Stem Cells from In Vitro Fertilization

[fencerchica]

As time has gone on, the party has become more and more fiscally conservative and less and less socially conservative.

Indeed? My own opinion of the Republican Party on those two points is precisely the inverse of yours. Oh well. At least we can commiserate in our dislike of the neocon movement. The so-called paleocons were at least a little more honest, for what that's worth. I'll take poor crazy old Pat Buchanan over sleazily vicious Robert Novak any day of the week.

comparing you and third world, poverty stricken, under-educated people is not something which makes a lot of sense. What we need to do is help these people come up to your same standard, not throw condoms at them and hope that their problems go away.

You're right, there are more social issues in play there than birth control, or its lack, alone. One potent element in the mix is the degree to which women are esteemed, a measure which tends to increase in direct proportion with the availability of birth control -- a suggestive statistic... Anyway, the "ABC" ("abstinence, be faithful, use condoms") approach in Uganda was working wonders in curtailing the spread of AIDS and improving their economic outlook until the "C" was taken out of the equation. But my original point was simply to grab an example of a place where birth control is relatively rarely used whereas infidelity was common. If it were actually true that there was a strong cause-and-effect relationship there, well, one would not expect to see such an outcome.

[Sean Butler]

Is it just me, or have you just repudiated your earlier point?

--Philistine

Not at all, in one case I made the point that one could not by reason alone without God make sense of value. In the other case I started from a basis that we both agreed that there was value and then continued to talk about how contraception and abortion are disordered within a system which has value. This does not make my argument theological. I still maintain both positions. You can disagree with the premises of the latter (as I stated) but you cannot claim that I presented a theological argument. I did not demonstrate that God told us not to use contraception, for example.

[Sean Butler]

You are misrepresenting yourself.

No, it is you who are misrepresenting me by snipping out parts of my posts and placing them together when the text between provides the meat of the argument rather than the conclusions. Believe it or not, I am making an attempt to be brief in most of these responses. If you do not care to hear my words in the mode they are given, maybe we should just end this discussion. I very much want to understand your positions, but I have a distinct feeling that you are not trying hard at all to understand mine. Let's do less assuming and more asking, shall we? If you think that my argument has a specific basis, then ask me. Do not tell me what my arguments are and I will try to do the same for you.

You are recycling the infamous and ill-named "natural law" arguments used by Thomas Aquinas to misleadingly conflate theology with reason, and you are doing it without explicitly referencing the thelogical leaps that lie beneath the plaster. To present what is at root a theological argument and then to say it is not such, simply because you are taking responsibility for it yourself instead of attributing it to the Church, is less than forthright.

This argument you present could be true of any single truth assertion we make about morality or value. If you disagree with the premises, then state which ones you disagree with and let's discuss them.

You are trying to construct a false dichotomy. Your argument is not premised on these points; it is premised on a specific interpretation of these points. I believe that non-reproductive sexual intimacy is not incompatible with any of these points which you have listed.

I listed some reasons why non-reproductive sexual intimacy can lead to undesirable outcomes, some worse than others depending on the reasons for avoiding reproduction and the techniques used to do so. I only listed these in response to your arguments that contraception was an answer to the abortion issues. I did not list them so that we could get into a theological discussion on contraception. I think we are taking some of these side issues way too far afield at this point.

The only reason why you argue that the preceding three points are incompatible with birth control is because you subscribe to a belief there is, essentially, a spiritual instruction manual for sex which stipulates that pregnancy must be at least one of the intended results of it. Without reference to a spiritual argument, there is no reason why one can't have sex with one's partner with birth control but also with the above three points being included in the dynamic. And as MP has pointed out, it is eminently possible to have sex with one's partner without birth control and also without the above three points being included in the dynamic. It is more complicated an issue than your ideology accounts for.

Again I am sorry that my reasons which I listed aren't enough for your satisfaction. I hit the highlights without delving too far into the deeper reasons behind them. I'd like to be able to do that, but I think it would make more sense to start another more focused thread if we wish to go into that kind of detail.

While you are correct that there are spiritual reasons underlying this whole discussion, I am trying hard to present the ideas in a mode which can be discussed without relying on those. Maybe we need to back up and present the discussion again so that it is clear what we do agree on and what we don't. That would make such a discussion more fruitful, I think.

This concept is the ultimate absurdity of the "natural-law" arguments against birth control and the dignity and equal rights of gay persons. Of course I am familiar with it. However I reject it utterly as ludicrous. I presented the question because I wanted to confirm that this was an element of your argument and because I wanted it to be visible to others that it was. Let's try this out: "Just because you don't currently intend to have children doesn't mean that your desire to love your spouse has abated."

I have tried to avoid contentious words and mean-spirited attacks through out this discussion. I really wish that in further replies we can avoid the use of phrases like those underlined. I understand that you disagree with me, and I still respect your arguments. I am hoping that the same respect is returned.

As far as your last conjecture: I agree that it is correct. What I don't agree with are the methods by which and the reasons for which we avoid conception.

Time is tight for me, and if I can get more time over the next few days, I will try to start a new thread or two where we can more fully analyze some of this.... If you are willing of course.

[keith]

Not at all, in one case I made the point that one could not by reason alone without God make sense of value. In the other case I started from a basis that we both agreed that there was value and then continued to talk about how contraception and abortion are disordered within a system which has value. This does not make my argument theological. I still maintain both positions. You can disagree with the premises of the latter (as I stated) but you cannot claim that I presented a theological argument. I did not demonstrate that God told us not to use contraception, for example.

Of course, as the nun said the Jesuit, the rigour of your reason would be more convincing if it deviated from your theology

Is it a sign of insecurity to hide theology behind reason?

[fencerchica]

No, it is you who are misrepresenting me by snipping out parts of my posts and placing them together when the text between provides the meat of the argument rather than the conclusions.

I believe the use of "[...]" is common usage to indicate that material has been snipped, or is that not so? It was not my intention to take your words out of context. I believed that I was bringing forward the core points with which I disagreed and that the text between wasn't relevant to that particular point.

Well, if I've been rude I am sorry. I'm a little influenced by the fact that your first few politically-oriented posts on f-net were sufficiently inflammatory that it was a long while before I ceased thinking you were simply trolling.

You seem to have the impression that I wasn't addressing your points clearly enough. I had thought that I was. In particular, I thought MP was very specific and detailed in addressing some of your points that I spent less time on. You didn't really respond to any of her comments. So maybe we don't even have enough thought processes in common to have any kind of meaningful debate? You suggested starting a new thread. Like you, I'm unfortunately a little sporadic in when I have time to reply, but if a debate I'm interested in arises, I'll make an effort to post as much as I can.