Poll: "You brought condoms, right?"

[santaandy]

It should be both. You'll end up with 2 condoms, but then you get to have sex twice! I mean, wouldn't want the condoms to go to waste, would we?

 

[GRoXERs]

snip

I'm not trolling religion. It's a valid argument. Let's look at it.

P1 - Catholicism is against all forms of birth control.
P2 - Sexual abstinence is a form of birth control.
-------------------------------------------------------
C - Catholicism is against sexual abstinence.

That's a valid argument. The conclusion follows with certainty from the premises. I'd also say that it's sound. Soundness coming from the fact that the premises are true. Now, show me how I'm wrong here. Granted, I'm using it to point to the lunacy of the statement, and the fact that throwing it in was more trolling than anything.

Mentioning religion did not contribute to the original author's solution. It didn't address the question. He wanted to know who should be responsible to bring the condoms.

Ooh, we've taken a Philosophy class, have we? Yay! I almost double majored in philosophy.
Ok, then:
I put it to you that this argument is valid but unsound. The problem arises with your first premise: Catholicism is against all forms of birth control. Sorry, but no. Catholicism (well, the Pope) explicitly endorses the "rhythm method" and abstinence as forms of birth control, rendering your conclusion unsound.

Here's a better summary:
1 - Catholicism says sex is for purposes of procreation only.
2 - Chemical and physical barriers between the male and female gametes prevent procreation.
3 - Chemical and physical barriers to implantation/normal development of a blastocyst prevent procreation.
4 - Sex without use of these chemical or physical barriers does not prevent procreation.
5 - Abstinence is not sex. (well duh)
6 - There is no possibility of natural procreation without some form of sex. (Let's ignore IVF and its perceived morality, please, as it isn't "natural" procreation)
-----------------
C - Abstinence is not against the Catholic belief system, while condoms, the pill, IUDs, the "morning-after" pill, etc. etc. etc. are.

Of course, this does leave the question of why the rhythm method and coitus interruptus aren't considered against the Catholic belief system, as they allow sex and prevent procreation (though much less successfully) but nobody's saying religion is perfectly logical.
At least, I hope not.

Anyway, I'd agree with you that the initial comment didn't bring much to the table as far as the actual question goes, but I think it might just be possible he's being sarcastic, considering the tone it was presented in. If not, he's being rather presumptuous, but let's not make false assertions about his religion, okay? ;-)

Edit: Also, this

It should be both. You'll end up with 2 condoms, but then you get to have sex twice! I mean, wouldn't want the condoms to go to waste, would we?

is hilarious, and true.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

The man, simply because you do not want to have to look awkward when the chick pulls out the largest condom size she could find (some women think that if they have a large condom they will only get large men). Also it is a bit lazy to try and make a woman take care of everything, it's easy to find them and it's a lot less embarrassing for a guy to buy condoms.

 

[Neesa]

As the female in the relationship, I've chosen another form of protection: The Pill. I personally don't like the "feeling" of condoms, but that's just me. My boyfriend makes sure that I take mine regularly at the same time. So far so good. But y'know that's just me.

 

[Noamuth]

Both. The pill, even the morning after pill, is always a good backup too.

 

[Diceman]

Pills good... but I opt for the option of "whoevers planning to get laid"

 

[Mask of 1000 Faces]

I'm honestly not sure. I suppose its more important if whoever says "lets go" has one since its their idea.

But I'll be damned if I ever have my wallet without one.

2 Reasons:

1. Always be prepared
2. Condoms are cheaper than kids

 

[Flap Jack452]

Both...I mean you both don't want to have a little surprise after having a bit of fun do you?

Surprises are great though!

 

[Neesa]

Both. The pill, even the morning after pill, is always a good backup too.

I've done that before. But that's cause my boyfriend can get me overly paranoid then I get paranoid. Then I start getting overly emotional and scared. Ugh, it's not good times. But I've been better since I've been popping my pills like Skittles.

 

[Dastardos]

This is a topic I have been really worried about, and is important to me at my age of 14.
Note: Sarcasm

When I do get to that time though, I think both should bring a condom, but if nothing else the man should always be prepared.

I do think that the morning after pill would be a better choice to use though. I think that if you aren't planning to have a child, even if you use a condom, the woman should always pop a morning after pill, the following morning.

And yes I'm a boy

 

[Noamuth]

Both. The pill, even the morning after pill, is always a good backup too.

I've done that before. But that's cause my boyfriend can get me overly paranoid then I get paranoid. Then I start getting overly emotional and scared. Ugh, it's not good times. But I've been better since I've been popping my pills like Skittles.

Paranoia.. Not so good. But even though I don't take it myself, the pill is glorious.

Though I've heard it has some weird side effects?

 

[jamesworkshop]

it takes two to tango so i say both are responsible besides they are hardly expensive

 

[Neesa]

Paranoia.. Not so good. But even though I don't take it myself, the pill is glorious.

Though I've heard it has some weird side effects?

It takes some time for your body to get use to it. I had to take it because of my irregular menstruation. Only thing I've gotten was lighter periods, which is simply glorious. But in the beginning wasn't so cool. I had upset stomachs a lot. After I got use to it, I haven't had any problems with it.

 

[GRoXERs]

This is a topic I have been really worried about, and is important to me at my age of 14.
Note: Sarcasm

When I do get to that time though, I think both should bring a condom, but if nothing else the man should always be prepared.

I do think that the morning after pill would be a better choice to use though. I think that if you aren't planning to have a child, even if you use a condom, the woman should always pop a morning after pill, the following morning.

And yes I'm a boy

You think the woman should use a morning-after pill every time she has sex?
Er... They cost $40, and come with some pretty gnarly side-effects. Reset-her-period-and-give-her-bad-cramps-and-nausea side effects.

 

[Kelethor]

Tube it or lose it kids ( but seriously, I think that, in a perfect world, Women carry condoms. as well as not juding you by your car,...or the fact that you still live with your parents, but really THEY are living off you...sorry I got off track] anyway, Condoms should be carried on all times when you hit 16. you never know when you need it.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Both... Just in case.

 

[Fronken]

snip

I'm not trolling religion. It's a valid argument. Let's look at it.

P1 - Catholicism is against all forms of birth control.
P2 - Sexual abstinence is a form of birth control.
-------------------------------------------------------
C - Catholicism is against sexual abstinence.

That's a valid argument. The conclusion follows with certainty from the premises. I'd also say that it's sound. Soundness coming from the fact that the premises are true. Now, show me how I'm wrong here. Granted, I'm using it to point to the lunacy of the statement, and the fact that throwing it in was more trolling than anything.

Mentioning religion did not contribute to the original author's solution. It didn't address the question. He wanted to know who should be responsible to bring the condoms.

Ooh, we've taken a Philosophy class, have we? Yay! I almost double majored in philosophy.
Ok, then:
I put it to you that this argument is valid but unsound. The problem arises with your first premise: Catholicism is against all forms of birth control. Sorry, but no. Catholicism (well, the Pope) explicitly endorses the "rhythm method" and abstinence as forms of birth control, rendering your conclusion unsound.

Here's a better summary:
1 - Catholicism says sex is for purposes of procreation only.
2 - Chemical and physical barriers between the male and female gametes prevent procreation.
3 - Chemical and physical barriers to implantation/normal development of a blastocyst prevent procreation.
4 - Sex without use of these chemical or physical barriers does not prevent procreation.
5 - Abstinence is not sex. (well duh)
6 - There is no possibility of natural procreation without some form of sex. (Let's ignore IVF and its perceived morality, please, as it isn't "natural" procreation)
-----------------
C - Abstinence is not against the Catholic belief system, while condoms, the pill, IUDs, the "morning-after" pill, etc. etc. etc. are.

Of course, this does leave the question of why the rhythm method and coitus interruptus aren't considered against the Catholic belief system, as they allow sex and prevent procreation (though much less successfully) but nobody's saying religion is perfectly logical.
At least, I hope not.

Anyway, I'd agree with you that the initial comment didn't bring much to the table as far as the actual question goes, but I think it might just be possible he's being sarcastic, considering the tone it was presented in. If not, he's being rather presumptuous, but let's not make false assertions about his religion, okay? ;-)

Edit: Also, this

It should be both. You'll end up with 2 condoms, but then you get to have sex twice! I mean, wouldn't want the condoms to go to waste, would we?

is hilarious, and true.

Huh...

I kinda remember making this a thread about condoms and protection during intercourse...must've dosed off or something as its apparently warped into a religious debate.