What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

Can you agree that saving sex for marriage prevents pregnancy?

If you don't follow the teaching to save sex for marriage, obviously you are fair game with out of wedlock pregnancy. I'm not sure what your post is supposed to be telling me.

I agree...
The trouble is, in those places where that notion is being actively pushed onto the young people, you find that they end up pregnant more than elsewhere.
So, clearly, as correct as the premise may sound, on paper, it is not applicable to the population at large.

That's something that an institution that claims to somehow be in contact with the supreme being should have gotten right, straight off the bat... instead, it goes on pushing a notion that is doomed to fail... a notion that is statistically shown to fail.

The Church doesn't "push" any of the sort on the people above. It merely teaches that what it does. If you follow the teaching, you will not get pregnant, if you don't, you are fair game lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

-But you're a moral utilitarian..

If believing in an afterlife means a person stops caring so much about material possessions and superficial things, and starts looking more out at the big picture verses just selfishly on themselves, then I think this is very positive. Even if it ends up not being true.

-it doesn't matter if that teaching is true...it doesn't work.......

[Pyrrho]

And this means that we need to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.  You yourself acknowledge that having so many children is a problem, and yet you support an organization that actively works to make the problem worse.  Every time you put money in the offering plate, you are helping to pay for advertising and political activity that actively tries to make the problem worse, by trying to eliminate access to birth control and to tell people that it is immoral to use birth control.  You should stop doing that, as your voluntary contribution works against what you know to be right.

I just want to address this real quick because it just seems to me as very far from the truth.

1. The Church teaches to save sex for marriage. This alone would cut down on a lot of pregnancies.

2. While the Church does teach married couples that they should not use contraception, she also teaches couples to be responsible when it comes to planning a family. And "no contraception" does not mean a husband and wife need to have a lot of kids. I avoided pregnancy for my first 4 years of marriage, and I used a fertility monitor for that. The Church provides many resources and establishments to teach people how to morally avoid pregnancy through fertility monitoring.  

3. The Church also urges people to adopt children that are already existing rather than creating more through the means of IVF.

I feel like your blame on the Church is a little unfair here.

You are ignoring part of my post that dealt with such issues:

...

Now, you might want people to just stop having sex.  But you know that is not realistic; people are going to have sex.  And so we need to deal with this fact, rather than pretend otherwise.  To have a solution for overpopulation, the solution must actually work.  Otherwise, it is useless, and if it prevents actions that would work, it is worse than useless, it is then detrimental.  Real problems need real solutions, not wishful thinking.

...

Also, as noted by pocaracas already (see this and this), states with abstinence only kinds of sex education have the highest teen birth rates.  So that is not working, and continuing with that will only lead to more teen pregnancies.

I am sure a lot of fathers of teenage girls would be happier if their daughters just would not have sex.  But many teenage daughters do have sex anyway, and so that reality must be faced.  Just telling people to not have sex does not stop them from having sex, and does nothing to help with overpopulation.

Continuing to push a failed policy is a very bad idea.  As I stated previously, real problems need real solutions, not wishful thinking.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This life is the only one which we can all be 100% certain is real. Therefore, all other considerations must by definition come second. The reverse sets an extremely dangerous precedent that has been played out countless times through history, as pointed out above.

If believing in an afterlife means a person stops caring so much about material possessions and superficial things, and starts looking more out at the big picture verses just selfishly on themselves, then I think this is very positive. Even if it ends up not being true.

You realize that many, many atheists donate money and more importantly time, right? Just because we reject an afterlife doesn't mean we reject charity, and having worked a couple of years myself in a food kitchen in SoCal, I find that insinuation of yours rather insulting. Mr Agenda, here, manages an atheist charity in South Carolina, and many others here donate money or time.

I can turn your statement on its head and ask,if considerations of reward in the afterlife are what motivate your charity, how sincere can it really be?

I donate not because I hope for an otherworldly reward. I donate because I get a reward in this life -- the reward of knowing that I've helped someone worse off than I am. For my own self, I've found that charity work is fulfilling and satisfying in a way that doing it for an explicit reward could only diminish.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think there's a miscommunication on this marriage-sex thing.  

Abstinence is an effective way of preventing pregnancies, yes.  Just like staying away from all water is an effective way to prevent drowning.  Not engaging in the activity by definition is a way to avoid the possible results of said activity.

The problem is that in the southern US, abstinence is preached as the only way to prevent pregnancies, and no other possible ways are taught, discussed, or disseminated to the young people of these regions.  That is what 'abstinence only' education is.  The problem, is that young people are, well, young people, and sex is one of our most powerful natural urges and needs.  People have sex.  It's just a fact.  It's going to happen whether you think it's immoral or not.  The problem is that when young people have sex in thse regions, they have absolutely no idea about how to use any sort of contraceptives or even what options are available due to their utterly restrictive sex education.  This leads to an extremely predictable (as shown in the map) trend of teen pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, and pregnancies out of wedlock in the regions that stick to abstinence only education.

