Comment by Radix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Radix | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The Catholic church condemns all birth control, including for married couples, if I understand correctly. This is why they hold some guilt. I don't see any problem with backing abstinence as the proper form for premarital birth control, denying it in all situations mean those who fail to maintain abstinence won't feel social pressure to use birth control, and, guessing, there will be a lower likelihood of easy access birth control.

Church argument: Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

I don't follow the church's argument, but crimes against humanity? That's just silly. So why are yall down-voting him?

> I don't see any problem with backing abstinence as the proper form for premarital birth control, denying it in all situations mean those who fail to maintain abstinence won't feel social pressure to use birth control, and, guessing, there will be a lower likelihood of easy access birth control.

I'm not a catholic, but you have to try to see it from their perspective. What kind of moral leader are you, if you say "don't sin, but if you're going to sin anyway, here's the best way to do it"?

To draw a parallel: Suicide is very very wrong. But doing it wrong will put you in a lot of pain and might handicap you - so we should make small pamphlets for teenagers saying "don't kill yourself - but here are some tips if you're going to anyway".

For someone who's not opposed to premarital sex or contraception, it's an unreasonably far stretch to compare - but I'm not at all sure that's not pretty much how they feel about it.

Yes, I completely agree with you about seeing things from the church's perspective. What I intended to mean is that, post marriage, denying birth control takes it out of the public conscious, and possibly the stores, as an option. I disagree that they would be saying: don't, but if you do... Because I disagree with their stance on birth control on their terms, or at least part of their terms. And believe they ought to claim that abstinence and fidelity is how christians should behave while making no claims about birth control.

Specifically, I disagree with their interpretation of the passage about the man spilling his seed. It wasn't worth death because he spilled his seed, but because he deliberately deprived his brother of a child, rather than simply being infertile as other men who failed to father children were.

[edited]

But this dilemma stems from the original irrational statement that sex outside marriage is immoral.

Irrational or not, it's a position that a great number of people share.

The immorality does not lie in having sex outside marriage; the immorality lies in scaring people shitless that they'll burn in hell if they choose to protect themselves against the contraction of a disease.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com