5 ms·

It's going to be really interesting to see the response of the RC church to this.

by gpvos 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago
Well, they don't have any problem with correcting hereditary problems in the womb[1], and it appears okay to straight up not have kids if you know you have a problem that's going to affect the fetus as well[2]. What they absolutely aren't okay with is finding out the child has microcephaly, and aborting as a result. It's my own personal read on canon law that giving birth in such an environment, to the point where the civil authorities are saying "please don't", would present an unacceptable risk to the child, and thus be immoral, and thus be a sin. [1]: http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-position-on-prenatal-diagnosis-and-fetal-research/ http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-posit... [2]: http://www2.loras.edu/~CatholicHE/Arch/Sexuality/Genetic_dis_comment.html http://www2.loras.edu/~CatholicHE/Arch/Sexuality/Genetic_dis... Don't expect a sudden 180 on birth control. The advice for people will be to abstain.
- knughit 11y ago
  >The advice for people will be to abstain. Which is a well-proven failed strategy.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Tangent, and not a particularly religious one: Why does sex seem to get a pass for "you can't control your biological impulses" when other drives don't? - We're driven to eat as well, and have a growing problem with obesity. At least, when you eat too much, you're only harming yourself. Yet, we (the society "we") tut at the obese, in some cases make fun of them. "Why can't you control yourself?" we say. "Put down the fork!" says another. - We have a drive to be social, yet humans are pretty well controlled when it comes to expressing that drive at the wrong times in the wrong places. - It's expected to be protective of your family, but in another time, that would have meant meting out lethal punishment to an interloper. Now, doing that lands you a prison sentence. Without moralizing on any of this: The drive to reproduce, we somehow don't expect people to stop screwing when it's likely that doing so will have really awful consequences for a perfectly innocent life. Either now, in the case of a virus causing congenital defects, or in other cases, such as not being able to support a child. We throw our hands up, say "welp, abstience doesn't work, knock yourselves out", and try to work around the problem with birth control (something which still has a <100% chance of stopping unwanted births) Why is this? Surrender to the implacable force of human nature doesn't seem to be the answer, seeing as how we've at least partially tamed most other impulses, or at least refused to give up.
    - azernik 11y ago
      WRT obesity, there is a big drive to recognize that this is not a really controllable impulse (appetite and metabolism differences are strongly biologically determined) and a lot if the effort (diets, for example, or low-calorie substitutes) goes into figuring out how to fulfill the impulse while reducing the harm - similar to STD protection and birth control. WRT socializing, we definitely have norms about controlling the drive to socialize, but I don't know many people who advocate complete isolation. Similarly with sex. What you characterize as a "you can't control biological impulses" position usually specifically targets abstinence - that is not a fight you can win. But those same people are often totally in favor of more limited control of the sex drive. Laws against rape (statutory or otherwise), norms against romances on the workplace or military service where a power imbalance exists, norms against just plain moving too fast with someone new - these are all very broadly supported.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        I think we need to define abstinence a bit more carefully. In most cases, it's meant as a temporary thing, not permanent virginity. Teens: Don't have sex till later, you don't want babies yet. Women in this country: Don't have sex till later, you don't want babies with birth defects. Church: Don't have sex till later (marriage), you'll offend God So what is the substantial difference between the socially accepted "don't have sex in the military, wait till you're out" and the quickly becoming socially unaccepted "don't have sex for this set period of time"? You just did it right here, characterizing it as a fight you can't win. It seems... strange, to expect responsibility and prioritization of biological goals from people at some times and not others.
        azernik 11y ago
        The military does not demand abstinence from sex for years - if they did, it would be an epic disaster. The relationships (sexual and social) that are prohibited are very specific in nature [1]. Soldiers have sex with civilians when on leave in the countries where they're stationed, they have sex with other soldiers they they don't have command authority over and that aren't in the same small unit, they have sex when they're back home between tours. [1](http://www.army.mil/article/138222/Army_updates_reg_defining_inappropriate_relationships/ http://www.army.mil/article/138222/Army_updates_reg_defining...)

