end it was an attempt to limit variable the best one could back in the 40's, but biology is fortunately more advanced today.

Quote
and you see how agenda driven this 'data' has been, and how it has necessitated revision (how many militant homosexuals toss out the "10%", as if that meant anything, not recognizing that more recent studies have come up with around 2% at most.

[Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics revealed that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005)].

That would be the percent of people who consider themselves homosexual (as your source clearly states), this is of course heavily influenced by culture and society. The rate for homosexual desire is closer to 7.5% (Laumann, E., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., and Michaels, S. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. 1994. Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Showing people pictures and monitoring their brain activity is a better way to gather these statistics than a giving them a questionnaire. Dr. Kinsey used his scientific judgement to come up with a percent of people who have homosexual desire, he did better than a simple questionnaire would, but he lacked the technology that we enjoy today and his number was a bit high. This is not a criticism of his work but rather an admission that he simply didn't have the tools available that we enjoy today and was forced to do his best in their absence.

Quote
Btw, concerning sources, that's how it's done. :police:

Dismissing sources based on moral objections and misusing a statistic about how many identify themselves as homosexual to argue how many actually have homosexual desires? Sorry, but I spent enough time doing research to know that this is not how it is done.  :police: ;)

Quote
Your "source" would evidently have a problem with that.  They mention Kosovo and Bosnia.

Good for them, I don't have to agree with their subjective conclusions to use the actual research they cite. Scientific research is scientific research, no matter how unethical, immoral, or just plain evil the person doing the research is; so long as they follow the principles of the scientific method. That's what made me fall in love with science, it reveals truth independent of human cultural and social norms.

Quote
No, I believe that was my point.  The study went on to say that the 1800's clamped down on that and got with the Victorian Age.

So in the spirit of our new found freedom people embraced it and acted accordingly, unfortunately the forces of social orthodoxy reduced that freedom for a time (at least in the east, out here in the west we placed a higher value on the concepts of individualism and freedom), but we then revolted again against the old world powers in the 60's; so the sexual revolution is simply a patriotic duty. ;)

Anything else you want to tell me about this 'study' (like, I don't know, the name or author)?

Quote
How much contracepting was going on in the primordial soup?

Which wasn't my point, my point was that sex without cultural limitations is an inherent part of our biological history.

Our recently evolved intelligence has simply allowed us to enjoy this heritage without the personal difficulties associated with reproduction.

Quote
Sort of reminds me of feminists promoting the worship of the great mother goddess, without stopping to notice that the great mother goddess is the deification of the concept of woman as only a baby making machine.

Paganism is certainly a minority influence in feminism, the primary philosophies that underlie the movement are Christianity and Atheism.

Quote
Evolution arguing for contraception.  Interesting concept.  I guess we'll bring back murder of the less than fittest.  Ooops! I forgot, we already have.....

There is a far more effective approach which is already manifesting itself and will become practical on a large scale in the near future: genetic engineering.

Quote
Yes, the freedom of the train to run off the rails.  You know how that ends up, no?

I'm afraid both literary, documentary and archeological sources won't back up your assertion.  Temple prostitution, for instance, did a brisk business among ALL classes.  The lessers fully followed their betters (or in this case, their worses).

Prostitution is your example of debauchery? :laugh: Find me a culture without prostitution?

Quote
Maybe we should legalize murder next.  After all, we all can't afford the likes of Johnny Cochran.

Sex equals murder? Where do you come up with this stuff? :laugh:

And you wonder why Christian morality isn't taken seriously? It's because of misrepresentations like this.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #54 on: January 12, 2008, 02:33:14 PM »
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Then this forum is a dangerous place. ;D

But seriously, I think that George has gotten the gist of what most the fathers (especially the monastics) thought on this matter (though there were certainly exceptions).

