SBC ethicist reacts to birth control is 'murder' sermon

Remember, these people believe the only purpose of sex, even between a married couple, is procreation. If you're not attempting to procreate, in their eyes, you shouldn't be having sex. Really though, it's primarily simply about control. Either you heed the message, and devote yourself fully to the church to drive out those "sinful" thoughts, or you go ahead, get knocked out, and squeeze out a few new children to be indoctrinated and brainwashed to be followers of the church (as well as ensuring that women have no time for anything outside of the home). These people... gah, sorry, I can't really go on without resorting to a torrent of words not generally deemed appropriate in polite society.

EDIT: And to clarify, this doesn't represent religion on the whole. Most mainstream denominations are not at all like this, and don't subscribe to these radical views.

Good luck convincing humans to stop having sex for fun.

Fucking catholics.

Card carrying Southern Baptist here and this guy's full of baloney. If it hadn't been for birth control there'd be more babies than geriatrics at our church.

Ideally, abstinence is the best policy when it comes to preventing unwanted children. There's no argument against this.

However, humans are weak. I've got a few hundred pages of holy texts to teach me this. Technically birth control enables something that I'm supposed to consider a horrid sin, but I'm busy with the "not judging other people" part of keeping my own life on the straight and narrow.

Southern Baptist doctrine is really simple: believe in Jesus, struggle to avoid sin, help others. I agree with the guy that unconstrained sex is a problem and not something we should encourage, but I disagree with his philosophy. Birth control pills limit the risk of pregnancy, but there's still tons of consequences that being promiscuous can bring. If allowing an egg to escape the ovaries without becoming fertilized is murder, then there are millions of nuns that have committed murder all of their lives.

Keep in mind that not everyone is of the "sex is only for procreation" system. I feel like it is reserved for married people, but I don't feel like it's for procreation alone. I also don't really give a flying flip that other people don't believe the same way I do; it's my job to judge myself and be an example, not to force others to live the way I do.

Archibaldo wrote:Fucking catholics.

Baptists aren't Catholics.

AtmaWeapon wrote:Card carrying Southern Baptist here and this guy's full of baloney.

Pot = Kettle

AtmaWeapon wrote:
Ideally, abstinence is the best policy when it comes to preventing unwanted children. There's no argument against this.

HAHAHA! Where are the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the united states? In schools where only abstinence is taught.

Reading...is...Fun.

The religious fascists who believe that birth control is murder and the such are the crazy minority. Sadly, they also have the loudest voice. They're the entire reason that the public has grown to hate religion so much, because they don't want to be associated with those fuckwads, and frankly, I don't either.

In the end it all boils down to this: The fanatics are much more concerned with upholding petty details about their religious beliefs than they are with upholding what really matters.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'm leaving this thread. It's just going to turn into people with common sense parroting each other, with Beldaran coming in and calling them all insane because their beliefs don't perfectly coincide with his.

Those retards... *rolls eyes*

If birth control is murder, then masturbation is genocide, and wet dreams are involuntary massacres (which we are still responsible for since our bodies are by nature evil and weak!).

Honestly, I think we NEED some ****** family plannig made MANDATORY. Why? BECAUSE OUR PLANET IS GETTING SO FREAKING OVERPOPULATED THAT WE ARE GOING TO END UP DEAD BECAUSE OF IT EVENTUALLY (assuming we don't all kill each other first).

I think that zero population growth is something to strive for. Making sure that we stay at more or less the same population is a VERY good idea.

I don't think sex should be a casual thing (hey, I'm bored...Let's have sex just for the hell of it), but I dont' think there's a problem if the two people involved are doing it out of love/respect/intimacy for the other person.

AtmaWeapon wrote:However, humans are weak. I've got a few hundred pages of holy texts to teach me this.

...uhh...you needed a few uhndred pages of holy texts to teach you this? You COULD have just looked around at your fellow humans, or even at yourself, ya know.

Beldaran wrote:Pot = Kettle

• Everyone's a sinner and needs to do something to correct this to avoid condemnation.
• Jesus is your savior; through Him your sins are forgiven. This is one of those "correct this" steps.
• In return, Jesus expects basically nothing. But it shows gratitude if you try not to sin.
• Since everyone's a sinner and everyone includes you, if you feel holier than someone go back to step 1.

Either my Southern Baptist church has lost its way, or this guy's full of baloney.

