Christians Being Persecuted/discriminated Against In The Usa

[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.

[KnightofChrist]

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.

I strongly disagree. Contraception blocks off part of someone's humanity this reduces their humanity and since this is done for sexual gratification it objectifies both the man and woman.
 

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 do not have to say that, because it's wrong, you do not properly understand NFP. You have unfortunately adopted the NFP definition that anti-catholics use, and for that I am very sorry but the two are not the same. NFP does not block off or reduce part of someones humanity, contraception does. NFP times when sexual intercourse happens, and when it happens it does not block or separate anything within the marriage act.
 

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. 

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

I agree it is a tool because how something is used can change what something is. Again the example of a baseball bat if used to hit a baseball it is a baseball bat, if used to murder someone it is a murder weapon. Pseudoephedrine, unless I have it mistaken with something else, can be used as a medicine or it can be used to make meth. Where we disagree is intention, you give more to intention than the action, which doesn't seem at all important only the intent.
 



 

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.

Yes.

 

But, the only problem is that NFP also prevents pregnancy. Is that bad? Or is it just bad when the pill does it?

That's not a problem because again you've got a erroneous understanding of NFP. I agree that people can abuse NFP, but it is not the same when used properly. NFP times when the couple will engage in the marriage act and when they will not engage in the marriage act. Again when the marriage act is preformed NFP does not block, separate or break anything within the marriage act. The couples who practice NFP are open to life during the marriage act and they in no way close off part of their bodies from their beloved. Couples who use contraception cannot correctly make the same claim when they engage in the marriage act with their beloved. They close off part of their body, they block part of their humanity for sexual pleasure and that is objectification. It is objectification because it reduces the humanity of both and it is done to gain sexual pleasure. Edited May 16, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

The only way I can see people having a legitimate argument comparing NFP to contraception is if not having sex is contraception.

[Perigrina]

 

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. 

 

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?

 

You need to be clearer with terminology.  You are using "pill" and "contraception" interchangeably and they are not.  Contraception means something that is used to prevent pregnancy.  The pill is a combination of hormones that can be used as contraception.  The Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil.  There are no circumstance under which contraception is good.  There are circumstances under which hormone pills can be good.

 

NFP is not contraception.  Avoiding pregnancy by abstaining from sex is not contraception.  In these cases, one is not using something to prevent pregnancy.  It is merely the natural function of the female body.  It is possible to use NFP with a contraceptive mentality.  That is bad.

[KnightofChrist]

You need to be clearer with terminology.  You are using "pill" and "contraception" interchangeably and they are not.  Contraception means something that is used to prevent pregnancy.  The pill is a combination of hormones that can be used as contraception.  The Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil.  There are no circumstance under which contraception is good.  There are circumstances under which hormone pills can be good.
 
NFP is not contraception.  Avoiding pregnancy by abstaining from sex is not contraception.  In these cases, one is not using something to prevent pregnancy.  It is merely the natural function of the female body.  It is possible to use NFP with a contraceptive mentality.  That is bad.

 

I was under the impression that "the pill" could be used in some cases as a form of medicine. Am I mistaken?

[Perigrina]

I was under the impression that "the pill" could be used in some cases as a form of medicine. Am I mistaken?

 

That is my understanding.  But when hormone pills are used as medicine they are not contraception. 

[Maggyie]

Crosscut, chemotherapy to treat cancer results in sterility.

Having a vasectomy or the Fallopian tubes tied results in sterility.

In one case, the sterility is an undesired side effect of treating a disease the only way we know how.

In the other case, the sterility is the desired end.

You're smarter than this.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Maggie

[CrossCuT]

Crosscut, chemotherapy to treat cancer results in sterility.

Having a vasectomy or the Fallopian tubes tied results in sterility.

In one case, the sterility is an undesired side effect of treating a disease the only way we know how.

In the other case, the sterility is the desired end.

You're smarter than this.

 

Im still more interested in the objectification portion of the debate that no one has yet been able to explain.

 

But I feel very content in my thoughts surrounding this issue. I do believe that contraception can be bad...just like a gun can be bad when used to kill someone. However i do not believe it inherently renders the user as an object. I think the intention of the person does that.

[Perigrina]

Im still more interested in the objectification portion of the debate that no one has yet been able to explain.

 

But I feel very content in my thoughts surrounding this issue. I do believe that contraception can be bad...just like a gun can be bad when used to kill someone. However i do not believe it inherently renders the user as an object. I think the intention of the person does that.

 

The objectification portion of the debate is something that you are free to disagree with.  However, you are directly contradicting Church teaching if you deny that contraception is intrinsically evil.

 

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on the subject:

 

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

 

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.¹⁵⁶

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."¹⁵⁷

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.¹⁵⁸ These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:¹⁵⁹

 

The Church teaches that contraception is objectively evil, regardless of the subjective state of those using it.  Their motives, no matter how good, can not make it into a moral act.  As Catholics, we have an obligation to accept this.  The argument about objectification is an attempt to explain why Church teaching is correct.  We may reject it if it does not make sense to us.  The reason given in Church teaching is that contraception separates the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Perigrina

[Credo in Deum]

[Perigrina]

Wait! What? Are we supposed to stay on topic here?  Why didn't anyone tell me? :hehe2: