Christians Being Persecuted/discriminated Against In The Usa

[Anastasia13]

Yes.

 

It would have been better for Catholic morality if it called something out for what it is and not for saying that a husband and wife wanting to be intimate with each other=objectification. It gets people's hearts wrong and leaves some of us feeling accused for not holding exactly the same view of an issue (not talking about views of the morality of an action aside). A little more gentleness toward Catholic morality makes it go over better with non-Catholics and better exemplifies the love we are to show each other.

[Maggyie]

LT I hate to break it to you but no form of family planning is 100% effective. You're a very confused person and I really am sorry for the confusion. The pill for instance has a 1% failure rate too even when used perfectly. Is the dr who prescribed the pill ok with the 1% chance of poisoning your child? No? Then why would you say that to someone else?

I think the reality is you're taking this discussion to heart because you, personally, want to use artificial contraception. It's tough to be objective.

NFP is hard and involves a lot of sacrifice. Nobody said otherwise. I am not a fan personally. It's still the right thing to do.

[CrossCuT]

OK NFP 101. NFP can be used with a contraceptive mindset but when it is used properly the participants are OPEN TO LIFE. namely, NFP-sex does not preclude the possibility of conceiving a child, right here, right now. It accepts that potential future arising from the specific sex act.

This is the whole point of why NFP is approved and the pill etc is not. The openness to life part. If you're doing NFP and you're not open to life and thereby objectifying your partner, you are doing it wrong.

Please note I have never used NFP in my life and its use is not required in marriage. I am not a huge fan. OT but wanted to mention that.

 

 

 

LT I hate to break it to you but no form of family planning is 100% effective.

As mentioned by Hasan (and even yourself) contraception does not preclude the possibility of conception. There are tons of stories about how people conceive while on the pill in fact from the literature I have read, when used correctly NFP and contraception have about the same failure rate. So I think your argument for the openness to life is a bad one. In either scenario of a married couple wanting to delay starting a family, they ARE open to life, just not at the given time. Its also very very presumptuous to make that call solely based on the very very very narrow view that contraception is this black and white decision maker in a couples openness. I think you are doing a huge disservice to millions of couples around the world by applying that assertion to them. Not only that, but its a very uncharitable and judgmental view when you have absolutely no notion of what their situation is in life.

 

And dont give me this all encompassing ish about contraception just being inherently closed to life or that its use renders the people inherently closed to life. Thats BS and not based in reality. Its simply an argument ploy used when no good evidence or defense are possible to erect NFP as the holy grail of all family planning.

 

How many stories have you heard about stable, loving couples giving up their baby because of failed contraception?

 

As I have argued before, the mentality of objectification or even "closed to life" has nothing to do with the family planning method used. It is completely independent and situation. I think its similar to saying that for instance, you claim that all people who own guns are ruthless killers. Besides, objectification and all that ish has been happening all throughout history before the invention of birth control. Men and women have had superficial intercourse with 0 intention of being a couple or starting a family since the dawn of time.

 

I'm not sure you understand how NFP works. The wife doesn't turn to her husband and explain that btw we can't do it because my body can't handle your sperm.

NFP is observational. It does not involve outside manipulation or interference. It's observing the human body, it does not involve covering parts in plastic, ingesting pharmaceuticals, cutting parts of the body, administering chemicals or having plastic devices inserted. What is so hard to get here? Can you really not tell the difference? I am really not the best cheerleader for NFP as I said, but at a certain point this is ludicrous. Why don't you find a non-religious feminist who uses fertility awareness to explain the difference to you. That's the other main category of people who use NFP.

Can you explain to me how a human being "manipulates time" or how a woman is supposed to use this magic skill to manipulate her cycle? You do know a woman can't make herself ovulate or prevent ovulation by thinking real hard about it or by observing how her body works? I'm just... Speechless.

 

So manipulation isnt limited to the physical manipulation where contraception is concerned. NFP is a manipulation of outcome just as much as contraception is.

