CapnGod said:
GRoXERs said:
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.