HAHAHA! Where are the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the united states? In schools where only abstinence is taught.

Reading...is...Fun.

My point was that if you actually practice abstinence, your risk of pregnancy and disease is none. "Safe" sex still carries risk. If I were to follow your logic, then I could point out that in many places, teen pregnancy is high despite freely available birth control that does not require contacting the parents. Should I draw the conclusion that birth control pills are ineffective, or is your logic faulty?

Aegix Drakan wrote:...uhh...you needed a few uhndred pages of holy texts to teach you this? You COULD have just looked around at your fellow humans, or even at yourself, ya know.

I don't know what books you've read, but there's a whole lot of literature about people who screw up and triumph in the end. It generally doesn't warm the cockles of your heart to read about a character who makes an innocent mistake and ruins their life. (I'm looking at you, Jude the Obscure :mad😊

AtmaWeapon wrote:
My point was that if you actually practice abstinence, your risk of pregnancy and disease is none.

Your "point" hinges on the idea that 16 year olds will decide not to have sex. Reality has shown that they will have sex regardless of what anyone says to them. Therefore your "point" is inconsistent with reality.

But I'd expect that from a baptist.

AtmaWeapon wrote:They teach math in these schools too, and I bet if I gave an Algebra II test to the average graduate, we'd see a disappointing rate of failure. Do you intend to suggest that there is a direct correlation between the curriculum at a school and what a disinterested student will learn?

My point was that if you actually practice abstinence, your risk of pregnancy and disease is none. "Safe" sex still carries risk. If I were to follow your logic, then I could point out that in many places, teen pregnancy is high despite freely available birth control that does not require contacting the parents. Should I draw the conclusion that birth control pills are ineffective, or is your logic faulty?

I think his point was that abstinence-only education is ineffective, not that abstinence itself is an ineffective means of preventing disease and pregnancy. After all, best way to avoid an accident is to never get behind the wheel.

Beldaran wrote:Your "point" hinges on the idea that 16 year olds will decide not to have sex. Reality has shown that they will have sex regardless of what anyone says to them. Therefore your "point" is inconsistent with reality.

But I'd expect that from a baptist.

I don't believe that Atma was saying that abstinence was the only form of birth control that should be used, or that such a system would limit pregnancies in teens. Rather I believe he was pointing out that if you DO use it then it is 100%. I'm fairly sure that Atma is not so naive as to think that it is going to work for everyone.

As for the whole, family planning is a murder thing, I see it as standard extremist bull shit. Basically, this is the 10% you get with any viewpoint. These are the ones that are bat shit crazy, the rest of the people that share the same viewpoint say they're crazy, and truthfully the people themselves know deep down inside that they are bat shit crazy.

Though most are not as vocal as this about family planning, many Christian churches view sex even during marriage as something that should be done only to procreate. The reason for this is simple. The churches need people to sin so they will come to the church looking for redemption and incidentally bring along their money for the offering plate. As such, they needed something that they could say was a sin but people would do anyways. Sex fit the bill. They say it's bad, people are going to do it anyways, thus the church gets what they need, power over people. Seriously though, if you wanna fuck a species up but good mess with its sex life.

Beldaran wrote:Your "point" hinges on the idea that 16 year olds will decide not to have sex. Reality has shown that they will have sex regardless of what anyone says to them. Therefore your "point" is inconsistent with reality.

But I'd expect that from a baptist.

Your point is that 100% of all 16-year-olds decide to have sex. I could easily point out that many people with various diseases and syndromes do not decide to have sex at age 16, but I'm sure you'd point out that you didn't mean that. Formally, this would defeat your point but I hardly expect you to follow formal rules. Instead, I put forth the single example that I trust: me. I chose not to have sex before marriage, and I didn't.

Further, your point does not counter my point. Allow me to phrase it in the way that apparently you need to hear it to understand what I mean:

Suppose A is an organism that reproduces by sexual intercourse. A does not wish to produce offspring. A does not wish to contract any disease that is only transmitted through sexual intercourse. If A does not have sex, A can accomplish this goal.

I am stating that if you want to cite statistics, abstinence is 100% effective of preventing childbirth. This has nothing to do with whether it is easy to practice abstinence.

Let's fire the analogy gun for an analogous example to highlight how ridiculous your trolling is at this point.