Offline Quinault

  • Did you drink water today?
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,974
  • What about frogs? I like frogs!
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #55 on: January 12, 2008, 02:33:25 PM »
The greatest effect of homeschooling our kids, teaching and believing in the lives of the saints and the holy fathers? One good example, our Church at Nativity basically has a 5 hour service.  Starts at 8 with Matins and goes through the liturgy until about 1:30.  Isaac, my oldest, asked me if he could ask our priest if he could serve for all the services.  I said sure, the priest obliged.  He made it standing for 5 plus hours.  The other 2 acolytes/readers, one 15, the other a grown man, couldn't.  When he was done at one in the morning he ran to me with a smile on his face, jubiliant.  Then he begged me to take him to bed.

Beautiful story.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #56 on: January 12, 2008, 03:34:08 PM »
Religion does the most psychological damage to children; if evangelical or charismatic protestantism it is ingrained in your immediate surroundings and culture for decades even 'Pastor Fred' can't break that, he can only manipulate you within the system, but it's the system, the religion itself, that has the true power over you. That's hardly evidence of free thinking, not that all so-called 'free thinkers' think freely either, far too many follow the orthodoxy of previous generations.

Hmmm.  Yes we should raise them in a moral vacuum.  That's worked so good so far.

We made the assertion that you (and you are the one who said "we") have made hedonism an

Quote
Why is the question of 'if two mentally capable people can made a mutual decision' and 'if one mentally capable person and one who is mentally incapable can make a mutual decision' different? Well I would think it's obvious, but for starters, in the first situation there is mutual agreement, both parties are capable of consenting to the act or objecting to it, since both agree, there can be no victim, any hardship is brought upon oneself, there can be no wrongdoing. When one person is mentally incapable be it on account of youth or even mental retardation, they can not positively contribute to the agreement, they are not competent to entering into this 'contract' of sorts, there is far more opportunity for abuse of power by the one who is mentally capable, and we cannot know with certainty if the agreement is mutual. Thus, there very well could be a victim, and if there is a victim there is wrongdoing.

I can't believe I actually had to spell that out, to compare consensual adult sex to pedophilia is just absurd.

One one level I would agree with this position, 15 is probably old enough to make a decision about ones sexuality, it certainly is from a biological perspective the only question is how much has society retarded the social development of teenagers; I'm sure the judge could see that this was consensual sex and he judged the father competent to make such a judgement of consent and ruled accordingly.

But, while I don't object to this case in vacuum, I do object to it because of matters of consistency within the law. It is certainly not fair to rule this situation consensual then turn around and charge another couple where the two partners are of similar ages (I don't know how old the babysitter was, I'd guess 18 or 19 considering the outcome of the case -- but at those ages statutory rape with someone 15 or over is often just a misdemeanor depending on the state) and give them legal penalities, this inconsistency is unjust, it undermines the concept of equality under the law. Two post pubescent teenagers within say four years of age having sex really shouldn't be subject to legal control since they are both equally capable of making decisions on this matter and thus there is not the power dynamic that would be there if a 30 year old and 15 year old were to have sex.

I did back it up, and you simply dismissed the source out of hand without giving me better or even equal quality research to back up your objection. 'I don't like their morals and mindset' does not constitute disproving academic research. Sounds like the arguments creationists use against Biology.

That's nice and you still haven't addressed research methodology or given me any good reason to dismiss the research.

His private sex life followed the liberal objective view of sexuality he publically advocated, nothing wrong there it was perfectly consonant with his research on sexuality. Now if he had had an adverterous sexual lifestyle and argued that it was somehow immoral, that hypocracy would have been a problem.

Probably a poor call in his research, but, without computers to properly analyze large amounts of data he probably considered it best to limit cultural variables by restricting the research to a single culture. Of course, today we can more easily model practices accross culture and develop programmes to find similarities inorder to help reduce the noise brought into the field by culture. It would have been theoretically possible in his day, but far more difficult. But even then, people should probably be grouped by genetic similarities for proper research, this hasn't even been possible before about ten years ago and still isn't practical though the field of genomics is rapidly advancing. In the end it was an attempt to limit variable the best one could back in the 40's, but biology is fortunately more advanced today.

