Manny Pacquiao wants to ban condoms in the Philippines

And you are too easily equating cultural practices with well thought out and articulated religious doctrines. But hey, at least you are more tolerant than me.

 

Religion is a cultural practice.

 

Filipinos are usually **** up especially when it come to Religion.

 

I get what you are saying Donny.

I just don't think A) the stats quite say what I imagine you want them to say on the role of condoms/birth control and unplanned pregnancies; B) you are not really characterizing the gist of the fight in the Philippines correctly, its about government sponsored condom disbursement, not the right to use contraceptives; C) you are imputing a rabid libertarian idea that kind of answers all questions with respect to morality with a resounding "nope".

Why can a community not come together and say we think condoms are harmful for the way we treat each other sexually and we don't want our money going to pay for their distribution? That's the real issue here.

 

I guess you would need to define cultural practice if that's the case. Given the fact you think religion is a joke because your parents warped you with some backwards Protestantism that literally was against reason, I could see how you think it is "just a cultural practice". If you are interested in actually debating the topic, I'd be glad to discuss it with you. You seem to have already made up your mind though, which is kind of sad.

 

What if a priest is having sex with a male prostitute and using drugs -- then having sex with boys in his church? Should the priest and/or male prostitute be allowed to wear a condom?

 

Yes, they do.

Yeah, I picked up on that the title was misleading, so we've got two discussions going on here, essentially. The one with bobrek is about condom abolishment, though. So, read it in that context.

No, I'm not. I'm using my common sense. Contraceptives increase wellbeing and decrease suffering, period. For anyone to suggest they be banned would be damn near criminally negligent, while anyone to suggest they not be government supported would just be guilty of a bad idea. This is not a matter of opinion.

Some cultures and religions are better than others; I don't apologize for saying that, and never will. Contraception is good for humanity. If someone disagrees, then their idea of what is good for the world constitutes human suffering, and I hope that person never holds a seat of power. (like pacman)

 

Donny,

On Point A, I've already debated with Deckard back in the day on this point. See http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4180868&postcount=612. As far as the US is concerned, according to that report increased contraceptive use has resulted in an increased abortion rate.

On Point C, I disagree with your premise. It's way too broad of a statement. A) it presumes that bearing children just equates with suffering. I have three kids and both my wife and I would tell you that it is hard, but the joy that has followed far outweighs any suffering we have endured. I think the problem is a philosophical one, thinking that suffering can be ended. We are mortal and will always be doomed to suffering. It's just kind of part of the game.

Your counter to that point would most likely be that contraception gives people a choice as to when and whether to take on burdens and the sufferings of children.

I think that's all well and good, but even then it's too simple of a statement. First, it depends on a really shallow and materialistic version of what it means to succeed and have opportunities. The argument is that women now have more access to opportunities and the ability to be like men because they don't have to have kids when they have sex. I think this is part and parcel of our culture, where we are constantly trying to "get ahead". Often, though, getting ahead just means getting more stuff and not being poor. I question that as a measure of success. You can also argue that it makes women more happy because they aren't having to be tied down to kids all the time. It's true that raising kids is a challenge. I think though it can be argued that there are some real negative effects from increased contraceptive use in a society, namely the objectification of women into nothing more than sex objects. This is obviously not a new idea, but the increase of contraceptive use surely does not help.

I'm not necessarily trying to convince you I'm right on this, I don't think this is really the forum or set up for that. You should just know that its not as simple as saying contraception objectively decreases suffering.

B) Do I think that contraception can be banned? Probably not. At least its not prudent for a government to do so. The Western Tradition under Aquinas and Aristotle probably allows for government to ban contraception, but would say that its probably one of those issues that should be left alone.

I think the more important thing to note from the Western Tradition is the role of the law as reason; in the case of traditional sexual morality laws, it was a question of reason ruling the appetites. It is important to note that these laws traditionally were not enforced, but were there to help reinforce the idea that sexual morality was important to the common good, and that human sexual encounters have a proper place and role in a society ruled by reason and not the passions. The newer libertarian tradition rejects this idea in favor of creating a sphere of privacy in which the government can't say anything.

I think you would find it no surprise that I reject this newer libertarian strain, in so much as it rejects aspects from the tradition. But, I acknowledge that there is room for debate. It really depends on what you believe the ends of government are, and how they can be achieved. Obviously reduction of suffering is a good thing. I think the quest to eliminate suffering sometimes gets in the way of thinking about important questions of human flourishing. I think making the end all of government material success seems like a reduction of suffering, but can bring a host of other problems with it. Also, its a little shallow.

 

Condoms only address the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. If Pacquiao is genuine, then he needs to take a step back, chill on the condom issue, and think about his approach. Wrapping his thinly held opinions with religion doesn't give it as much heft as he is assuming.

Priests don't do that. Never had. The Church sez so.

 

Not convinced at all of any causal connection by this study.

To suggest that contraceptives actually *increase* unwanted pregnancies is ludicrous.

Here's a more recent study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110223092408.htm

The inability to protect oneself from sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies is a cause of human suffering. Period. Your anecdote of your own personal experience with child rearing is completely irrelevant. You're not an impoverished person who has a 75% chance of getting AIDS and can't support a family of 1, let alone countless children.

This is not only completely irrelevant, it strikes me as wantonly wrong. Allowing women to take control of their own sexuality and fertility gives them power and control over their own lives, and if anything, it gives them opportunity to be more than "sex objects", because, in case you didn't notice, up until about the last 50 years (when contraception became widely available, shocker inorite?) of recorded human history (which, even by the catholic account of the history of the world, is a long ass time)... all women were mostly subjugated baby factories.

Yes, it absolutely is. Unwanted pregnancies (and the spread of STDs) result in a net suffering. This is not a matter of opinion, no matter how many sunshine stories we hear from people in middle America who "kept the baby". This is an issue that goes far beyond the boundaries of the cul-de-sac.

Well, you're on the right page there.

This is not about personal desires, sexual lust, or some silly libertarian fantasy. This is about reducing the amount of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases in both the developed and undeveloped world. The latter of which most definitely cannot afford to shackle its hands with laws in the name of tradition or piety.

 

His country is a prefect example of why this world needs to be flooded with more unwanted children. No need to curb your sex trade industry. Let's just make sure they are all diseased and nursing.

 

Meh. We are disagreeing on first principles. This conversation isn't really going to go anywhere.

We have different teleological ends for government and the role of law.

 

Catholicism... SMH.

 

First principles?! Who needs those when a few exaggerated appeals to "intuition" and "common sense" -- made, of course, with an air of dismissive self-satisfaction -- will never fail to convince others and oneself of Internet Victory? Personally (and I see that Mr. Most is one step ahead of me on this) I prefer to approach an argument the same way I handle a chick: cocky and hard-to-get. I find that this is great for garnering attention and allure while simultaneously framing any interaction strictly on my terms, thus forcing my prey to chase my highly-selective approval while doing all the real work. If you mount an open-minded, logically-taut argument in a long paragraph, but I don't like it, then, well, I need only indicate your failure to win me over. No argument needed. No questions asked. I'm the prize, dammit.

But, yeah, where was I? Oh, right. You're being charitable. He's likely never dealt with these "first principles" of which you speak. They're usually unnecessary, especially when all those other, more popular principles are more favorable. See the last two paragraphs of this, twhy77, for Roggit-approved advice.

 

The only logical course is to strip him of his titles.

I used to like Pacquiao but now I find out that he has an opinion different from mine (one that I might even find stupid) which makes him objectively a bad fighter and a bad human being. Natch, it oblivates any professional accomplishments he might have had in the past.

I can't abide anyone with religious or political opinions different from mine. That is the mission of America: that everyone has the right to have the same opinions as me.

It's very relevant to bring up any character flaws (like cheating) whenever someone states an opinion counter to one that I hold. Demonizing others is the way to feel better about my own opinion

Seriously Clutchfans reminds me every day how smart this generation of Americans are. I can't wait till the Chinese or the Alien Visitors come and become our overlords in 2012.


FWIW, contraceptives increase sexual activity. They also decrease transmissions of STDs. If you start with the idea that you and your friends are all mindless whores then the Catholic Church's stand is ridiculous. If you start with the idea that humans are moral beings capable of restraint then it makes more sense. I go with option 1.

 

bloop, I think you've misunderstood the central thrust of Zion's argument, which (if I may) might be summarized by the following schema.

1. Manny Pacquiao publicly espouses the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.
   
2. Manny Pacquiao violated a moral teaching of the Catholic Church when he cheated on his wife.
   
3. Manny Pacquiao opposes state-supported contraceptive-distribution with an appeal to his acceptance of Catholic morality.
   
4. If someone violates a moral code that he publicly espouses, then any opinion anyone ever holds through an appeal to that same moral code is wrong.
   
5. Therefore, contraception is good and ought to receive the government's support.

QED

Or, to paraphrase with my own aphorism: The only valuable morality is a morality that's never broken. Ever. By anyone. (Unless the violator disavows the morality and can therefore not be charged with the last true sin, hypocrisy... that is, assuming hypocrisy isn't the very vice he already decided to declare permissible, since only a hypocrite would claim hypocrisy is bad and yet at some point find himself guilty of hypocrisy.)

Damn. I'll have to edit that for the sake of brevity. Oh well. The point is: High moral standards are in fact, like, really hard, man. But if we scrap all of them besides sincerity, at least nobody can call us phonies.

 

Hmm..... resources are already extremely strained.... the world population is spiraling out of control, especially in under-developed nations.... people in the Western world use a huge disproportionate amount of the world's resources, and will fight wars to not curb consumption..... HMMMM ..... what could possibly go wrong attempting to limit the use of condoms in a poverty stricken place????

 

He can ban cucumbers if he wants to, the man earned that right.

 

What is THAT supposed to mean?

 

I'm really glad you brought this up as to me the issue of condoms is less about the prevention of pregnancy as it is the preventing the spread of STD's yet the arguments that we always hear center around pregnancy.

What we have been seeing with recent studies regarding chastity pledges is that many of those who end up taking up other sexual practices that don't result in pregnancy. While those practice might not lead to pregnancy they do nothing to stop STD's so in this case the focus on pregnancy with the opposition to condoms is actually endangering people.

As far as the teleological arguments those are fine and well in rarified discussion of first principles but I question their application to reality. Teenage pregnancy and STD's have existed long before human civilization existed and if our civilization were to collapse tomorrow I bet they would exist after. Your first principles regarding the formation of a moral society where the role of government is to address sexual morals is great but that ignores the fact that people like to have sex and lots of if with different partners and in different ways no matter what government says. While you might say that the First Principles regarding morality are important I would respond though that isn't one of the first principles of government to provide for the common safety of the people that make up the society?

The problem that I see with morality in this instance is that it seeks to overcome the reality of human sexuality with the side affect of actually making sex more dangerous. I have no problem with telling people they should be abstinent. Obviously abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy and STD's but has there ever been a human society where abstinence as a policy actually eradicated, or even greatly reduced those problems?

To follow up with the driving analogy to me this is like teaching people to drive defensively but at the sametime we don't tell people not to wear seat belts because that might cause people to drive recklessly. The message is important but so are the prophylactics that make the behavior safer.