AtmaWeapon: If you are cut, applying anitbiotic ointment can help reduce the risk of infection.

Beldaran: Applying antibiotic ointment is not convenient. Therefore antibiotic ointment is not a good preventative measure.

AtmaWeapon wrote:
Your point is that 100% of all 16-year-olds decide to have sex.

No it isn't. So that nullifies everything you said afterwards.

AtmaWeapon wrote:
AtmaWeapon: If you are cut, applying anitbiotic ointment can help reduce the risk of infection.

Beldaran: Applying antibiotic ointment is not convenient. Therefore antibiotic ointment is not a good preventative measure.

In this analogy, my position is logically superior. If we do not have access to antibiotic ointment, your brilliant idea of using ointment is highly illogical.

Guess what? I have a plan to solve the energy crisis! Just use a big machine that generates infinite energy!

Man, I don't know why I didn't try your method of thinking earlier. It's so easy and saves me the effort of having to pay attention to reality.

This whole thing is giving me a headache. Why bring up the effectiveness of abstinence at preventing teen pregnancies if we know for a fact that abstinence education does not work? It's like saying "We don't need seat belts, we just need to boost our efforts to teach teens to drive safely. In fact, seat belts are dangerous because they send the message that there are no consequences to reckless driving."

Archibaldo wrote:fucking Catholics

I got a chuckle hearing about this, as that person is a bit on the nutty side. Here's my views on it:
Birth control is useful in prevening pregnancies before a family is financially secure
Sex is not a sin when in the confines of marriage
Sex is not just for procreation, but for pleasure as well.

Abstinence programs do work, as I am one who has benefited from it. Furthermore, those programs need reinforcement from the parents for it to be really effective.

I strongly doubt teaching abstinence only education work at all. For the few devoted it may, but for the average high school, college, or unmarried kid, they're going to want to have sex. It's biologically a strong desire in everyone, and it's pretty easy to do. The problem with abstinence only education is that it just tells them to say "NO", a tactic we've seen work so well with the war on drugs. If someone is taught solely about abstinence they will undoubtedly be more ignorant of various contraceptives, and bam, you have Beldaran's statistics. By teaching about contraceptives in a health class, you at least prepare the kids who aren't going to just say no.

These people are just dumbasses if they are going to start claiming that a baby is born the moment you think about it. Every time I hear some radical complaining about birth-control, I'm reminded of this wonderful number.

Beldaran wrote:...

My statement was a general maxim, so I guess I have to spell it out a bit more clearly for you again:
If A is an organism that reproduces via sexual intercourse, and A does not desire to reproduce, then A should either not have sexual intercourse or participate in practices that reduce the effectiveness of the reproductive process. However effective these practices may be, abstaining from intercourse ensures that no sperm encounters an egg and therefore no procreation can happen. In this way, absent any other environmental interference, abstinence is a practice that is entirely effective at preventing reproduction.

It doesn't matter if abstinence education is effective at promoting abstinence; abstinence is still effective when practiced.

Your analysis of the antibiotic argument is ridiculous. Does a lack of antibiotic ointment change the fact that, if you had it, it could prevent infection? You sure do believe in some funny logic. Thanks for reminding me that you are less interested in intelligent debate than trolling.

Honestly, the fundamental problem has nothing to do with morality or views on abstinence. The problem is a matter of discipline. A person with discipline understands that to reduce the risks associated with casual sex, some action needs to be taken. This action could be abstinence, birth control, condoms, dental dams, or any other of numerous contraceptive measures that are available. However, a large portion of the population lacks discipline entirely and decides to act on instinct without evaluating the risks.

My point still stands: this guy doesn't represent the SBC as I know it. I've attended an SBC church for 15 years now, and I don't know a single person that thinks contraceptive measures are wrong. In fact, I know several accidental parents that wish they had used contraceptive measures. The people that make the news aren't the normal ones.

What's the point of the characteristic of intelligence if we act on instincts?

We're not saying Abstinence doesn't work, but instead that the strict teaching of it and nothing else doesn't work. Most people lack the self control to practice abstinence (which you appear to agree with), so clearly we need to them at least educate them on how to do it the safest.

TL;DR version: "Abstinence only" programs only really work on goody-two-shoes guys like me who aren't even all that hyped up over it.

Honestly, I'll save myself for the one who's really special.