That would be the percent of people who consider themselves homosexual (as your source clearly states), this is of course heavily influenced by culture and society. The rate for homosexual desire is closer to 7.5% (Laumann, E., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., and Michaels, S. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. 1994. Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Showing people pictures and monitoring their brain activity is a better way to gather these statistics than a giving them a questionnaire. Dr. Kinsey used his scientific judgement to come up with a percent of people who have homosexual desire, he did better than a simple questionnaire would, but he lacked the technology that we enjoy today and his number was a bit high. This is not a criticism of his work but rather an admission that he simply didn't have the tools available that we enjoy today and was forced to do his best in their absence.

Dismissing sources based on moral objections and misusing a statistic about how many identify themselves as homosexual to argue how many actually have homosexual desires? Sorry, but I spent enough time doing research to know that this is not how it is done.  :police: ;)

Good for them, I don't have to agree with their subjective conclusions to use the actual research they cite. Scientific research is scientific research, no matter how unethical, immoral, or just plain evil the person doing the research is; so long as they follow the principles of the scientific method. That's what made me fall in love with science, it reveals truth independent of human cultural and social norms.

So in the spirit of our new found freedom people embraced it and acted accordingly, unfortunately the forces of social orthodoxy reduced that freedom for a time (at least in the east, out here in the west we placed a higher value on the concepts of individualism and freedom), but we then revolted again against the old world powers in the 60's; so the sexual revolution is simply a patriotic duty. ;)

Anything else you want to tell me about this 'study' (like, I don't know, the name or author)?

Which wasn't my point, my point was that sex without cultural limitations is an inherent part of our biological history.

Our recently evolved intelligence has simply allowed us to enjoy this heritage without the personal difficulties associated with reproduction.

Paganism is certainly a minority influence in feminism, the primary philosophies that underlie the movement are Christianity and Atheism.

There is a far more effective approach which is already manifesting itself and will become practical on a large scale in the near future: genetic engineering.

Prostitution is your example of debauchery? :laugh: Find me a culture without prostitution?

Sex equals murder? Where do you come up with this stuff? :laugh:

And you wonder why Christian morality isn't taken seriously? It's because of misrepresentations like this.


EDIT:  Fixed quote tags to make post more readable...  nothing more.  - PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 09:02:17 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #57 on: January 12, 2008, 06:24:57 PM »
^???

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #58 on: January 12, 2008, 06:33:30 PM »
^???

Pulling up the report from the CDC, Vista battled with Adobe and lost, taking most of the text of the message with it.

I'm with my sons now, so a little preoccupied.  I'll have to return to this later, in shaa' al-Rabb.

In the meantime, I tried to delete the rest of the reply in the post.  Moderators, please?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #59 on: January 12, 2008, 09:18:59 PM »
Ok, if we're going to start objecting to references, perhaps you could provide me with a statistic from an academic journal to counter the one I presented?
What qualifies ReligiousTolerance.org as an academic journal or even otherwise reputable source of information?  Simply brushing aside someone else's objection as being without substance, even if it is, doesn't prove the substance of your argument.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2008, 12:39:53 AM »
Pulling up the report from the CDC, Vista battled with Adobe and lost, taking most of the text of the message with it.

I'm with my sons now, so a little preoccupied.  I'll have to return to this later, in shaa' al-Rabb.

In the meantime, I tried to delete the rest of the reply in the post.  Moderators, please?

Ah, ok...isn't Microsoft wonderful. ;)

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #61 on: January 13, 2008, 12:43:26 AM »
What qualifies ReligiousTolerance.org as an academic journal or even otherwise reputable source of information?  Simply brushing aside someone else's objection as being without substance, even if it is, doesn't prove the substance of your argument.