You are specifically exploiting a biological process in order to reduce the natural outcome of sex, ie conception by manipulation your ACTIONS. Because NFP users only have sex at infertile periods of the womans cycle. Therefore, it is a manipulation. Contraception works very similarly in concept as it manipulates the biological process in a more direct way by preventing ovulation. It manipulates the cycle. But in both scenarios, the mindset is the same just the mode of manipulation is different.

 

As previously stated, I do not believe that the type of manipulation has anything to do with objectification or "openness to life". I think that has to do with the mindset or intentions of the couple engaging in sex. 

[Maggyie]

Ah ha I think you're finally getting it!!! NFP is behavioral which is exactly why it is not manipulative. You can not "manipulate" your own behavior, you can only act or not act. You can manipulate others but not yourself. NFP changes NOTHING about the cycle. The only thing that changes is the partners behavior. Other forms of contraception do not change behavior - that's the root of the difference.

Openness to life is not based on failure rate. Condoms have a higher failure rate but they are not somehow "more open." Openness also doesn't mean "if I have an oops baby I won't a abort it." It's much more than that. Come on you know that.

I'm not sure how much you are in adoption world but nowadays people placing for adoption aren't usually single moms or teens, that stopped being the case decades ago. Stable and loving couples place for adoption all the time.

I think part if your problem is that you think objectification only can happen in casual sex scenarios or where the couple are unloving or mean. That's exactly why this is pernicious. The couple loves each other but with their actions (behavior, which again abc doesn't change) they really say "I love you and want to have pleasure from you but I really don't want to have a baby with you right now." Their partners present potential and future are rejected and the partner thus becomes an object - a loved, respected object maybe but an object nonetheless.

[Anastasia13]

I think part if your problem is that you think objectification only can happen in casual sex scenarios or where the couple are unloving or mean. That's exactly why this is pernicious. The couple loves each other but with their actions (behavior, which again abc doesn't change) they really say "I love you and want to have pleasure from you but I really don't want to have a baby with you right now." Their partners present potential and future are rejected and the partner thus becomes an object - a loved, respected object maybe but an object nonetheless.

 

It's not about wanting a baby, it's about not wanting death! Some married couples where wife or mother will die actually wish they could have the other's baby. You act like the baby is the unwanted part and judge everyone for it.

 

And if a couple really wanted a kid, they would not be using NFP to try to not have one when they have sex, and you guys act like them wanted to have sex but not a baby is somehow not the same objectification.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Light and Truth

[4588686]

Good to know that the pull out method is good with the Church

[Vitamin]

Vitamin "couples deciding their own future" has nothing to do with it. The model on the Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover has chosen her own future and it involves her being objectified. Again "objectified" is not a synonym for bad person, going to hell, not nice, not loving, blah blah blah. It means you are being TREATED AS AN OBJECT.

Maybe this will help. We also objectify people in the armed forces. They are meat for the war machine. Many sincerely love them for their service. We feed them into the grinder. We reduce them to props for sentimental schlock. We objectify them. Is it bad that people love the troops? And bake them cookies and write articles in People magazine about the Soldier With A Touching Story? No. It's great. But still many of these people are objectifying those in uniform.

This is far afield from the objectification that happens in a sex act. But I hope it's an example that clarifies what objectification looks like. It's not limited to child molesters and porn conglomerates. Nice people do it to each other too.

Let me ask you a question. Is it immoral to objectify yourself for a cause?

[CrossCuT]

Ah ha I think you're finally getting it!!! NFP is behavioral which is exactly why it is not manipulative. You can not "manipulate" your own behavior, you can only act or not act. You can manipulate others but not yourself. NFP changes NOTHING about the cycle. The only thing that changes is the partners behavior. Other forms of contraception do not change behavior - that's the root of the difference.

 

Its still a manipulation of outcomes. I dont know why that is so confusing. 

 

 

 

Openness to life is not based on failure rate. Condoms have a higher failure rate but they are not somehow "more open." Openness also doesn't mean "if I have an oops baby I won't a abort it." It's much more than that. Come on you know that.

