I'm not too sure where this discussion is going...

In answer to the original question - In my opinion, yes. In the UK today, where a lot of young people are not thinking about religion over themselves, surely it has got to better to be safe than sorry?

I do agree with Aquarelle though, with what she said about the presumption that people will behave in a certain way because it's a festival. Maybe it served to put ideas into some people's heads...

I don't know though. I think sometimes too much is made of the 'peer pressure' idea. To put it rather bluntly, I knew what my friends were doing, and that was as far as it went. They couldn't have persuaded me to do the same, nor could they have put me off had I decided to follow a similar path.

Although i can see some cases where peer pressure (or something similar) may come into it. If you're a less strong-minded person and trying hard to fit in to impress your so-called-friends, I can see that you might end up doing things you didnt really want to (this applies to loads of other things as well as s*x).

The Catholic Church's stance, if properly followed, would result in virtually no STIs and relatively few 'unwanted' pregnancies because people would do the sensible, not to mention moral, thing and wait until they're married, using NFP etc.



You've never read Humanae Vitae have you? And I take it you've also never looked at Pope John Paul II's various works, especially Theology of the Body. Most 'catholics' say they can't reconcile it having never sought understanding of it in the first place. If you don't want children don't have ###, how difficult is that to understand?

The catholic church's stance would work IF everyone was a devoted catholic. Unfortunately things aren't that simple and taking such a firm 'you must not have s*x until you're married because it's uncatholic' approach firstly is going to not apply to most people because they're not catholic and is also likely to cause rebellion against it, and while thats the message being given out, the idea of safe s*x is not, hence more STIs, unwanted pregnancies.

Are you for real???!!!
May I just point out that s*x is FUN!!!

I do agree that free contraception is a good thing. I don't think that anything's ever going to stop the whole of the teenage population having ###, but the more chance of it being safer the better, I think.



I think you're confusing everyone following the Catholic's church's stance with the Catholic Church's stance being imposed on people. Think it through

What's immoral about ### outside wedlock?

That's what I was going to say

Actually, the UK population continues to rise, both due to birth rate > death rate, and more recently due to immigration. See this link for the facts and figures.

Suddenly, so many of the undoubtedly childless snhs's posts make sense


<laughs out loud and splutters tea all over computer>
I think you may well be the Most Humourous Poster this year as well, Carol

Why do we have to live by your rules?

I've many Catholic friends, who take not a bit of notice of the no contraception rule. They are women who have careers and are getting a home around them before having babies.
I have no idea whether my friends' stance on waiting in their school talks will do anything, but at least they are trying to stop the rising tide of STD's and unwanted pregnancies. I also remember that when I was a teenager, I hated being preached at
Also, Carol*Piano is quite right And why shouldn't married people have s*x with out the fear of another baby coming along. Natural family planning is NOT reliable. ( Or unmarried come to that )
Bev.

I will try to say this as gently as possible.

I think the human race is, these days, obsessed with ###. You cannot, for example, even watch more than a few minutes advertising on television without seeing a commercial which uses ### to sell a product.. I just think a more balanced view is more likely to lead to a more fulfilled life.

In response to the religious questions raised I would like to say that I am friends with a traditionalist Catholic family who have seven loved and wanted children and I know a similar family with eleven. I may not think this a very wise choice in view of the excessive numbers of we humans on this little planet, but in their defence I will say that these children are well cared for, well educated and among the most well balanced and happy of those I teach. But these families have the financial means to cope.

I also have among my friends and colleagues practising non-traditional Catholics who do use birth control and quite simply and quietly side step the more rigorous doctrine of their church. Their attitude is that some elements of conduct need to be re-examined in the light of the contemporary world. They do, however, uphold standards of respect for others and for themselves.

A previous poster said “### is fun”. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be – in the right place and at the right time and with the right person. But I think we should remember that strong emotions are often involved and people can get very hurt. I remain old fashioned enough to say that I simply cannot accept the idea that ### is and should be available as a light-hearted past time. I have seen the ravages of “everybody’s doing it” both in terms of teenage heartbreak and broken families – ravages with and without contraception.

I am inclined to think that ### is part of a relationship and that society is in danger of presenting it as the be all and end all of any possible encounter. ### is shouted from the housetops these days.

The question to my mind is not, should protection be used, but rather should we not practise a certain restraint and discretion in our personal relationships. Do they not deserve a little more respect than I found in that original French TV announcement?