The site has relatively reliable information, they cite journals; I didn't know that our level of debate had risen so high that only academic journals were acceptable sources on OC.net, if I had I would have just looked at their bibliography and cited the academic journal they reference. ;)

In the end, I was given no viable reason for the objection to the statistic other than the people who performed the study didn't measure up to ialmisry's moral values and if that is the only objection given, I have a good and objective reason to dismiss the objection.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #62 on: January 13, 2008, 12:52:21 AM »
The site has relatively reliable information, they cite journals; I didn't know that our level of debate had risen so high that only academic journals were acceptable sources on OC.net, if I had I would have just looked at their bibliography and cited the academic journal they reference. ;)
Well, YOU were the one who suggested this high standard for debate. ;)
Ok, if we're going to start objecting to references, perhaps you could provide me with a statistic from an academic journal to counter the one I presented?
So, based on the standard YOU set, why don't you look at the bibliography for ReligiousTolerance.org and tell us what academic journals they cite as the source of the information you spouted here?

Quote
In the end, I was given no viable reason for the objection to the statistic other than the people who performed the study didn't measure up to ialmisry's moral values and if that is the only objection given, I have a good and objective reason to dismiss the objection.
Yeah, from an academic point of view, I would have dismissed his objection, too. ;)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 05:48:09 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Alexius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
  • Baptism of Poland
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #63 on: January 13, 2008, 04:42:57 PM »
George:

I am praying for you. Please do not let these issues cloud your faith...
"You cannot reason with those who do not..."

                Prayers and Petitions,
                        Alexius 8)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #64 on: January 13, 2008, 05:00:58 PM »
The site has relatively reliable information, they cite journals; I didn't know that our level of debate had risen so high that only academic journals were acceptable sources on OC.net, if I had I would have just looked at their bibliography and cited the academic journal they reference. ;)

In the end, I was given no viable reason for the objection to the statistic other than the people who performed the study didn't measure up to ialmisry's moral values and if that is the only objection given, I have a good and objective reason to dismiss the objection.

They don't even measure up to my standards of research, let alone moral values.

They posted a number.  Period. Nothing more.

I don't even take that from my high school students.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 05:03:56 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #65 on: January 13, 2008, 06:05:57 PM »
They don't even measure up to my standards of research, let alone moral values.

I don't even take that from my high school students.
This does not measure up to standards of good English.  "I don't take that even from my high school students."  There, that's much better, with "even" in its proper place.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #66 on: January 13, 2008, 06:30:18 PM »
They don't even measure up to my standards of research, let alone moral values.

They posted a number.  Period. Nothing more.

I don't even take that from my high school students.

Well, since you're so interested, here's the research paper:

http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf

So what exactly is wrong with the methodology and standards of research demonstrated in this paper? And why should I dismiss a peer-reviewed paper for no other reason than you seem to dislike the author?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 06:30:49 PM by greekischristian »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #67 on: January 13, 2008, 06:45:47 PM »
Well, since you're so interested, here's the research paper:

http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf

So what exactly is wrong with the methodology and standards of research demonstrated in this paper? And why should I dismiss a peer-reviewed paper for no other reason than you seem to dislike the author?

You didn't reference the paper.  You referenced the website who didn't reference it either.  I referenced it (I'm assuming it's the Guttmacher report that you link to: the adobe still doesn't like the Vista, so I can't tell).  On the author all I said was his name.  Anything else you assUme.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #68 on: January 13, 2008, 06:56:47 PM »
You didn't reference the paper.  You referenced the website who didn't reference it either.  I referenced it (I'm assuming it's the Guttmacher report that you link to: the adobe still doesn't like the Vista, so I can't tell).  On the author all I said was his name.  Anything else you assUme.

You can't even view a .pdf file in vista? Are you using the 32 or 64 bit version?

