Choices

Remove all ads!

Anything in excess is bad. Life is good in moderation...


That includes excessive religion. By that I mean, the practice of extreme beliefs, such as denying the right to gays to marry. It hurts no one, restricts no one's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, so I'd call is a reach into the extreme to call it bad.

 

Just to toss a little note from the Catholic church into the mix,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4938076.stm

No idea if anything will come of it, but it pricked my ears.

 

Um, the link is right there in my post. There're plenty of other articles saying the same thing, if you want to google "catholic + condom + AIDS"

 

Which is a such a complete crock. Hands up anybody who has managed to make this work properly. It's a confusing mess of thermometers, alarm clocks, and graphs. People who say that condoms are subject to failure through poor use have never attempted the NFP method......

 

Back in the day, the church initially didn't approve of NFP, either. Now that it's a well known fact that there are just too many variables to actually make this work the church has changed it's stance. Go figure.

 

AMaster,

The Guardian is (generally) a good newspaper but, although respected, the BBC Panorama program is notoriously one-sided and sails rather close to the wind with editing. (i.e. they've been known to edit in a different question after someone has provided an answer.) They generally seem to be intent on crucifing someone rather than uncovering the truth.

 

HB, you misunderstand my point. I never said it was an EFFECTIVE form of birth control, I just said it was the only one that the Catholic Church approves of. Believe me, I certainly don't support this method for use. It seems like it's no better than crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. Besides, by the time you figure out whether or not it's OK to have sex (even assuming you've been able to correctly interperet the data) you probably won't even be in the mood anymore.

 

Umm, Drew, this is a little off topic, but I just needed to point it out. It is impossible to live without killing something. Plants are alive, too, you know. If your morality is based on life, then eating plants is just as bad as eating animals. If you distinguish between plant and animal life, then why not between different types of animals?
Not necessarily criticising your position, just making sure you've thought it through.

 

NOG/Drew -- On that note I'll go way off topic...

Keziah: No thanks, I'm a fruitarian.
Max: I didn't realize that.
William: And, ahm: what exactly is a fruitarian?
Keziah: We believe that fruits and vegetables have feeling so we think cooking is cruel. We only eat things that have actually fallen off a tree or bush - that are, in fact, dead already.
William: Right. Right. Interesting stuff. So, these carrots...
Keziah: Have been murdered, yes.
William: Murdered? Poor carrots. How beastly!

 

NOG: I have to kill plants to live. I don't have to kill animals. Animals, however, have thoughts and feelings......and highly developed nervous systems. Plants do not. There is a gigantic distinction between plants and animals, NOG. The comparison is not only cliche, but irrelevant.

 

Mmm. After reading this, I see what you mean. The Cardinal is too harsh on Condoms (i.e., pointing out they're not perfect, but not pointing out that it's far, far better than uprotected sex, leaving one free to interpret that he means "condoms don't work"), but not so much as the previous article stated..