You are quite right about the obsession Aquarelle. It's everywhere you look. I said in another thread last week that I walked down Broad Street with hubby, and saw groups of girls/women out in their undies.
I agree with you about a committed/long term relationship too, but not many people see it that way anymore
Thing is, contraception is freely available at FP Clinics, so why don't people use it?
Bev.

Because you've got to get to the clinic. You've got to spend time there to get stuff (at least in my area; whatever you are going for, you need to register; and you need regular appointments for tablets, injections, etc). You've got to make sure you have things to hand when you need them. Or understand how tablets work (e.g. you don't just take them when you 'need' them, as someone I knew once believed ), and remember to take them. Or go back for your next injection.
There's a scary amount of "can't be bovvered" in why it's not used.


Oh, another thought...I guarantee there are people who won't go and get 'free' stuff, because that would imply they can't afford to buy it (which perhaps they can't), but they won't have people thinking they need to get stuff free.

So what - if everyone followed the Muslim stance there world be very few STI, ect. but I hear very few calls for adulterers / teenage fornicators etc. to be publicaly beheaded in Trafalger square.

The fact is that people don't follow the teachings of authoritarian religions unless their techings are backed up by threats of execution, excommunication, social isolation or of being sent to ###### in the next world.

Yes I have looked at Humanae Vitae although, like most people, I can't say I've read it! So what - I do not believe that JPII had any particulary interesting or novel world view on anything. Why should a group of elderly men who've taken vows of celibacy be in any way qualified to pass judgement on how people run their family lives?

Recent scandals at educational establishments run by religious organisation show clearly that a significant number of priests take a very liberal interpretion of what "celibacy" actually involves. The ### drive is one of the most fundemental human urges, if it is flustrated it is expressed in other ways - ofetn violent and sadistic.

Of course nobody has ever heard of a sadistic or violent preist / nun!!

I think you're confusing a point I was making in response to someone else as a general point .

There is nothing within the Catholic Church's policy which should be winding people up, and there is no way whatsoever they can be blamed for 'a large proportion of STIs and unwanted pregnancies' when what they teach would stop both problems in their tracks.

Oh dear Maizie, so these people are quite willing to have the inconvenienceand cost of an STD or baby, but can't be bothered to behave like an adult and take responsibility for their actions What is the world coming to??
Goes off in a black mood.
Bev.

[quote name='Maizie' date='Jun 24 2008, 01:18 PM' post='713446']
[quote name='The Old Lady' post='713444' date='Jun 24 2008, 01:13 PM']Thing is, contraception is freely available at FP Clinics, so why don't people use it?[/quote]

I'd bet that the most common reason is "We were drunk"

Absolutely. When anything happens, there is someone/something to blame. The key point is, it is always someone/something else. There is no personal responsibility, only blame to be put on someone/thing else - and that one/thing to be sued, if at all possible.

Quite right TSax. What I should have said was that fertility/reproduction rates in the UK were failling.

NJ

Its not my rules, it is the rules which all Catholics should be following because it is part of what the Church teaches. I didn't say at any time that none Catholics had to live by it.



Not quite true actually. Certain interpretations of Islamic Law allow polygamy, very easy divorce procedures, relatively easy acquisition of new brides and other things which would adversely influence the rate of STIs/unwanted pregnancies.

Well if you've never read what he's written then you wouldn't know. For the most part they don't pass judgment on anything actually, they interpret and teach what the Church professes. The policies on abortion/contraception both originate in the Bible, for example. Who is more qualified to tell me what the Church's view is, someone who has studied the Bible and Magisterium for most of their life or people who have undertaken little if any study of their faith beyond sitting in a Church.

That is absolute nonsense and betrays your underlying prejudices. Only a very small percentage of Priests have been involved with such things, just as only a very small proportion of teachers have been. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem, but to say it is a 'significant number' when compared to the vast majority of Priests who would never engage in such things is ridiculous.

Of course no one has ever heard of a sadistic nurse/child minder/parent/teacher/music teacher/army officer/<insert job here>.

Yes, snhs, ther are undoubtably sadistic people in all walks of life. I think that many people found it hard to understand that it was covered up by those in charge in the church.
It is in the "interpretation" that the original message can be lost, many folks have studied the bible and other texts for "truth", and when you think of all the other Christian churches how is it that they must all be wrong?? What exactly is wrong with s*x that it must only be for the procreation of children. As I said the other day, I would have 22 of them by now. That would be just plain irresponsible.
Bev.