Offline The Iambic Pen

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #69 on: January 13, 2008, 07:18:10 PM »
The apparent wide diversity of opinion on contraception can be a bit confusing, I find.  It does tend to make one long for the simple "No" of the Catholic Church.  Whether you agree with them or not, at least you know where they stand.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #70 on: January 13, 2008, 10:01:24 PM »
I'm assuming it's the Guttmacher report that you link to...
Yes, it is (whatever that means).

From the linked report: 
Quote
Address correspondence to: Lawrence B. Finer, PhD, Director of Domestic Research, The Guttmacher Institute, ...
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #71 on: January 13, 2008, 10:05:19 PM »
You can't even view a .pdf file in vista? Are you using the 32 or 64 bit version?

Usually I can.  Certain sites I get a warning about known problems, and it's roulette what happens next.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #72 on: January 13, 2008, 10:59:24 PM »
Helps if you disable most of Vista's security settings. It seems to think every user is a possible intruder.
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #73 on: January 13, 2008, 11:10:54 PM »
Lubertri personally I think that I agree with your statement but a better way to have worded it would be "I find it distressing that some people give hardly any thought to using the contraceptive pill" that I believe everyone can agree on but I doubt any Christian would use the pill without seriously thinking about the consequences about that decision.

Prodromas and Peter:

Sorry I was not clearer. I didn't mean it that way. I mean, many people I know think the Pill is like popping an aspirin, something as innocuous as candy. It's a serious hormone-altering drug, and one of which teen girls especially should take note.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #74 on: January 13, 2008, 11:26:45 PM »
Prodromas and Peter:

Sorry I was not clearer. I didn't mean it that way. I mean, many people I know think the Pill is like popping an aspirin, something as innocuous as candy. It's a serious hormone-altering drug, and one of which teen girls especially should take note.
Looking at it from this perspective, yes, I agree that this is a valid concern regardless of your faith background.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #75 on: January 13, 2008, 11:31:49 PM »
Helps if you disable most of Vista's security settings. It seems to think every user is a possible intruder.
Probably the best place to start with this is to disable User Account Control via Start Menu > Control Panel > User Accounts > User Accounts > Turn User Account Control On or Off.  One of my more experienced co-workers seems to think that the average user will only find Vista's User Account Control an unnecessary inconvenience compared to your relatively light security needs.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #76 on: January 13, 2008, 11:34:43 PM »
It is interesting how this thread as developed but also I notice only men are now posting here.

Just to bring it back around to the original message, I have a few other thoughts after reflecting on this thread.

First, I hope that any man who is planning to marry and not use contraception does not pressure his bride-to-be into
forgoing contraception if she disagrees. Bearing children takes alot out a woman's body and she should be apart of the decision making. And when I speak of contraception I am only thinking of the kind that does not abort a fertilized egg or that does not harm a woman's hormonal system.

And second, remember, not every woman is sturdy or hearty enough to have a baby ever year or year and half. I was advised by my OB to space out my pregnancies by three years so my body had time to recover. By following my doctor's orders I was able to have two really healthy pregnancies and two very healthy boys. So please include your wife's health and her doctor in the equation to make sure her body can bear closely spaced children.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 01:11:18 AM by Tamara »

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #77 on: January 13, 2008, 11:35:47 PM »
Probably the best place to start with this is to disable User Account Control via Start Menu > Control Panel > User Accounts > User Accounts > Turn User Account Control On or Off.  One of my more experienced co-workers seems to think that the average user will only find Vista's User Account Control an unnecessary inconvenience compared to your relatively light security needs.

Of just follow this link.  That has all of the solutions to Vista and other Microsoft bugs. 

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #78 on: January 13, 2008, 11:41:36 PM »
It is interesting how this thread as developed but also I notice only men are now posting here.

It does appear though that at least a few of the men agree with you.  For others it appears to be so hypothetical to them that I strongly suspect when (or rather if!) it becomes a real life scenario for them, reality may make them think differently.  Others I suppose are just so obstinate that they would even treat their future wife like a beast of burden to birth and care for children to stroke their own ego with little regard for her actual mental and physical well being. 

