Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erwin85Bot (talk | contribs) at 01:04, 23 October 2009 (New section: →[] nomination of []: Bot notification of AfD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Subpages

• My sandbox
• Overpopulation
• Archives:
  • November 2005 - November 2006
  • December 2006 - September 2007
  • October 2007 - October 2008

Taegyo

Hey, long time no see. I'm not sure how busy you are or how full your plate is. I've been quite busy off wikipedia, which is why I'm coming to you now. Do you think you could take a look at taegyo and perhaps clean it up? From a brief read through, it looks like the last sections particularly are full of RS, OR, and neutrality issues. I know you are familiar, to an extent, with this sort of subject matter, and I trust your judgment and experience here on wikipedia. If you don't have time to work on an article clean up, or you find nothing problematic, sorry for bugging you :) Hope you are well.-Andrew c  23:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of birth control methods

CCL may not be neutral, but the studies cited on the page are. The problem here is that "Contraceptive Technology" is very biased against natural birth control in favor of physical methods (devices, hormone treatments, etc...). Either way, we're dealing with a biased source. I just wanted to update the article with current information and statistics in an effort to improve the table for the greater good of Misplaced Pages and the readers thereof. I will not revert your edit, as I am not interested in an edit war here, but please consider reinstating the information that I took time to research to be included. Note that I am not affiliated with CCL, but in my research have found them to be a reputable source of information on natural forms of birth control. Thank You BsayUSD π 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful cervix link

Hi Lyrl... Thanks for letting me know about posting your image. I posted the new image, with a link to wikipedia on my beautiful cervix site. If you could help me get this posted to the cervix definition on wikipedia, that'd be great-- i am new to this whole editing thing and all the code and Bots are quite confusing, although i think my site is quite educational. Thanks, BeautifulCervix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautifulcervix (talk • contribs) 02:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lyrl, Thanks for being a cervix-information advocate! I changed my page to just say a link to wikimedia, excluding your and chris' names. Seems like the link has been re-posted, denied, discussed, etc...I just commented a little on the talk page about it--we'll see where it goes. I'm hoping for the sake of empowering people to learn about their bodies, folks will let it post again....thanks Beautifulcervix (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RE definition of "fertility"

Please see my response to your post on my talk page.--Mack2 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Trademark symbol inside citations

Thanks for the note. I don't really see any reason why trademark symbols should stay inside citations any more than in the article body. WP:MOSTM doesn't say anything about that either. —Chowbok ☠ 06:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion and abortion/contraception

I guess my main complaint about the religion and contraception/abortion article(s) is that it doesn't address specific views on new forms of contraception/abortion such as female condoms and morning-after pills or things like the discarding and freezing of bad embryos. Also, the views of the RCC are rather specific and have little to do with liberal protestant moralities. I think the best thing to do would be to eventually create an article on Dignitas Personae and Donum Vitae, which specifically address these issues, when a bit of the controversy cools down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADM (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you reverted a number of edits by the anon above regarding the new Roman Catholic Church position on various medical topics. There is a dispute underway at Talk:Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and since you were involved back on the 12th, I thought you might want to be made aware of this to voice your opinion, if you aren't busy. Thanks.-Andrew c  02:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you have been diagnosed with lymphoma. ADM (talk) (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Condom picture

I'd just like to point out that Misplaced Pages is not censored, and the image you keep removing is not particularly more graphic than the line drawing. This is a content dispute, not vandalism: make sure you don't get blocked over it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Emptied category

Please see the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 17#Category:Behavioral methods of birth control, and feel free to offer your opinion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus of Cardinals

Regarding AIDS and condoms, I would think that the current consensus among cardinals against the use of condoms in those situations actually is official Church teaching. Although Church documents do not really talk about AIDS much, if you look at the article Roman Catholic Church and AIDS, you find out that even some of the most moderate Cardinals like Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga are against the use of contraception to prevent AIDS.

Also, the fact that papal declarations have already been made on the issue actually count as Church teaching, because of the theological concept of ordinary Magisterium, by which the positions commonly articulated by the Pope and the College of Bishops immediately become Church teaching when they are publicly pronounced in a sufficiently coherent way.

This type of consensus approach is not in any sense unique to the Church and actually applies to other major organizations such as modern States and NGOs. For instance, if you want to know the positions of the U.S. Democratic Party, first you would read party literature, and then if you need more information, you would ask for the views of the party leader (Obama). If that is still not enough, you would ask all the major Democratic representatives in Congress and in the Senate. If a consensus position emerges, then it is the de facto position of the party in power.

ADM (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; My edit to the article didn't accurately convey my concept of the RCC's position. My understanding is that the teaching against contraception has such extensive and long-standing support that is has gone beyond a "current teaching" and has become immutable. Contraception, if I understand correctly, is a sin of intent: if a couple has a "contraceptive mentality" while using NFP, they commit the same sin as a couple that uses a barrier method. It's not clear if use of a condom with the intent of preventing disease is actually contraception.

Church statements that I have read against condom promotion (not use of condoms to prevent disease, but the promotion of such use) do not use a "condoms are immoral" argument. Instead, they say such programs promote promiscuity, which increases disease transmission, and so are counterproductive. That a consensus exists against condom promotion programs does not imply that a consensus exists that an individual's use of condoms as a disease preventative is a sin.

Even if such a consensus on inherent immorality of condoms (regardless of the intentions of their users) exists, it is relatively new and has greater dissent among theologians than the teaching on contraception. I don't believe this teaching is yet on the level where it should be considered immutable.

