Catholic church on birth control; cause for abandoning it?

[United Muscovite Nations]

We have the funds to take care of children. But the state shouldn't pay for people to not have restraint.

If the state has the funds to take care of children, then shouldn't the state have the money to cover the much lesser expense of condoms, creating conditions where people can have children when ready?

If people don't want to have kids or get venereal disease, they shouldn't have sex. It's entirely self-inflicted.

[Genivaria]

Then the only logical conclusion is that you are unbothered by teen pregnancy rates going up.

I would say it's not a problem I have to solve.

Then don't expect to be taken seriously when you complain about something that you aren't willing to do anything constructive about.

[Las Islas de Metanoia]

How about this.
Teenage pregnancy rates tend to go up in states where sex education either isn't taught or is replaced by 'abstinence only education'.

Therefore if you oppose pregnant teens (let's be honest there's nothing beneficial about getting pregnant in or before high school)
Then you should support the teaching of sex ed as well as how to use birth control and condoms.

As a policy teaching abstinence alone only exacerbates the problem. That is fact.

My sister experienced teenage pregnancy, she is thankful that she didn't abort her son. She still finished her education despite being pregnant. My mother was also raped by soldiers during the dictatorship years, she didn't abort her child and I consider her my sibling and we're very close.

[Antityranicals]

I would say it's not a problem I have to solve.

Then don't expect to be taken seriously when you complain about something that you aren't willing to do anything constructive about.

I'm pretty sure you're the one complaining about this problem...

[The South Falls]

If the state has the funds to take care of children, then shouldn't the state have the money to cover the much lesser expense of condoms, creating conditions where people can have children when ready?

If people don't want to have kids or get venereal disease, they shouldn't have sex. It's entirely self-inflicted.

We're back to the circle. You're like "then they shouldn't have sex", which is true. However, in reality, we can't stop people from having sex. This is a variable that we cannot prevent or account for. We should then provide condoms to ensure the population's health, and mitigate the costs to the state that this sex may bring.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I would say it's not a problem I have to solve.

Then don't expect to be taken seriously when you complain about something that you aren't willing to do anything constructive about.

I complain about the moral problem of it, but it's not my fault, so I don't have to do anything to fix other people's mistakes.

[Genivaria]

How about this.
Teenage pregnancy rates tend to go up in states where sex education either isn't taught or is replaced by 'abstinence only education'.

Therefore if you oppose pregnant teens (let's be honest there's nothing beneficial about getting pregnant in or before high school)
Then you should support the teaching of sex ed as well as how to use birth control and condoms.

As a policy teaching abstinence alone only exacerbates the problem. That is fact.

My sister experienced teenage pregnancy, she is thankful that she didn't abort her son. She still finished her education despite being pregnant. My mother was also raped by soldiers during the dictatorship years, she didn't abort her child and I consider her my sibling and we're very close.

Not sure how that's relevant to what I posted.

[Antityranicals]

If people don't want to have kids or get venereal disease, they shouldn't have sex. It's entirely self-inflicted.

We're back to the circle. You're like "then they shouldn't have sex", which is true. However, in reality, we can't stop people from having sex. This is a variable that we cannot prevent or account for. We should then provide condoms to ensure the population's health, and mitigate the costs to the state that this sex may bring.

Or just let people be accountable for their own actions, whatever they may be.

[The South Falls]

How about this.
Teenage pregnancy rates tend to go up in states where sex education either isn't taught or is replaced by 'abstinence only education'.

Therefore if you oppose pregnant teens (let's be honest there's nothing beneficial about getting pregnant in or before high school)
Then you should support the teaching of sex ed as well as how to use birth control and condoms.

As a policy teaching abstinence alone only exacerbates the problem. That is fact.

My sister experienced teenage pregnancy, she is thankful that she didn't abort her son. She still finished her education despite being pregnant. My mother was also raped by soldiers during the dictatorship years, she didn't abort her child and I consider her my sibling and we're very close.

I'm glad for your sister, and I'm glad for your mother living through the experience and you having a sibling.

However, teen pregnancy doesn't turn out well in the majority of cases, and that's something we'd like to prevent.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If people don't want to have kids or get venereal disease, they shouldn't have sex. It's entirely self-inflicted.

We're back to the circle. You're like "then they shouldn't have sex", which is true. However, in reality, we can't stop people from having sex. This is a variable that we cannot prevent or account for. We should then provide condoms to ensure the population's health, and mitigate the costs to the state that this sex may bring.

It's a variable every individual has absolute control over. It's not the state's job to fix things that are entirely self-inflicted.

[Salus Maior]

I don't think that the Catholic Church is insuring people for having unprotected, non-monogamous sex.

You don’t have issues with the company decided what you can do with your insurance? The Church is basically a company when you look at the finance structure.

If they don’t like it; don’t offer it. The problem? They wouldn’t attract the skilled workers needed.

As far as I'm aware, the Church has no shortage of people working for it.

Outside of the Priesthood, anyway.

[Las Islas de Metanoia]

I don't think that the Catholic Church is insuring people for having unprotected, non-monogamous sex.

You don’t have issues with the company decided what you can do with your insurance? The Church is basically a company when you look at the finance structure.

If they don’t like it; don’t offer it. The problem? They wouldn’t attract the skilled workers needed.

The church isn't a company for heaven's sake it's a charity! If it's a company its a very unprofitable company since the Vatican has been bankrupt several times in history.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-order ... 1567537391

[The Black Forrest]

If the state has the funds to take care of children, then shouldn't the state have the money to cover the much lesser expense of condoms, creating conditions where people can have children when ready?

If people don't want to have kids or get venereal disease, they shouldn't have sex. It's entirely self-inflicted.