Point taken. However I do not believe that any of these methods have anything to do with openness. It has to do with the people engaging, their mindset, etc etc which are things we cant judge superficially. Only they know if they are being open.

 

 

 

I think part if your problem is that you think objectification only can happen in casual sex scenarios or where the couple are unloving or mean. That's exactly why this is pernicious. The couple loves each other but with their actions (behavior, which again abc doesn't change) they really say "I love you and want to have pleasure from you but I really don't want to have a baby with you right now." Their partners present potential and future are rejected and the partner thus becomes an object - a loved, respected object maybe but an object nonetheless.

I think part of your problem is tat you assume objectification happens all the time in regards to contraception. Youre cute little quote is pretty vague...that can easily be applied to NFP. 

 

I still would like more clarification how this "rejection" you seem to be implying makes someone an object...and if so I extend my same question to you as I did Lillla...how is NFP NOT objectification if objectification is solely based on the idea that you are prevent a possible outcome?

[PhuturePriest]

 

 

chick who calls other woman the b word wants to argue about what is and what is not misogyny. lololololololololollololololololololololololololololololol. somehow I can't imagine a scenario where you call a man with whom you disagree that name. you remind me of this chick who got into it with me on abortion. hassan knows what I'm talking about.  She suggested my thought patterns were because I a. hated women and b. needed to get laid.

It was hilarious.

 

I can verify that this did indeed happen. It was on my Facebook profile, in fact.

[Maggyie]

We just keep going in circles because I can not convince people that NFP is not the same as contraception. It can be used with a contraceptive, objectifying mindset but doesn't have to be. Listen, they have the same result but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Anorexia causes weight loss, famine causes weight loss and diet and exercise cause weight loss but they are not the same thing. I am not a very good debater because I run out of examples to show what I'm talking about. I don't know how to show that observing the body and letting nature take its course is different from intervening in biology and messing around with it. It's obvious to me but not to others and that's why NFP = contraception is a perennial topic.

The quote can easily be applied to NFP and that's when NFP is used wrongly. Again, not a fan of NFP! To be honest, hate NFP and all it's cottage-industry niche trend crapola! The fact remains, it can be used in a way that is open to life. Maybe the root of it really is that Catholics consider openness critical to avoid objectifying someone and when we say "open" we mean something deeper than just accepting a BC failure. If it happens.

To answer your question i don't believe that NFP when used properly is about controlling the outcome the way taking the Pill is about controlling the outcome. It's open to life, iow, outcomes, in a way the pill etc is not. It's not just charting (which easily could become like popping a pill) it's a lifestyle, a rhythm of prayer, a pathway of discernment. It's revisiting discernment on a daily basis not just when you are considering whether to have sex. It's organic and flows up from the body and from creation vs artificial methods which are layered down on (or choke) the body and creation, it's almost a gesture of respect for the body vs ABC which can be interpreted as a gesture of contempt for how the body works. These are some of the things I'm talking about when I talk about authentic openness and avoiding sex that objectifies human bodies. And I don't think objectification is based solely on this, there are a lot of ways to objectify people.

I have identified like 5 different "cruxes" in this conversation but this is my latest. I understand why Hasan doesn't know what I mean about openness etc because I'm sure he was never exposed to the Theology of the Body in a significant way or so forth but surely you know a bit about that CC? I guess the cliff notes on this discussion is to read more on TOB.

Ultimately I'm kind of at a loss because we will keep going in circles. We have different values around human dignity and so even our definition of words are not going to match up. I have this happen with my circle of friends and the death penalty.

[4588686]

We just keep going in circles because I can not convince people that NFP is not the same as contraception. It can be used with a contraceptive, objectifying mindset but doesn't have to be. Listen, they have the same result but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Anorexia causes weight loss, famine causes weight loss and diet and exercise cause weight loss but they are not the same thing. I am not a very good debater because I run out of examples to show what I'm talking about. I don't know how to show that observing the body and letting nature take its course is different from intervening in biology and messing around with it. It's obvious to me but not to others and that's why NFP = contraception is a perennial topic.