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2008, 12:31:41 AM »
First, I hope that any man who is planning to marry and not use contraception does not pressure his bride-to-be into
forgoing contraception if she disagrees. Bearing children takes alot out a woman's body and she should be apart of the decision making. And when I speak of contraception I am only thinking of the kind that does abort a fertilized egg or that does not harm a woman's hormonal system.
I imagine, knowing your traditional Orthodox convictions against voluntary abortion, that you mean to say "does NOT abort a fertilized egg"? ;)
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #80 on: January 14, 2008, 12:34:15 AM »
It is interesting how this thread as developed but also I notice only men are now posting here.

Is there another way to get pregnant? ???

Quote
First, I hope that any man who is planning to marry and not use contraception does not pressure his bride-to-be into
forgoing contraception if she disagrees.

Perhaps this should be discussed at least before becoming the bride to be.

Quote
Bearing children takes alot out a woman's body and she should be apart of the decision making.


Has someone said otherwise?

Quote
And when I speak of contraception I am only thinking of the kind that does abort a fertilized egg or that does not harm a woman's hormonal system.


Am I reading correctly?

Quote
And second, remember, not every woman is sturdy or hearty enough to have a baby ever year or year and half. I was advised by my OB to space out my pregnancies by three years so my body had time to recover. By following my doctor's orders I was able to have two really healthy pregnancies and two very healthy boys. So please include your wife's health and her doctor in the equation to make sure her body can bear closely spaced children.

Any need to squeeze a priest in there somewhere?  I wouldn't trust an OB who doubles as an abortionist, for instance.

I don't know, because I'm new here, but is it axiomatic that someone who doesn't contracept MUST want to have a baby every year?  I've known a lot of couples who practice NFP (or claim to, I don't check) and only one has a number of kids (5), but they both came from big families and wanted the same.  Otherwise, I don't see the basis of this non-sequitor.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,234
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #81 on: January 14, 2008, 12:35:30 AM »
This does not measure up to standards of good English.  "I don't take that even from my high school students."  There, that's much better, with "even" in its proper place.

I teach Arabic. :P
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline LakaYaRabb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #82 on: January 14, 2008, 12:54:14 AM »
Tamara,

Being as that I am not Orthodox, but rather Melkite Greek Catholic, I can have little sway in the opinion of Holy Orthodoxy. I don't agree with contraception and I don't accept NFP used by Catholics to prevent birth. That put's me in a real minority. I believe the marital embrace is for procreation and is a awesome experience between a married man and a woman. Now, for me, in every instance, the couple must be open to life. I reject NFP because I don't see the marital embrace as something you engage in for mere pleasure. Of course, this is mere background to my statement, not my point.

My point is as follows: There are a whole host of things that negatively effect and affect a woman and her pregnancy; eating, exercise, genetics, health, mental wellness. Not only this, but (as you already know) all women are different and this requires alot of "listening to your body". As a man is difficult for me, but I have some idea of how things effect and affect over health and wellness as a man. As a future father and husband, the health and wellness of my future wife and, God-Willing, Mother of my children is extremely important. Now, sadly, I do see that many men before me didn't consider this. However, I know men, like myself who do. I think that the overall wellness has alot to do with eating, exercise and environment. It's not simply a matter of the strains and pains of pregnancy. As women are built for this, I know God designed His creatures for the task. However, MUCH more knowledge of the intricacies of being a woman and her health need to be understood and realized by men and women.     

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #83 on: January 14, 2008, 01:13:06 AM »
I imagine, knowing your traditional Orthodox convictions against voluntary abortion, that you mean to say "does NOT abort a fertilized egg"? ;)

Thanks Peter! I made the change...I am a little under the weather today.

Offline Riddikulus

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,788
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #84 on: January 14, 2008, 01:17:00 AM »
Thanks Peter! I made the change...I am a little under the weather today.

Sorry to hear that, Tamara. Hope you are feeling better very soon.
I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #85 on: January 14, 2008, 01:41:46 AM »
Is there another way to get pregnant? ???

Not by Orthodox ethical standards. But some men can put alot of pressure on women and many women who are raised in the church are taught to submit to their husbands. I would hope that most men would have the best interest of their wife and  her health at heart.

Quote
Perhaps this should be discussed at least before becoming the bride to be.
I would agree along with a whole host of other issues. My husband practically proposed on our second date which quickly led to a discussion about our faith, if we wanted to have children, what church would we marry in, which church our future children would be baptized in and many other important issues. If we didn't agree there probably would never have been a third date.  ;)
 

Quote
Has someone said otherwise?
No one has directly said otherwise but I think it is easy for single men to overlook this little detail when they are dreaming about their future. Women, on the whole, tend to have their feet firmly planted on the ground, while men gaze up at the stars.
 

Quote
Am I reading correctly?
Mistake... which I have corrected.

Quote
Any need to squeeze a priest in there somewhere?  I wouldn't trust an OB who doubles as an abortionist, for instance.

At the time of my marriage and subsequent pregnancies, I attended an ethnic Antiochian parish with an elderly Lebanese-American priest who hated to hear confessions and didn't want to be bothered with counseling. He was sort of an old school kind of guy. Since you are of Arab heritage I am hoping you understand what I mean.  ;) He never cared how many children you had as long as you had children.
But it would be helpful to have priest, who has common sense, to advise a young couple with these issues. However, I fear there are some priests who would not give a young couple good advice so I would carefully choose a priest as a family counselor.
I would also give a woman the same advice when choosing an obstetrician.

Quote
I don't know, because I'm new here, but is it axiomatic that someone who doesn't contracept MUST want to have a baby every year?  I've known a lot of couples who practice NFP (or claim to, I don't check) and only one has a number of kids (5), but they both came from big families and wanted the same.  Otherwise, I don't see the basis of this non-sequitor.
NFP may work great for women who have VERY regular cycles but here again, many women do not. I never had a regular cycle so NFP would not have worked well for me. These are the kinds of issues the woman deals with so a husband may need to compromise. They may have to find another way if NFP doesn't work for them.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 01:50:00 AM by Tamara »

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #86 on: January 14, 2008, 01:47:14 AM »
Sorry to hear that, Tamara. Hope you are feeling better very soon.

Thank you...its flu season!   :-[

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #87 on: January 14, 2008, 02:09:48 AM »
Tamara,

Being as that I am not Orthodox, but rather Melkite Greek Catholic, I can have little sway in the opinion of Holy Orthodoxy. I don't agree with contraception and I don't accept NFP used by Catholics to prevent birth. That put's me in a real minority. I believe the marital embrace is for procreation and is a awesome experience between a married man and a woman. Now, for me, in every instance, the couple must be open to life. I reject NFP because I don't see the marital embrace as something you engage in for mere pleasure. Of course, this is mere background to my statement, not my point.

Then whoever you marry may severely limit how often you enjoy the marital embrace. I know that I would if I was married to someone who refused to use any form of contraception. The woman is the one who carries the baby and pregnancy is very difficult for some women. I will be honest with you. I hated being pregnant. I was nauseous all of the time. My sciatic nerve was constantly being pinched which made it painful to walk, lay down, or sit for the last six months of the pregnancy. And my pregnancy was considered normal and healthy.

Quote
My point is as follows: There are a whole host of things that negatively effect and affect a woman and her pregnancy; eating, exercise, genetics, health, mental wellness. Not only this, but (as you already know) all women are different and this requires alot of "listening to your body". As a man is difficult for me, but I have some idea of how things effect and affect over health and wellness as a man. As a future father and husband, the health and wellness of my future wife and, God-Willing, Mother of my children is extremely important. Now, sadly, I do see that many men before me didn't consider this. However, I know men, like myself who do. I think that the overall wellness has alot to do with eating, exercise and environment. It's not simply a matter of the strains and pains of pregnancy. As women are built for this, I know God designed His creatures for the task. However, MUCH more knowledge of the intricacies of being a woman and her health need to be understood and realized by men and women.     