It's going to be really interesting to see the response of the RC church to this.

by gpvos 11y ago

It's going to be really interesting to see the response of the RC church to this.

Well, they don't have any problem with correcting hereditary problems in the womb[1], and it appears okay to straight up not have kids if you know you have a problem that's going to affect the fetus as well[2]. What they absolutely aren't okay with is finding out the child has microcephaly, and aborting as a result. It's my own personal read on canon law that giving birth in such an environment, to the point where the civil authorities are saying "please don't", would present an unacceptable risk to the child, and thus be immoral, and thus be a sin. [1]: http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-position-on-prenatal-diagnosis-and-fetal-research/ http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-posit... [2]: http://www2.loras.edu/~CatholicHE/Arch/Sexuality/Genetic_dis_comment.html http://www2.loras.edu/~CatholicHE/Arch/Sexuality/Genetic_dis... Don't expect a sudden 180 on birth control. The advice for people will be to abstain.

knughit 11y ago
>The advice for people will be to abstain. Which is a well-proven failed strategy.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Tangent, and not a particularly religious one: Why does sex seem to get a pass for "you can't control your biological impulses" when other drives don't? - We're driven to eat as well, and have a growing problem with obesity. At least, when you eat too much, you're only harming yourself. Yet, we (the society "we") tut at the obese, in some cases make fun of them. "Why can't you control yourself?" we say. "Put down the fork!" says another. - We have a drive to be social, yet humans are pretty well controlled when it comes to expressing that drive at the wrong times in the wrong places. - It's expected to be protective of your family, but in another time, that would have meant meting out lethal punishment to an interloper. Now, doing that lands you a prison sentence. Without moralizing on any of this: The drive to reproduce, we somehow don't expect people to stop screwing when it's likely that doing so will have really awful consequences for a perfectly innocent life. Either now, in the case of a virus causing congenital defects, or in other cases, such as not being able to support a child. We throw our hands up, say "welp, abstience doesn't work, knock yourselves out", and try to work around the problem with birth control (something which still has a <100% chance of stopping unwanted births) Why is this? Surrender to the implacable force of human nature doesn't seem to be the answer, seeing as how we've at least partially tamed most other impulses, or at least refused to give up.
  - azernik 11y ago
    WRT obesity, there is a big drive to recognize that this is not a really controllable impulse (appetite and metabolism differences are strongly biologically determined) and a lot if the effort (diets, for example, or low-calorie substitutes) goes into figuring out how to fulfill the impulse while reducing the harm - similar to STD protection and birth control. WRT socializing, we definitely have norms about controlling the drive to socialize, but I don't know many people who advocate complete isolation. Similarly with sex. What you characterize as a "you can't control biological impulses" position usually specifically targets abstinence - that is not a fight you can win. But those same people are often totally in favor of more limited control of the sex drive. Laws against rape (statutory or otherwise), norms against romances on the workplace or military service where a power imbalance exists, norms against just plain moving too fast with someone new - these are all very broadly supported.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      I think we need to define abstinence a bit more carefully. In most cases, it's meant as a temporary thing, not permanent virginity. Teens: Don't have sex till later, you don't want babies yet. Women in this country: Don't have sex till later, you don't want babies with birth defects. Church: Don't have sex till later (marriage), you'll offend God So what is the substantial difference between the socially accepted "don't have sex in the military, wait till you're out" and the quickly becoming socially unaccepted "don't have sex for this set period of time"? You just did it right here, characterizing it as a fight you can't win. It seems... strange, to expect responsibility and prioritization of biological goals from people at some times and not others.
      - azernik 11y ago
        The military does not demand abstinence from sex for years - if they did, it would be an epic disaster. The relationships (sexual and social) that are prohibited are very specific in nature [1]. Soldiers have sex with civilians when on leave in the countries where they're stationed, they have sex with other soldiers they they don't have command authority over and that aren't in the same small unit, they have sex when they're back home between tours. [1](http://www.army.mil/article/138222/Army_updates_reg_defining_inappropriate_relationships/ http://www.army.mil/article/138222/Army_updates_reg_defining...)