The quote can easily be applied to NFP and that's when NFP is used wrongly. Again, not a fan of NFP! To be honest, hate NFP and all it's cottage-industry niche trend crapola! The fact remains, it can be used in a way that is open to life. Maybe the root of it really is that Catholics consider openness critical to avoid objectifying someone and when we say "open" we mean something deeper than just accepting a BC failure. If it happens.

To answer your question i don't believe that NFP when used properly is about controlling the outcome the way taking the Pill is about controlling the outcome. It's open to life, iow, outcomes, in a way the pill etc is not. It's not just charting (which easily could become like popping a pill) it's a lifestyle, a rhythm of prayer, a pathway of discernment. It's revisiting discernment on a daily basis not just when you are considering whether to have sex. It's organic and flows up from the body and from creation vs artificial methods which are layered down on (or choke) the body and creation, it's almost a gesture of respect for the body vs ABC which can be interpreted as a gesture of contempt for how the body works. These are some of the things I'm talking about when I talk about authentic openness and avoiding sex that objectifies human bodies. And I don't think objectification is based solely on this, there are a lot of ways to objectify people.

I have identified like 5 different "cruxes" in this conversation but this is my latest. I understand why Hasan doesn't know what I mean about openness etc because I'm sure he was never exposed to the Theology of the Body in a significant way or so forth but surely you know a bit about that CC? I guess the cliff notes on this discussion is to read more on TOB.

Ultimately I'm kind of at a loss because we will keep going in circles. We have different values around human dignity and so even our definition of words are not going to match up. I have this happen with my circle of friends and the death penalty.

 

 

I don't think this is an issue of values.  The general Catholic position against contraception has an internal logic to it.  I think it's a position that is morally weird and kind of judgmental but I would not describe it as incoherent.  

 

Where you and Lillabett have hit a speed bump is 

a) attempting to rationalize your claim that contraception is objectifying on non-religious grounds

b)attempting to draw a clear distinction between NFP and contraception.  

 

I don't think that either is an issue of values but of a deficiency in the arguments themselves.  Scott Hahn in Rome Sweet Home also found the intellectual argument distinguishing between NFP and contraception dubious and I will say that when I was a conservative Roman Catholic I could not find the argument coherent despite my best efforts and had to settle for obedience (accepting a distinction even if I could not understand how the argument was intellectually coherent).  I can say from personal experience that I was not at all the only conservative Catholic who was perfectly happy to embrace the 'values' your positing but found the distinction between NFP and contraception to be intellectual flimsy.  

[Credo in Deum]

 

I don't think that either is an issue of values but of a deficiency in the arguments themselves.  Scott Hahn in Rome Sweet Home also found the intellectual argument distinguishing between NFP and contraception dubious and I will say that when I was a conservative Roman Catholic I could not find the argument coherent despite my best efforts and had to settle for obedience (accepting a distinction even if I could not understand how the argument was intellectually coherent).  I can say from personal experience that I was not at all the only conservative Catholic who was perfectly happy to embrace the 'values' your positing but found the distinction between NFP and contraception to be intellectual flimsy.  

 

To be honest I think the only two things NFP is riding on (no pun intended) to distinguish itself from contraception is 1.) NFP places zero artificial/unnatural obstacles to pregnancy,  and 2.) NFP can also be used to increase the chances of pregnancy, something which is a deal breaker for anyone looking for a contraceptive.

[CrossCuT]

I dont mean to necro a dead thread, but I was thinking about all this stuff and I had another question.

 

Since the church finds its permissible for a woman to use contraception for medical purposes, is she still guilty of sin of objectification?

[KnightofChrist]

I dont mean to necro a dead thread, but I was thinking about all this stuff and I had another question.

 

Since the church finds its permissible for a woman to use contraception for medical purposes, is she still guilty of sin of objectification?