...mind you, my point is probably moot, since I've never had a freakin girlfriend ever. >_< ALWAYS TAKEN!!! I wound up working next to an interesting chick at work, and whaddayaknow? The second I even start to get interested, I hear her tell someone that she lives with her boyfriend. It was a testament to my predicament when the first thought in my head was "Figures".

I do agree (and hope I haven't made it look differently) that teaching kids that abstinence is the only way to prevent birth is silly. I do see a very good analogy here.

Let's say you bought a new table saw and you want to use it to cut lumber for support beams in that underground fortress you always wanted. However, you know a saw can cut you. Obviously, the only way to avoid getting cut by the saw is to never turn it on. However, you realize this is silly, so you never operate the machinery when tired, use the guides, and keep your hands as far away from the blade as you can. You build your huge underground fortress and die alone without ever being cut by the sawblade.

The only real difference I see between this and abstinence vs. contraceptives is that you can't cut wood without some kind of cutting device; you can live your life without having sex. But if, for some reason, you decide that you can't, there is plenty of risk management you need to be aware of.

I fail to see what the big deal about sex is. People are always emphasizing that it's not necessary, that you can go without sex. But we engage in riskier activities all the time. For instance, if I decide to drive down to the beach, is anyone gonna raise a fuss about the dangers? No - but at the same time, I'm pretty sure, given the number of people who die in car accidents every year, that the risk involved with driving down to the beach is far greater than the risk involved with having sex. And both are equally avoidable activities. I don't have to have sex, and I don't have to drive to the beach. So why do I get reprimanded on the dangers of having sex, but not driving to the beach? Why is one considered a terrible, unnecessary risk and the other a harmless afternoon adventure? It makes no sense.

rock_nog wrote:I fail to see what the big deal about sex is. People are always emphasizing that it's not necessary, that you can go without sex. But we engage in riskier activities all the time. For instance, if I decide to drive down to the beach, is anyone gonna raise a fuss about the dangers? No - but at the same time, I'm pretty sure, given the number of people who die in car accidents every year, that the risk involved with driving down to the beach is far greater than the risk involved with having sex. And both are equally avoidable activities. I don't have to have sex, and I don't have to drive to the beach. So why do I get reprimanded on the dangers of having sex, but not driving to the beach? Why is one considered a terrible, unnecessary risk and the other a harmless afternoon adventure? It makes no sense.

If you are ethically opposed to abortion as a birth control method, this human life is your legal responsibility to feed, clothe, and educate for a minimum of 18 years. You can put the child up for adoption, but then the child faces a life with possibly no parents; not exactly a happy environment. This child has to go out into the workforce, and if it isn't raised properly it becomes a burden on society. If you raise it wrong, the child might murder or injure you or someone else.

Let's assume you decide to raise the kid. Say goodbye to some of your personal freedom for the next few years. You aren't taking the kid to a bar anytime soon. You aren't going to that concert or a movie unless you can find a babysitter. Oops, the kid caught chicken pox; hope you had some vacation days and a few hundred bucks saved up. I could go on and on.

Now, granted, some of the things that could happen to you in a car are equally life-changing: you could become paralyzed, maimed, or even killed. The difference is if you get in a car accident people feel sorry for you and help you out. When you screw up and have a kid, you don't get much pity.

I'd go out on a limb and say that the real reason people make a big deal about it is the idea that when you create a child, you permanently alter your life, the other parent's life, and possibly ruin the life of a completely innocent party. It's possible to have a true accident in a car due to mechanical failure or road conditions; hundreds of thousands of people are hurt in these situations annually. It's far less likely that if you act intelligently and combine two or more methods of birth control you will accidentally produce a child.

tl;dr: unsafe sex is akin to drunk driving: you're taking an unnecessary risk, if something goes wrong innocent people are hurt, and no one will feel sorry for you even if it's an accident.

Well yes, obviously, I recognize there are life-altering consequences, but that was my point - there are equally life-altering consequences with driving, and it's a heckuva lot easier to be safe about sex. No matter how carefully you drive, you still run the risk of some other idiot causing an accident that either maims or kills you. Generally speaking, the odds are far less likely that something outside of your control will happen if you have safe sex.

Point is -
Odds of something going wrong when being smart and using two forms of birth control - utterly astronomical
Odds of something going wrong when driving to the beach and driving safely - still pretty good, because there are so many factors outside of your control