Catholic church on birth control; cause for abandoning it?

[The New California Republic]

“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.

They in all likelihood don't even know that themselves. Many such diseases are asymptomatic or have symptoms so mild that it is difficult for the person to recognise it as a disease.

[Genivaria]

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?

Trust? The lack of foresight that comes with youth? Alcohol? Rape?
Which one of these magically allows third parties to claim they consented to infection or pregnancy?

[Las Islas de Metanoia]

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.

Here's a study about the God genes published on 2013 using Twins as Case Studies.

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/ ... -god-gene/

[United Muscovite Nations]

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

Trust? The lack of foresight that comes with youth? Alcohol? Rape?
Which one of these magically allows third parties to claim they consented to infection or pregnancy?

Rape is entirely different and not something condoms would do anything to mitigate.
Alcohol? Should be outlawed anyway.

[Antityranicals]

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

Accountability in that case just means that you're paying for your medical bills, unless you bought insurance, in which case you're paying for part your your medical bills.

[Genivaria]

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.

So insurance is fine as a precaution but birth control isn't?
Why the distinction?

[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.

They in all likelihood don't even know that themselves. Many such diseases are asymptomatic or have symptoms so mild that it is difficult for the person to recognise it as a disease.

If they know they're at risk (i.e. they have sex), they should get tested.

[The South Falls]

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.

We can't predict sex would lead to trauma, however. We don't think that gun is going to go off in our faces. You don't expect the worst, otherwise you wouldn't do it.

[Genivaria]

Trust? The lack of foresight that comes with youth? Alcohol? Rape?
Which one of these magically allows third parties to claim they consented to infection or pregnancy?

Rape is entirely different and not something condoms would do anything to mitigate.
Alcohol? Should be outlawed anyway.

So in none of those situations did person A consent to infection or pregnancy correct?

[United Muscovite Nations]

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

We can't predict sex would lead to trauma, however. We don't think that gun is going to go off in our faces. You don't expect the worst, otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Actually gun ownership training is supposed to teach you to expect the worst.

[Antityranicals]

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.

So insurance is fine as a precaution but birth control isn't?
Why the distinction?

I don't think birth control should be illegal, I just think its morally wrong. Sex and procreation shouldn't be separated. I firmly believe that if you don't want a kid, you shouldn't have sex.

[Salus Maior]

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

We can't predict sex would lead to trauma, however. We don't think that gun is going to go off in our faces. You don't expect the worst, otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Sure, a gun probably won’t go off in your face. But you still shouldn’t be looking down the barrel either.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Rape is entirely different and not something condoms would do anything to mitigate.
Alcohol? Should be outlawed anyway.

So in none of those situations did person A consent to infection or pregnancy correct?

Doesn't matter if they consented to it. With the exception of rape, it's not a problem for the state.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Tangent. Company control can be a bad thing. Example; a friend had a bad pregnancy and the kid had many problems. When it came time to renew; the company said we will renew all but this kid. As he explained; there is some limit to insurance payouts. Luckily for him he quit and joined a company who said no problem and he got a promotion out of it.

[Genivaria]

So insurance is fine as a precaution but birth control isn't?
Why the distinction?

I don't think birth control should be illegal, I just think its morally wrong. Sex and procreation shouldn't be separated. I firmly believe that if you don't want a kid, you shouldn't have sex.

Than that's a moral judgement based on bbn personal religious beliefs that I don't really care about.
I care about people trying to make their personal religious beliefs into bbn law and controlling others.

[Dylar]

Alcohol? Should be outlawed anyway.

Woah, let's not do anything too drastic now.

[The New California Republic]

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.

Here's a study about the God genes published on 2013 using Twins as Case Studies.

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/ ... -god-gene/

Again it says it is an influence. But that still doesn't support your original assertion.

[Salus Maior]

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

This scenario would be more like the state not providing cheeseburgers, and then people complaining that they should have cheeseburgers because they’re enjoyable.

Catholic clinics do treat people with stds. They just say you shouldn’t be doing the thing that leads to stds in the first place.

[Urlendia]

I don't think that the circles in a Venn diagram of "People who support black lives matters" and "Catholics who support the catholic church's view on birth control" has that much of an overlap.

[Genivaria]

So in none of those situations did person A consent to infection or pregnancy correct?

Doesn't matter if they consented to it. With the exception of rape, it's not a problem for the state.

Are you sure that's the road you want to go down friend?

[Antityranicals]

I don't think birth control should be illegal, I just think its morally wrong. Sex and procreation shouldn't be separated. I firmly believe that if you don't want a kid, you shouldn't have sex.

Than that's a moral judgement based on bbn personal religious beliefs that I don't really care about.
I care about people trying to make their personal religious beliefs into bbn law and controlling others.

And on that I agree with you, with the sole exception of abortion, which is murder, and ought be treated as such.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Alcohol? Should be outlawed anyway.

Woah, let's not do anything too drastic now.

>guns kill 40,000 people a year
"woah, wtf, we have to stop this"
>alcohol kills 90,000 a year
>cigarettes kill 400,000 a year
"well you can't make that choice for other people"

[Nakena]

Woah, let's not do anything too drastic now.

>guns kill 40,000 people a year
"woah, wtf, we have to stop this"
>alcohol kills 90,000 a year
>cigarettes kill 400,000 a year
"well you can't make that choice for other people"

Prohibition was already once tried in the US. With known results.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Doesn't matter if they consented to it. With the exception of rape, it's not a problem for the state.

Are you sure that's the road you want to go down friend?

If you perform an action, the consequences are on you. It is a self-inflicted problem. If you have consensual sex, the consequences of the sex are self-inflicted. Only if you were raped should the consequences of that be covered by state funds, because in that you had no choice.

[Antityranicals]

Woah, let's not do anything too drastic now.

>guns kill 40,000 people a year
"woah, wtf, we have to stop this"
>alcohol kills 90,000 a year
>cigarettes kill 400,000 a year
"well you can't make that choice for other people"

And more than that, six in ten of those gun deaths are suicides.