From: "Smiler" 


"H Dickmann"  wrote in message
news:rxQMh.870$M.479{at}news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "MarkA"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.23.12.47.17.154010{at}stopspam.net...
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:30:46 +0000, H Dickmann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "MarkA"  wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2007.03.23.03.49.12.521900{at}nowhere.com...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:07:22 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:47 am, "H Dickmann"
 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me about social progress in 20 years from now
when 30% of women
>>>>>> chose never to have Children.
>>>>>
>>>>> Newsflash:  not all women want children.  Not all women *like*
>>>>> children. It's funny, if having children is so bloody
wonderful, why
>>>>> does the rate of childbirth go down whenever and
wherever women have
>>>>> access to higher education and personal choice?  Do
you think women
>>>>> are
>>>>> intended to be nothing but baby machines?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you want to force women to have children they
do not want?  Do
>>>>> you realize how messed up such children are?  Do you
realize that
>>>>> there
>>>>> are already 6.5 *billion* people on this benighted
planet already?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Catholics do not believe that there is any limit to how
many people the
>>>> Earth can support.
>>>
>>> Not correct,
>>> If you want to limit the worlds population start with poor countries
>>> where
>>> people deliberately have a dozen children so they have someone to
>>> support
>>> them in sickness and old age. But that would mean money which we need
>>> ourselves to lead a happy and healthy life.
>>>
>>
>> Let me be more precise: the RCC *behaves as if* it believes there is no
>> limit to how many people the world can support.  I hope they recognize
>> that the Earth's resources are finite.
>>
>> As you point out, most of the growing population is in the world's
>> poorest
>> countries.  With no infrastructure to provide support for people too old
>> or ill to care for themselves, having children is their only chance at
>> 'social security.'
>>
>> However, having the RCC preaching that all contraception is evil, and
>> preaching against condom use in Africa, shows a very odd set of
>> priorities; one that I cannot endorse.
>
> Not entirely correct. ( Apart from some bloody minded fanatics who are
> wrong)
> The Church teaches that the use of condoms as a means of contraception is
> wrong.
> The church also teaches that in matters of morality everyone must first
> and foremost obey his or her conscience.

But in the eyes of the RCC, condom use is still wrong.

> If, as an example, a man has aids, his concience will tell him that it is
> immoral to infect his wife. The use of a condom then is not as a means of
> contraception but a means of disease prevention.
>

No. It's both, whether or not one of the partners has AIDs. Unless you know
of a specific type of condom that prevents AIDs being transferred to
another person whilst still allowing conception. If he thinks of condom use
as preventing the conception of a baby with AIDs, which is it?
A contraceptive or a means of disease prevention?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Smiler,
The godless one

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag