Contraception etc

[JohnD]

The text suggest that Onan practiced coitus interruptus, so I don't know why people think Onanism should mean m@sturb@tion

Maybe it was translated by academic monks with no "field experience"

I have always understood (but with no evidence) that the idea contraception should be sinful was thought up by people who found the idea of sex so repugnant that it could only be justified by the necessity of propagating the human race

 

[Space cat]

The text suggest that Onan practiced coitus interruptus

That would be the logical interpretation. Since he was being forced to impregnate his sister-in-law, he wouldn't have been allowed to do anything less.

I have always understood (but with no evidence) that the idea contraception should be sinful was thought up by people who found the idea of sex so repugnant that it could only be justified by the necessity of propagating the human race

That makes a lot of sense. There are those who cannot grasp the concept that sex can actually be free and - at a simple level at least - fairly easy. This old saying - which my grandmother knew well - says a lot:

"You've had the sweets so now you must suffer the sours."

By sours of course she meant children. Far from being a 'gift from God' children were a penance! If you start from that position it automatically follows that contraception is a bad thing.

I propose the following explanation for this nonsense which someone on a TV discussion programme started but somehow failed to finish.

It is widely believed that, in our not-so-distant evolutionary past, our proto-human ancestors lived in groups but didn't form pairs. Now the mating rules for such a society are simple; one or two dominant males lay claim to all the females. That's how chimps do it today. The exact process by which we evolved into a pair forming species and, moreover, the only one that uses sex for pair bonding is not obvious but it is very clear that some aspects of our proto-human past still haunt us.

When was the last time you heard a politician, or anyone else with the public ear, say that sex is a good thing? Probably never. How often do you still come across the implication that 'good' women don't like sex? This insidious lie has blighted the lives of generations of women and hasn't done most men any favours either. The only beneficiaries have been the small number of men who made the rules but kept a pool of 'bad' women aside for their own use. A chimp would see that as perfectly normal!

 

[Infidel]

Many early Popes where either married or had concubines. Sex is a mortal sin of the flesh, however procreation is smiled upon by the church unless you happen to be of the other faith, choose any you want.
The homosexual is strictly taboo in all Christian faiths which is somewhat ironic given their record, especially as they worship a man that hung around with 12 other men most of his life.
Discuss

 

[Space cat]

Many early Popes where either married or had concubines.

No surprizes there. Like I said, they made the rules but reserved the right to break them. Natural selection required that they allow their underlings to breed but they kept that under tight control.

The homosexual is strictly taboo in all Christian faiths

It isn't just Christianity, nor any religion at all for that matter. Atheistic tyrants like Stalin and Mao were exactly the same. If, for whatever reason, you are hell bent on denying your subjects the benefits of recreational sex, you start with the female side of the equation. Sorry ladies but it's true; your sexuality is just so much easier to suppress - and you do have a habit of perpetuating whatever nonsense your mothers told you, even to the extent of hacking bits off your daughters. Heterosexual men will then lose out by default but homosexuals are a major headache and thus require the most draconian solutions.

 

[mark vincent]

The Killing of unborn children
The bible says
thou shalt not kill.
Abortion is murder.

 

[Space cat]

The bible says thou shalt not kill. Abortion is murder.

1) I agree. If you're going to kill a twenty four week old foetus, you'd better have a jolly good reason. That limit is based on a totally artificial argument, namely that a younger foetus will not survive outside the womb. That will change over time. What will we say in the future when, perhaps, we can transplant very much younger ones into an artificial womb?

I can already hear the militant feminists shouting about a woman's right to choose. Sorry but no deal. That foetus didn't choose to be in there so why do you think you have a right to kill it? Didn't you have a choice about getting pregnant? Maybe not, and so I come to --

2) I have no time for those pro-lifers who can't tell the difference between a baby and a blastocyst. I'm talking about the ones who object to very early (preferably morning after) abortions, even in rape cases.

We can let Jesus off because he couldn't possibly have known the inner workings of the reproductive system but today's militant anti-abortionists have no such excuse. The obvious answer is that they care less about the life of a ball of cells - which might end up in the placenta anyway - than they do about punishing women for allowing themselves to be raped.

PS: Before the feminists descend on me breathing fire, I am aware that there have been some hypocratic oafs in medical profession. In the early days of legalized abortions it was not unknown for doctors to put off requests for early abortions and keep putting off until it was too late - at which point they would inform their unfortunate patients with a smug grin on their faces.

 

[JohnD]

I wonder what the justification is for people who oppose the use of contraception?

 

[Space cat]

I wonder what the justification is for people who oppose the use of contraception?

In the past, having as many babies as possible gave a survival advantage to those who 'went forth and multiplied'. Now that the human population has become a plague that threatens every other life form on this planet, there is no justification whatsoever.

If you ask them to to justify their objections, the best they can do is quote some ancient religious text which is no longer relevant. I have never yet heard anyone publicly declare what I'm sure they really think, namely that you just can't allow the masses to have risk free sex! That's reserved for those rich enough to pay for it.

 

[ColJack]

the bible ( and by extrapolation any religious text ) is now and always has been a collection of stories designed to lay down rules for generally acceptable behaviour and general survival.
most of what the bible ( etc ) says is no longer relavent to modern society..

go forth and multiply - with the improved medical technology people live longer so it's no longer required that the population be replenished as fast as it used to when the life expectancy was late 40's at the most.

don't eat pork / anything you didn't kill yourself ( or see killed / get form someone you trust to have killed it right etc ) etc - this was basic food hygine, pork doesn't do well in hot countries where these rules originated and eating something you find dead on the side of the road you have no idea what it died of etc.. also some fish and mushrooms are banned from what I've read, again, some fish and muchrooms are poisonous etc..

 

[Space cat]

also some fish and mushrooms are banned from what I've read

Muslims won't eat flat fish because they live on the sea bed. Apparently bottom dwellers are more likely to harbour parasites that are bad for us, same as the Asian wild pig. Early Muslims didn't need to know this. Those that followed the rules lived longer and were therefore better able to spread their version of Islam.

I once put it to a Muslim friend that it is now possible to buy perfectly safe pork so why would you want to starve to death in a sausage factory? Apparently there's a get-out clause; they can eat all that stuff if it's the only way to stay alive. Not so daft after all.