Umm, actually I think you did.



Since you don't know which of us are RC that presumably was intended to apply to everyone. I agree it's a pretty good way of avoiding pregnancy but so is contraception.

You don't know which religion, if any, most of us follow, so why are you trying to preach at us?

I'd have thought it might even be said to have some advantages.
That way, any difficulties and incompatibilities can be addressed before making an unsuitable life-long commitment...

Exactly!

I mean, you wouldn't buy a new car without a test drive

And if you cant practise restraint get & use a free condom.

Umm, actually I didn't.

If you look at it in its proper context it reads "Most 'catholics' say they can't reconcile it having never sought understanding of it in the first place. If you don't want children don't have ###, how difficult is that to understand?" It is in the same paragraph and is directly after a sentence in which 'catholics' are explicitly mentioned.

One way is full proof the other is not. One method involves a risk of infection which can include life threatening illnesses the other does not. On that basis alone I think it should be fairly easy to see which the government should seek to promote.



I'm not preaching to anyone, normally I leave that bit to the Priest.

This is a public forum where people express their views, in case you haven't realised. If my view is the view of the Church then I'm perfectly entitled to express it.

oops sorry Deborah!
Don't knock it till you've tried it snhs

I love the way you were wrong earlier about population growth but you've just conveniently ignored the facts and jumped on something else..

Also as for not having ###.. What about a woman who's married and doesn't want more children? Should she be forced to have children? What if another pregnancy could result in her death? What then?

Life is not black and white, when you grow up you may come to realize that.

Where does that leave those who can't, for whatever reason, have children? Condemned to a life of improving books and macrame?



Well said, Aquarelle.


I take it you have studied the Bible fairly comprehensively then, snhs. If so, please can you confirm what your clothes are made of? Beware, I have a pile of stones ready for any breach of Levitican law




Well said, anacrusis.



<wipes more tea off of monitor>

Surely you meant if and not when ?
(Signs so far are not encouraging)

<-- "Oh I do like to bait our s-n-h-s, ..."

To the tune of ... well obvious really!

May I just say that discussions about religious beliefs normally don't lead anywhere, since we are talking about BELIEFS?
Any attempt to do this in past and present has seldom lead to anything good - on the lowest level certainly starting to ridicule people for their beliefs on the one hand and trying to talk people into something they can and should decide for themselves on the other (all the fighting and war in the name of religion in past and present aside).

You can of course go on laughing at each other on the one hand or trying to make people see your point when they cannot or don't want to on the other, but what for?

I for one am NOT ridiculing anyone for their beliefs.

I'm merely pointing out the huge flaws in snhs's argument.

Big difference.

Thank God I'm not a Catholic then

where's the thunderbolt icon?

The 'population growth' is caused by immigration and because immigrants tend to have more children the birth rate is just about keeping up. It doesn't change the fact that we have a time bomb on the horizon which has been made far worse by the thousands of children who have never been conceived in the first place or have been killed before birth.

NFP, which is allowed and is fairly effective when properly managed. Alternatively they practice a bit of self control.

Some things in life are however.




Within married relationships so long as the couple are open to the possibility of life there is nothing to prevent them having intercourse, so if there was a reproductive difficulty in either partner they could still have ###.

No more so than any Catholic should have. In case you are not aware of it Gentiles are not bound by many of the laws of the Old Testament including circumcision, most of the dietary laws etc, I'm fairly certain Leviticus comes under the same definition. This was established by the Apostles in the very early days of the Church and is covered in the New Testament.

What utter dross. What the planet needs is a massive reduction in human population. It cannot continue to support us at current, let alone future, populations. I would be delighted to see population levels in this country alone at least 50% lower and worldwide lower still.

I knew we were going to end on religion at some point... Did anyone else see it coming? We'll be debating Intelligent Design before we know it, and all sense on the forum will be lost...



And with regard to population levels. 50% lower seems like a good idea, but I can't see it being popular when you realise its 50% of your, personal, family that has to go. Of course, we could always go for a worldwide 1 child policy... :S

Sidetracked again. Anyways...

I see plenty of arguments in favor of free contraception, and few that are against it. I agree though that it doesn't quite seem right to assume that at a large festival, or event involving alcohol and young people, free contraceptives must be available for there to be any hope of people acting responsibly. I think its slightly patronising to say the least, in addition to condoning irresponsible behaviour. I have no strong objections to casual ### (even if I wouldn't choose it for myself) but, surely people should be expected to be sensible for themselves?