 

It is not contraception if it is not used as a contraceptive, and if it's not being used as a contraceptive it's not objectification. Objectification happens when one denies, lessens, reduces, cheapens, blocks off or curtails part or all of someone's humanity for sexual gratification.

Edited May 16, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

It is not contraception if it is not used as a contraceptive, and if it's not being used as a contraceptive it's not objectification. Objectification happens when one denies, lessens, reduces, cheapens, blocks off or curtails part or all of someone's humanity for sexual gratification.

 

So it seems to me that the contraceptive itself doesnt cause objectification...its the intentions. That seems more and more to be the case. 

[KnightofChrist]

So it seems to me that the contraceptive itself doesnt cause objectification...its the intentions. That seems more and more to be the case. 

 

It's how it's being used not intention. Whether or not someone is objectified is not depended upon intent. Men who attend a mud wrestling contest may have the best of intentions, and the women who preform the 'wresting' may also have the best of intentions, but the men would still be objectifying the women.

[CrossCuT]

Contraception has the same biologically pathway regardless of the intention...whether its to prevent pregnancy or to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome. So if the intentions dont matter, then its always going to be objectification. 

 

Also, your example doesnt work out because youre assuming that all the men at the event are objectifying the women. Like I have said before, you dont know that. I recall a priest giving an example of a very scantily clad women is walking down the street past two priests. One priest gaurds his eyes so he doesnt end up having impure thoughts while the other priest looks directly at the women with love in his heart. Which one did the better thing? The one who looked? Or the one who didnt?

 

Also, what is the PURPOSE of contraception then? You said its not contraception if its not used as contraception. So how does one USE it as contraception? (might be a silly question but I want to hear your answer).

[KnightofChrist]

Contraception has the same biologically pathway regardless of the intention...whether its to prevent pregnancy or to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome. So if the intentions dont matter, then its always going to be objectification.

I did not argue intention does not matter. I argued that how "the pill" is used (the action) matters more because objectification is not depended upon intent.
 

Also, your example doesnt work out because youre assuming that all the men at the event are objectifying the women. Like I have said before, you dont know that. I recall a priest giving an example of a very scantily clad women is walking down the street past two priests. One priest gaurds his eyes so he doesnt end up having impure thoughts while the other priest looks directly at the women with love in his heart. Which one did the better thing? The one who looked? Or the one who didnt?

I was directing that point to men who go to watch the women, those not there to cover them up or to advert their eyes, but for sexual entertainment with so-called good intentions. Such men who go to watch women wrestle in mud are objectifying those women, good intentions or not. Men who do not want to objectify women do not go to such things. One's good intentions are meaningless if one's actions are wrong. It is not enough to have good intentions, that must be backed up with a good purpose and good actions. Now it would be different if other men with good intentions went to such events to shut them down, cover the women up, and send the men home. They would probably be arrested, but their good intentions would be rightly ordered and have a foundation in a good purpose and good actions.

Another example of how people can be objectified and that objectification not be depended upon intent are porn 'actors'. The 'actors' may be best of friends, they may even be married, or love each other very much and have the best of intentions of not objectifying the other by making the porno. But those intentions are meaningless, because their actions invalidate those intentions and those actions cause the objectification of the 'actors'.
 

Also, what is the PURPOSE of contraception then? You said its not contraception if its not used as contraception. So how does one USE it as contraception? (might be a silly question but I want to hear your answer).

I thought we were talking about "the pill" which is what I was calling "it". The pill can be used for good by treating a illness, or used for evil by blocking off part of someones humanity, preventing the existence of a human being and therefore objectifying and dehumanizing person(s).

Someone uses the pill as contraception by using it as contraception. If the pill is being used to treat illness it is not a contraceptive. The pill is a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or evil. The intention of using a tool matters, but so does how the tool is used. One can have good intentions when using a tool, but still do something evil or wrong with that tool. A baseball bat is a tool, when used with the intention and is actually used for hitting a baseball it is good. If how ever it is used with the intent and is actually used to hit someone in the head it is being used for evil, even if the intent in the mind of the attacker is somehow good. I agree the pill has similar effects on a persons body whether they use it as contraception or for treating illness. But the force from hitting an object with a baseball bat can have the same effects on the hitters body whether they hit a ball or someone's head. Intention and actions matter. But an action can still be evil or wrong even with good intentions.