Is not having a sex a way to avoid the results of having sex? Of course.  But teaching young people who are exploring their emerging sexuality that abstinence is the only possible way to prevent pregnancies is both dishonest and massively ineffective.  People are going to have sex.  It's far more responsible to educate them about their options to make it as safe as possible than to stick your fingers in your ears and preach abstinence-only.  (Not saying that's what you do, CL, but that's what the schools do in the South)

Yes, I agree.

If he wants to say that teaching abstinence only in public schools does not help prevent pregnancy, that is fine. I already said I agree.

Saying abstinence itself doesn't work, though, is just not accurate.

My point was that the Church teaches to save sex for marriage. If this was actually followed, there would be a lot less pregnancy.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've designed, built, and operated various non-profit farms in 4 separate states for over a decade.  I feed people.....regardless of whether or not they can pay (and this, bluntly, means that I'm the one paying).  I care very much about the material possessions which allow me to accomplish this, more than I care about any "immortal soul" or "afterlife".

Apparently, I've got it all wrong......but if I do....I really don't care.

[pocaracas]

I agree...
The trouble is, in those places where that notion is being actively pushed onto the young people, you find that they end up pregnant more than elsewhere.
So, clearly, as correct as the premise may sound, on paper, it is not applicable to the population at large.

That's something that an institution that claims to somehow be in contact with the supreme being should have gotten right, straight off the bat... instead, it goes on pushing a notion that is doomed to fail... a notion that is statistically shown to fail.

The Church doesn't "push" any of the sort on the people above. It merely teaches that what it does. If you follow the teaching, you will not get pregnant, if you don't, you are fair game lol.

The church, or whatever passes as the church in those areas, is then neglecting its clear leadership role... unless...

[Catholic_Lady]

If believing in an afterlife means a person stops caring so much about material possessions and superficial things, and starts looking more out at the big picture verses just selfishly on themselves, then I think this is very positive. Even if it ends up not being true.

You realize that many, many atheists donate money and more importantly time, right? Just because we reject an afterlife doesn't mean we reject charity, and having worked a couple of years myself in a food kitchen in SoCal, I find that insinuation of yours rather insulting. Mr Agenda, here, manages an atheist charity in South Carolina, and many others here donate money or time.

I can turn your statement on its head and ask,if considerations of reward in the afterlife are what motivate your charity, how sincere can it really be?

I donate not because I hope for an otherworldly reward. I donate because I get a reward in this life -- the reward of knowing that I've helped someone worse off than I am. For my own self, I've found that charity work is fulfilling and satisfying in a way that doing it for an explicit reward could only diminish.

Yes, Parkers Tan. Please read carefully. I addressed this.

Thank you for your donations, btw.

[FatAndFaithless]

I think there's a miscommunication on this marriage-sex thing.  

Abstinence is an effective way of preventing pregnancies, yes.  Just like staying away from all water is an effective way to prevent drowning.  Not engaging in the activity by definition is a way to avoid the possible results of said activity.

The problem is that in the southern US, abstinence is preached as the only way to prevent pregnancies, and no other possible ways are taught, discussed, or disseminated to the young people of these regions.  That is what 'abstinence only' education is.  The problem, is that young people are, well, young people, and sex is one of our most powerful natural urges and needs.  People have sex.  It's just a fact.  It's going to happen whether you think it's immoral or not.  The problem is that when young people have sex in thse regions, they have absolutely no idea about how to use any sort of contraceptives or even what options are available due to their utterly restrictive sex education.  This leads to an extremely predictable (as shown in the map) trend of teen pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, and pregnancies out of wedlock in the regions that stick to abstinence only education.

Is not having a sex a way to avoid the results of having sex? Of course.  But teaching young people who are exploring their emerging sexuality that abstinence is the only possible way to prevent pregnancies is both dishonest and massively ineffective.  People are going to have sex.  It's far more responsible to educate them about their options to make it as safe as possible than to stick your fingers in your ears and preach abstinence-only.  (Not saying that's what you do, CL, but that's what the schools do in the South)

Yes, I agree.

If he wants to say that teaching abstinence only in public schools does not help prevent pregnancy, that is fine. I already said I agree.

Saying abstinence itself doesn't work, though, is just not accurate.

My point was that the Church teaches to save sex for marriage. If this was actually followed, there would be a lot less pregnancy.

But your church is also against most (all?) forms of contraception. You have a doctrine that is demonstrably harmful to human wellbeing. Why push it as the only choice when we have mountains of data that there are far more viable alternatives?

[Catholic_Lady]

The Church doesn't "push" any of the sort on the people above. It merely teaches that what it does. If you follow the teaching, you will not get pregnant, if you don't, you are fair game lol.

The church, or whatever passes as the church in those areas, is then neglecting its clear leadership role... unless...

Just to clarify, when I say "teaches" I don't literally mean they go around in groups and tell kids not to have sex lol. It just means that if you open up the Catechism, under sexual morality, it will explain that sex is meant for husband and wife. I'm not talking about abstinence only education in schools. I agree that they should be objectively taught about birth control.