“I am going to have sex so I can get a venereal disease” said nobody.

“I am going to have sex so I can have an unplanned pregnancy” said no woman.

[The New California Republic]

Got any recent studies that aren't over ten years old? Given the advancement of genetics then research papers over ten years old are out of date.

Have you heard of the term "Classics"? Science is structure that continually updates and is organic but not all paradigms are rejected because of discovery, rather the nature of Science knowledge is accretion not discardment. Newtonian Physics wasn't all of a sudden rendered irrelevant just because of Einstenian Physics was developed,

Trust me, having worked with folk dealing with genetics research they all have a cutoff point of ten years for papers regarding genetics being acceptable as a valid source, because of the way that new discoveries in genetics are constantly amending previous assumptions; unless it is a paradigm-shifting paper, which none of these appear to be. So one from the last few years would be great.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If people don't want to have kids or get venereal disease, they shouldn't have sex. It's entirely self-inflicted.

“I am going to have sex so I can get a venereal disease” said nobody.

“I am going to have sex so I can have an unplanned pregnancy” said no woman.

They know the potential consequences. If you don't know whether your partner has an STD, then you don't know your partner well enough to be having sex with them.

[Genivaria]

We're back to the circle. You're like "then they shouldn't have sex", which is true. However, in reality, we can't stop people from having sex. This is a variable that we cannot prevent or account for. We should then provide condoms to ensure the population's health, and mitigate the costs to the state that this sex may bring.

Or just let people be accountable for their own actions, whatever they may be.

So you support the abolishment of insurance? Fuck them they made their bed right? No help for them?

[Genivaria]

“I am going to have sex so I can get a venereal disease” said nobody.

“I am going to have sex so I can have an unplanned pregnancy” said no woman.

They know the potential consequences. If you don't know whether your partner has an STD, then you don't know your partner well enough to be having sex with them.

And now were back to the untenable position of consent to a risk is consent to all potential consequences, a logic that is strangely only used when it comes to sex.

[The Black Forrest]

You don’t have issues with the company decided what you can do with your insurance? The Church is basically a company when you look at the finance structure.

If they don’t like it; don’t offer it. The problem? They wouldn’t attract the skilled workers needed.

As far as I'm aware, the Church has no shortage of people working for it.

Outside of the Priesthood, anyway.

I admit I don’t know their rosters. If they started controlling the insurance more and more; I would say that would change greatly.

Anyway; this kind of smelling like a tangent?

[The South Falls]

We're back to the circle. You're like "then they shouldn't have sex", which is true. However, in reality, we can't stop people from having sex. This is a variable that we cannot prevent or account for. We should then provide condoms to ensure the population's health, and mitigate the costs to the state that this sex may bring.

It's a variable every individual has absolute control over. It's not the state's job to fix things that are entirely self-inflicted.

Alright, then. By this logic, we shouldn't have trauma centers in hospitals, because you shouldn't have had that gun, or that knife, even if it was an accident.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They know the potential consequences. If you don't know whether your partner has an STD, then you don't know your partner well enough to be having sex with them.

And now were back to the untenable position of consent to a risk is consent to all potential consequences, a logic that is strangely only used when it comes to sex.

Tell me, why would someone have sex with someone they don't know well enough to know whether they have an STD or not?

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's a variable every individual has absolute control over. It's not the state's job to fix things that are entirely self-inflicted.

Alright, then. By this logic, we shouldn't have trauma centers in hospitals, because you shouldn't have had that gun, or that knife, even if it was an accident.

If you were doing something that any reasonable person could predict would lead to trauma, you should foot the bill.

[The Black Forrest]

Have you heard of the term "Classics"? Science is structure that continually updates and is organic but not all paradigms are rejected because of discovery, rather the nature of Science knowledge is accretion not discardment. Newtonian Physics wasn't all of a sudden rendered irrelevant just because of Einstenian Physics was developed,

Trust me, having worked with folk dealing with genetics research they all have a cutoff point of ten years for papers regarding genetics being acceptable as a valid source, because of the way that new discoveries in genetics are constantly amending previous assumptions; unless it is a paradigm-shifting paper, which none of these appear to be. So one from the last few years would be great.

Indeed. One of my schools actually had to spend a great deal to get rid of a teacher who would only teach Watson. Bio tech had exploded and companies told they school they will black list their students as they tend to be ill-equipped....

[The South Falls]

We're back to the circle. You're like "then they shouldn't have sex", which is true. However, in reality, we can't stop people from having sex. This is a variable that we cannot prevent or account for. We should then provide condoms to ensure the population's health, and mitigate the costs to the state that this sex may bring.

Or just let people be accountable for their own actions, whatever they may be.

Again, I return to the hospital example.

*some dude calls 911*

Dude: I'm having a heart attack, send an ambulance

911: lol, well you shouldn't have eaten all them cheeseburgers back in the day, then your arteries wouldn't have been so clogged

[United Muscovite Nations]

Or just let people be accountable for their own actions, whatever they may be.

Again, I return to the hospital example.

*some dude calls 911*

Dude: I'm having a heart attack, send an ambulance

911: lol, well you shouldn't have eaten all them cheeseburgers back in the day, then your arteries wouldn't have been so clogged

That's a little too extreme, but yeah, smokers should have to pay for their lung cancer treatment costs.

[Antityranicals]

Or just let people be accountable for their own actions, whatever they may be.

So you support the abolishment of insurance? Fuck them they made their bed right? No help for them?

If people buy insurance, I've no problem with them using it. Though, to be perfectly honest, I think buying insurance is a bad investment. Otherwise, insurance companies wouldn't be making money. If you're talking government insurance, though, than yes, kill it and bury the ashes.