Abortion.

[faerie_child]

Yeah... we were a little off topic there.... back to abortion (although, the reasons why you're bad person would be interrsting :P

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by faerie_child

My hang up is that people don't seem to think that it's cruel to put kids into the world that will probably starve, and probably never have the chance to grow up and become a productive member of society. That's how I feel.

No kidding!

The right-to-lifers tend to be the same people who want the government to provide absolutely nothing once that child pops out.

Though there are some exceptions.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's similar to homosexual unions. You can argue statistics 'til you are blue in the face (trust me ), but the overwhelming reason is that they [Christians] don't think it is how god wants things to be.

And the reason why "non-religious" people think homosexuality is OK is that they think it is how god wants things to be.

The only difference is that non-religious people think they are god

Originally Posted by Jonathan

And that's exactly what birth control/contraception does

No, not all - some (the "barrier" methods) prevent conception. Some prevent implantation AFTER conception. And some destroy AFTER implantation.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Trust me, you're lucky I'm getting here before Gwai logs on.

CHARGE!

Complicated as Catholic stands on reproduction are, they probably aren't solely based in a desire to expand the religion.

Why, thank you for giving us the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

He's the resident sophist.

And by that, I'm sure you mean sophistry watchdog.

Originally Posted by dragonrider

It is not just the Catholics, they are just the ones saying no birth control so their religion expands.

Ahem...no.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

No kidding!

The right-to-lifers tend to be the same people who want the government to provide absolutely nothing once that child pops out.

Though there are some exceptions.

*wave*

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I really hate having these debates characterized as 'religious vs non-religious' people. There are people of faith who support various kinds of birth control, and even abortion, and there are secular people who have all kinds of stands, too. Some people with no religious objection to abortion see it as effectively genocidal, for example.

But remarks, from either side, about 'religious people people think this' and 'non-religious people think that' are inaccurate, as well as, imo, uselessly catty and divisive.

If any of the point of these threads is communicating to people of different viewpoints, less of that would be all to the good, imo.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hear, hear.

[Rían]

That's why I usually put "religious" and "non-religious" in quotes - I think they're very often used inaccurately. ALL people have unproven/unproveable beliefs about the actual situation in the universe that they base their decisions on.

*munches some more Easter candy and then passes it around*

[Lief Erikson]

*Runs in, chows some, and runs out.*

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, not all - some (the "barrier" methods) prevent conception. Some prevent implantation AFTER conception. And some destroy AFTER implantation.

This needs some clarifying. Contraception is distinct from medical abortion which acts after implantation. Contraceptives on the other hand are used to prevent fertilization, generally by acting as spermicide, prevent ovulation and/or prevent sperms from entering the cervix. Some of these contraceptives also have the additional effect that they change the environment in the uterus, making implantation less likely. Which means that in the (unlikely) event that despite the contraceptives, eggs are released, sperms do survive, an egg and a sperm meet and a fertilization takes place - there will still be a reduced likelyhood for implantation.

So in that perspective some means of contraception can be considered abortive, even though that is not their primary effect. There is a slim grey area between some contraceptives and medical abortion.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, not all - some (the "barrier" methods) prevent conception. Some prevent implantation AFTER conception. And some destroy AFTER implantation.

This needs some clarifying. Contraception is distinct from medical abortion which acts after implantation. Contraceptives on the other hand are used to prevent fertilization, generally by acting as spermicide, prevent ovulation and/or prevent sperms from entering the cervix. Some of these contraceptives also have the additional effect that they change the environment in the uterus, making implantation less likely. Which means that in the (unlikely) event that despite the contraceptives, eggs are released, sperms do survive, an egg and a sperm meet and a fertilization takes place - there will still be a reduced likelyhood for implantation.

So in that perspective some means of contraception can be considered abortive, even though that is not their primary effect. There is a slim grey area between some contraceptives and medical abortion.

[faerie_child]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I really hate having these debates characterized as 'religious vs non-religious' people. There are people of faith who support various kinds of birth control, and even abortion, and there are secular people who have all kinds of stands, too. Some people with no religious objection to abortion see it as effectively genocidal, for example.

But remarks, from either side, about 'religious people people think this' and 'non-religious people think that' are inaccurate, as well as, imo, uselessly catty and divisive.

If any of the point of these threads is communicating to people of different viewpoints, less of that would be all to the good, imo.