Does that make sense? If my understanding is correct, I'd like to find a way to convey that in the sexual ethics article. If I'm all off base, I apologize. Either way, thank you for taking the time to explain things to me. Lyrl _C 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to contraception is not a theological dogma, like say the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, but it is one of the Ten Commandments : thou shalt not commit adultery. That's pretty high up on the values scale. To make an analogy, by using the interpretative system of supersessionism, it is almost as if Moses was a previous Pope of the Catholic Church and that his morally infallible commandments were an essential part of the magisterium of the early Church, the Church of ancient Israel. If the Church were to abandon those commandments, not just adultery but any of them, including stealing or murder, it would be a major attack on her historical and spiritual foundations, and it is likely that the Church would actually begin to disintegrate like the Anglican communion today, which has been really hurt badly by the rejection of the anti-adultery commandment by the Episcopal Church in the United States. ADM (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We agree that a change in the RCC position on contraception would have severe consequences for the church. Did you have any thoughts, though, on the idea that the use of condoms to prevent disease is not contraception? As I said, I have not seen any definitive statements from Roman Catholic leaders on that issue. If you are aware of any, I would appreciate being pointed to them. Lyrl _C 14:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can say about that is that the expression use of condoms is almost always defined as contraception, not just by the Church, but also by scientists, health care workers and the wider society. It does not require a declaration of any kind because it is widely understood to be that way. The most authoritative and definitve statement on the issue was certainly a 1990 speech given by John Paul II in Tanzania, where he told his audience that condoms were a sin in any circumstances, even in the context of the unfolding AIDS crisis. ADM (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I do not believe that any application described in the other uses section of the condom article is widely understood to be contraception. Even in popular convention, use of a condom does not always mean contraception. Second, theological arguments for condoms as disease prevention are talking about the word contraception as it is used in Roman Catholic theology, not as it is used by wider society.

Thank you for the link to the article about Pope John Paul II's speech. I was disappointed to see it just describing the speech, though, and not giving any quotes. It's impossible to tell for sure what theological arguments he was making. Lyrl _C 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that using latex may not be the same as using condoms... but only to the extent that there is no sexual activity of any kind involved. Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae that all sexual relations need to be open to life, a teaching that is at the heart of the Church's moral theology. If engineers, doctors or merchants have some kind of non-sexual use for the contraceptive material, a usage which could be beneficial for the whole of society, I do not think the Church would really be able to intervene in those types of situations.

Originally, the Church was essentially against the practice of coitus interruptus, and that was before condoms became popular, so in a sense She thinks condoms are just a sophisticated modern form of coitus interruptus. And regarding dissident theologians and laypeople, please note that the concept of Magisterium does not include either, it only includes Popes, Cardinals and Archbishops, because theologians are essentially regarded as middle men, scholars whose first and foremost task is to explain to the laity and to the general public what the Church believes and teaches, and not just disseminate their own personal views. ADM (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For me, referring to condom use by homosexual couples, menopause women, and people who have been sterilized as "using contraception" seems illogical.

To go back to Roman Catholic opposition to contraception: if it were only the physical parts of the act that were important, hormonal contraception would be acceptable. That hormonal contraceptives are also considered immoral indicates that the theology is not based in the physical nature of the act. And yet, according to CatholicCulture.org, use of the oral contraceptive pill to treat endometriosis is not contraception. The reasoning here is based on the intention of the user.

While the Magisterium provides a framework, theologians are responsible for filling in the details. Use of condoms to prevent disease is not part of the framework. Rather, it is a detail over which theologians in good standing with the RCC may legitimately disagree. Lyrl _C 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You have probably heard of the term onanism ... a concept which has influenced Church teaching on the matter, a term that designates all non-procreative sexual activity and equates it with masturbation. Regarding infertility, much of Church teaching is apparently based on the story of Abraham's wife Sarah, whose hope was renewed after she was unexpectedly cured from infertility. And of course, Scripture is highly critical of same-sex relations and unequivocally refuses to equate them with heterosexual relations. ADM (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're not going to convince each other today. Thank you for the enjoyable debate :) Should we just agree to disagree for now? Lyrl _C 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Condom GAR

I have responded (inline) to your queries on the talk page. Your effort at incorporating the GA review suggestions into the article is appreciated. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The page is on my list, and I have gone through the second opinion. I've been quite busy in real life over the past week, and haven't gotten down to writing the full review yet - will do it by the end of this week. Thanks for informing me, anyway. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Misoprostol

Hey, long time no see. Is Misoprostol on your watchlist? What do you think of the last edits? Seems like there is some emotional language, and I'm worried about OR and NPOV. Whether Misoprostol is a bad idea of labor induction or not, I'm not sure, but we seem to be stringing together an emotional case that it is bad. It could be bad, but I don't think we have phrased it appropriately. Just wanted to see if you had time to give your two cents. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c  20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision NPOV concerns

Hello Lyrl. I saw you helping out over at Circumcision controversies and thought maybe you would give us an uninvolved editor third party comment. There are many issues and I don't want to taint you with my POV so if your up for it and want to see what's going on the talk page, another experienced voice would be appreciated (whether we agree or not :) Garycompugeek (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Contraception

Hi, not sure if you have the article on your watch list, but in case you don't, I left a comment here regarding your edits to the Comparison of birth control methods article. I have that page on my watch list so you don't need to notify me if you leave a comment there. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of birth control methods

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of birth control methods. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison of birth control methods. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)