It is true that all things you mentioned do effect the health of a woman. I was in A-1 shape before my first pregnancy. I hiked, biked, swam, worked out at the gym etc. but unfortunately, I was unable to continue with this regimen after about four months of pregnancy. With the second pregnancy I was in okay shape but I no longer had time to exercise as hard as I did before I had children. As a mother, I put the babies first, and so my health came second. It wasn't until my children were in school that I had time to exercise as I had before children. Each woman is different. Some women sail through their pregnancies and I have heard some say they feel their best when pregnant. Others have a host of problems which can become more severe with each pregnancy. You and the woman you marry may need to adjust ideals according to your situation.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 02:11:38 AM by Tamara »

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #88 on: January 14, 2008, 02:13:56 AM »
It is interesting how this thread as developed but also I notice only men are now posting here.

For the most part, it's only men who are willing to waste hours of their day discussing irrelevant religious trivia. Women, being more pragmatic, generally forego such nonsense. ;)

Quote
Just to bring it back around to the original message, I have a few other thoughts after reflecting on this thread.

First, I hope that any man who is planning to marry and not use contraception does not pressure his bride-to-be into
forgoing contraception if she disagrees. Bearing children takes alot out a woman's body and she should be apart of the decision making. And when I speak of contraception I am only thinking of the kind that does not abort a fertilized egg or that does not harm a woman's hormonal system.

If she is willing to be with a man who would try to force her to do this AND allows him to, she half deserves what she gets. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but in this day and age there is no excuse to put up with psychological abuse and I find no reason to be sympathetic to one who endures such abuse and fails to act.

In any case, we are fortunate that the Church offers absolution in these cases, it's commonly called divorce. ;)

Offline LakaYaRabb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • Orthodox Church in America
Re: Contraception: an observer's view
« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2008, 04:12:21 AM »
Quote
Then whoever you marry may severely limit how often you enjoy the marital embrace. I know that I would if I was married to someone who refused to use any form of contraception. The woman is the one who carries the baby and pregnancy is very difficult for some women. I will be honest with you. I hated being pregnant. I was nauseous all of the time. My sciatic nerve was constantly being pinched which made it painful to walk, lay down, or sit for the last six months of the pregnancy. And my pregnancy was considered normal and healthy.

As a man, I will sadly never know the joys nor the tortures of carrying life in my womb (which I obviously do not have). What else can I say.

God-Willing, I will know the joys and tortures of being a faithful and devoted husband. I honestly can't wait to take care of my future wife's needs during pregnancy. I can't wait to rub her feet or get pillows or cook breakfast, lunch, dinner, go on walks with her, read to her, pray with her, make sure she has all the mental, physical, and emotional support she needs. But then again, I was born a sucker and I am madly in love.

Quote
It is true that all things you mentioned do effect the health of a woman. I was in A-1 shape before my first pregnancy. I hiked, biked, swam, worked out at the gym etc. but unfortunately, I was unable to continue with this regimen after about four months of pregnancy. With the second pregnancy I was in okay shape but I no longer had time to exercise as hard as I did before I had children. As a mother, I put the babies first, and so my health came second. It wasn't until my children were in school that I had time to exercise as I had before children. Each woman is different. Some women sail through their pregnancies and I have heard some say they feel their best when pregnant. Others have a host of problems which can become more severe with each pregnancy. You and the woman you marry may need to adjust ideals according to your situation.

I know of a woman whose pregnancy lasted for four hours, no complications and little problems before. But then, as you rightfully point out, pregnancy is debilitating for other women. I don't know what the future holds, but all I have ever wanted since I was a child was to be a Father. By God's Grace, I will be soon marrying a woman who has always wanted to be a mother. We don't have much, but we know God will direct our steps. He always has.