Someone says exactly what I was going to say... Atleast I don't have to type all that up

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's why I usually put "religious" and "non-religious" in quotes - I think they're very often used inaccurately. ALL people have unproven/unproveable beliefs about the actual situation in the universe that they base their decisions on.

Is that also the reason you decided not to quote the line right before it where I said:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think most christians who oppose contraception, and there are many that do not, typically do so because they see marriage and sexual union as a divine experience that should not be tampered with.

It's similar to homosexual unions. You can argue statistics 'til you are blue in the face (trust me ), but the overwhelming reason is that they [the christians who oppose homosexual unions, not all Christians as RÃ*an's sneaky editorializing was trying to make it look] don't think it is how god wants things to be.

Meanie!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This needs some clarifying. Contraception is distinct from medical abortion which acts after implantation. Contraceptives on the other hand are used to prevent fertilization, generally by acting as spermicide, prevent ovulation and/or prevent sperms from entering the cervix. Some of these contraceptives also have the additional effect that they change the environment in the uterus, making implantation less likely. Which means that in the (unlikely) event that despite the contraceptives, eggs are released, sperms do survive, an egg and a sperm meet and a fertilization takes place - there will still be a reduced likelyhood for implantation.

Exactly.

So in that perspective some means of contraception can be considered abortive, even though that is not their primary effect.

I don't quite know why you mention a primary effect - whatever the primary effect is, the GOAL is certainly to stop the development of a baby, which in the case of conception, has already started.

There is a slim grey area between some contraceptives and medical abortion.

Yes, and I was trying to clarify that, because some people will only use barrier methods. And you clarified it further

[Rían]

Brownie - I don't do "sneaky editorializing" - I abhor sneakiness and I'm really hurt that you would even think I would do that

I'm sorry for my inaccurate use of "Christians" in the square brackets - it wasn't intentionally misleading, it was a honest mistake - it was just an effort to give the quote some context, and I didn't quote the other paragraph because the phrase I was interested in was only in the second paragraph.



What's the best way to fix it? Shall I just go back and edit the stuff in the brackets? What I wrote in my post is unaffected by the change, anyway - and I sure don't want to misrepresent anything that anyone says, especially you, a long-time friend

[elven dragonrider]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I really hate having these debates characterized as 'religious vs non-religious' people. There are people of faith who support various kinds of birth control, and even abortion, and there are secular people who have all kinds of stands, too. Some people with no religious objection to abortion see it as effectively genocidal, for example.

But remarks, from either side, about 'religious people people think this' and 'non-religious people think that' are inaccurate, as well as, imo, uselessly catty and divisive.

I agree, Sorry, I am guilty. I was just grouping up the majorities. I am around a lot of religious freaks, and they drive me nuts. Example: I am not a religious person, but I don't support abortion. I do support birth control.
Sorry anyway.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

I agree, Sorry, I am guilty. I was just grouping up the majorities. I am around a lot of religious freaks, and they drive me nuts. Example: I am not a religious person, but I don't support abortion. I do support birth control.
Sorry anyway.

You're hardly the only one. We just have to remember.

[elven dragonrider]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And the reason why "non-religious" people think homosexuality is OK is that they think it is how god wants things to be.

The only difference is that non-religious people think they are god


No, not all - some (the "barrier" methods) prevent conception. Some prevent implantation AFTER conception. And some destroy AFTER implantation.

I don't think I am god!
Why do you say that "non-religious" people "think homosexuality is OK" because "they think that is how god wants it to be"? First, they don't believe in god, and second, they don't think that is how god would want it to be, because they don't believe in him, and they don't really care if there are homosexuals. I mean, what if you were one? (Not you in specific, just giving examples) If "you" were drawn to the same sex, ehat would you do? There are guys that are married and have kids and then they leave their wives telling them that they have always been drawn to men more than women. They are probably physco, but just an example.

[Rían]

What I meant by the "think they are god" statement is this: they think they are the highest moral authority around, at least for themselves, and often for others. Most "religious" people recognize a higher moral authority.

And I think ANYONE that leaves their family because they're more drawn to ANYONE else needs to suck it up and put someone else ahead of themselves for once

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by elven dragonrider

I don't think I am god!
Why do you say that "non-religious" people "think homosexuality is OK" because "they think that is how god wants it to be"? First, they don't believe in god, and second, they don't think that is how god would want it to be, because they don't believe in him, and they don't really care if there are homosexuals.

Don't overgeneralize. Non-religous does not equal atheist/agnostic.