[CrossCuT]

I was directing that point to men who go to watch the women, those not there to cover them up or to advert their eyes, but for sexual entertainment with so-called good intentions. Such men who go to watch women wrestle in mud are objectifying those women, good intentions or not. Men who do not want to objectify women do not go to such things. One's good intentions are meaningless if one's actions are wrong. It is not enough to have good intentions, that must be backed up with a good purpose and good actions. Now it would be different if other men with good intentions went to such events to shut them down, cover the women up, and send the men home. They would probably be arrested, but their good intentions would be rightly ordered and have a foundation in a good purpose and good actions.

Another example of how people can be objectified and that objectification not be depended upon intent are porn 'actors'. The 'actors' may be best of friends, they may even be married, or love each other very much and have the best of intentions of not objectifying the other by making the porno. But those intentions are meaningless, because their actions invalidate those intentions and those actions cause the objectification of the 'actors'.

 

I agree that porn and your mud wrestling example would be cases of objectification for those who have the intention of doing so. However I do not think that a married couple who are trying to space out children (or wait to have any) for financial purposes are objectifying each other by using contraception.  The only examples people use are crazy ones. Porn....one night stands....other such things. Duh. yes. Objectification is happening. Neither party has any intention of doing anything but sex. I agree that this is objectification.

 

However no one talks about the married couples who love each other...who want to plan a future together. I do not believe the use of contraception for family planning is inherently objectifying. If you believe that this scenario is still objectification, then you have to say that NFP is also objectification. 

 

 

 

I thought we were talking about "the pill" which is what I was calling "it". The pill can be used for good by treating a illness, or used for evil by blocking off part of someones humanity, preventing the existence of a human being and therefore objectifying and dehumanizing person(s).
 

The pill is contraception. The pill is a common use name that refers to the combination pill of estrogen and progesterone. But if you want to separate the terms, then you are helping make my point. The pill is not inherently bad; it does not inherently cause objectification to occur. 

 

 

 

Someone uses the pill as contraception by using it as contraception. If the pill is being used to treat illness it is not a contraceptive. The pill is a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or evil. The intention of using a tool matters, but so does how the tool is used. One can have good intentions when using a tool, but still do something evil or wrong with that tool. A baseball bat is a tool, when used with the intention and is actually used for hitting a baseball it is good. If how ever it is used with the intent and is actually used to hit someone in the head it is being used for evil, even if the intent in the mind of the attacker is somehow good. I agree the pill has similar effects on a persons body whether they use it as contraception or for treating illness. But the force from hitting an object with a baseball bat can have the same effects on the hitters body whether they hit a ball or someone's head. Intention and actions matter. But an action can still be evil or wrong even with good intentions.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Contraception is an indifferent tool that can be used for good and evil, I agree. Just like guns!

 

So you are saying that the pill is a tool that has many uses. One use is to help people with different health conditions and one is to prevent pregnancy. One is good and one is bad. But, the only problem is that NFP also prevents pregnancy. Is that bad? Or is it just bad when the pill does it?

[CrossCuT]

People still haven't explained to me why objectification (which is the denial or prevention of some aspect of the person ie baby) is dissimilar to NFP. If preventing the possibility of life is objectification, by all accounts NFP should be too.

 

In the scenario of a married couple who love eachother but dont want to have babies at the current time, couple A uses contraception and couple B uses NFP. They are doing the same thing, in the same circumstances, yet youre saying the one is objectifying and the other isnt. I find that a load of BS.

 

If your example is a married couple using NFP and two people engaging in casual one night stand sex...then sure...Id say that could def be objectification. They are not only denying a child, they are denying any future together at all.