On the other hand, it seems callous and uncaring to turn around to someone who made a mistake, to say "you should have taken more care, it was your responsibility, deal with your situation now". So I can see why per-empting the possibility of someone being caught without contraceptives is considered sensible social policy.

Talking about abortion.
Would you rather a child was born into a crappy council house because the parents couldnt afford to keep the baby, however abortion was not an option, and so are on benefits to keep them going.
Or better yet, allow them to be adopted, and let them have the utter thrill of knowing for atleast 18 years the people you are with are not your parents, and not only that, i know one person who has had 12 different parents (6 sets).

Since abortion is not an option, surely that is what you expect to happen.
People are going to have ### regardless of religion.

A good argument for free contraception if there ever was one....

hello_cello - at least they are alive! Life is precious Who knows what the child would like if they never get the chance to say?

I have no objection to contraception, free or otherwise, although I agree with Tamsin in that it's a bit insulting to suggest that it's the only thing that stops us flying off the rails. What I do have an issue with, is that in all the lessons we had telling us of all these wonderful contraceptive options, no one ever said that it was perfectly okay just to say no, which is arguably the most reliable method of not getting pregnant. Nor did they ever say that it was illegal until 16, despite the fact that for most of the time we had all this information about contraception thrown at us we were under 16.

I must admit, while I believe sexual education is vital, it does seem to come too early in some respects. By the time I needed to worry about it, I'd forgotten most of the information!

Nothing like sitting down with you partner and a bunch of leaflets on contraceptives to seal a long term trusting relationship though.

I won't comment, seeing as I've never had a boyfriend....

Sexual education is important, but I don't see how they can miss out that its possible just to say no?

The original discussion wasn't realllly about religion, although I suppose religion could come into it somewhere - it was whether or not giving out free contraception was a good thing.





Some brilliant posts in here

I think Snhs (what does your handle mean, by the way?) said something against my comment that the Catholic church's stance on contraception could be blamed for an amount of STIs - I can't find the post, it's way back, so excuse my poor referencing, Snhs. I'm sorry but I disagree. (Well, I'm not sorry). The Catholic church says no ### before marriage and no ### with contraception. What's to stop people getting STIs from a partner after they're married? Who's to say that the person you fall in love with is of the same faith? Who's to say that they haven't got an infection which can be transmitted, say, orally as well as sexually? Surely, it would be a good idea to use contraception...

I'm sure you'll find a reason for that being tosh. Bon courage!

Free condoms at Festivals?

That's a h3ll of a lot of.....
















































WATERBOMBS!!!!!!

It's the initials of my old school.

I think your exact words were something along the lines of a large proportion which I'm fairly certain isn't true. The vast majority are transmitted because of people sleeping around with or without contraception and in the many cases where contraception fails.

I think most marriages are still within the faith. For those who marry people of other faiths it's fairly easy to get their partner tested prior to marriage, have any infections treated etc.

Infections can also be transmitted when people kiss, would you like people to tie a plastic bag round their tongue?

You're nuts, mate. A plastic bag? There are things called dental dams though, if you ever want them. Out of interest, what's the church's stance on those?

And if pigs could fly.

I suppose you'd go back to the good old days when back street abortions were commonplace and women died as a result of them on a daily basis?

Or are you a spoof? I'm beginning to wonder.

I know several happily married couples who didn't want children; they've used contraception all their lives - are you suggesting this is wrong??? It's only ever going to be a small proportion of the population who don't want children so where's the problem? For someone who likes to put themselves over as a fairly rational sort of person it's kind of bizarre to see you adhering so blindly to a faith like Catholicism which could be seen as a fount of irrationality to some.




Personally I think it's better for (some or most) teenagers to wait until at least the late teenage years before they start having full physical relationships because they may not be emotionally ready before then, but as for 'just saying no' - well, yeah right - if it were that easy! If certain vicars and priests find it impossible to say no, why should it be considered a particularly viable option for anyone else? It's the most powerful urge next to hunger, particularly when you're young and fertile and I think the church should basically shut up about it - they've done enough damage already filling countless generations with unnecessary guilt and fear around what is after all a very natural act. Yes perhaps some people have gone too far the other way but wasn't it always pretty much thus? Except that people were less honest about it?

Anyway I've lost count of the stories about vicars running off with parishioners' wives, and priests unable to stick to their vows..... They should sort out the shenagigens in their own ranks before preaching to the rest of us, quite frankly.