So poor people should not have sex (even with contraception) just in case the woman becomes pregnant?

The original author doesn't have some sort of copyright on the way we run our benefit system now.
For me, there is no dilemma, the kids come first.

Every sperm is sacred, check it out on a popular video sharing website

So in that case the only viable choice is not to have sex at all unless you want a kid because there is always a risk of contraception failing? Do you really think that?

My brother-in-law had the "snip". It failed and they now have a young child and the child's elder sister is about 30 years his senior!

They clearly didn't want any more kids, did something about it but it failed. Are you saying as he didn't want any more kids he and his wife should have abstained from sex for the rest of their lives?

In addition he is currently off work due a a medical problem stemming from an operation on his ear that went wrong leaving him with a kind of permanent vertigo. He may never work again. His wife is a cleaner in the local hospital. So they aren't well off (he is/was a repair man for Candy (formally Hoover)).

What do you have to say about their position now compared to when they had the unexpected arrival when he was still working?

Or you could buy the original film and celebrate British comedy at it's best.

Life of Brian is superior IMO.

Have the box set, life of Brian is far the best the stoning scene has me in tears every time

Where did I say anything remotely like that? Nowhere, that's right. What I did say though is that having children is a choice and whenever we have sex we risk ending up with a child. How people manage that risk is entirely their own business but making the claim that children just happen, like this mysterious exchange of sperm and egg occurs all by itself, is just plain daft. People can make poor choices or the risk they choose to take can backfire but the whole process still begins with a decision to go for it.

That particular 'pronouncement' didn't come hand in glove with that notion at all. The church didn't exist at the time that particular 'pronouncement' was made. In fact, Jesus was responding to questions from a very rich man who was struggling with the idea of sacrificing his wealth for the poor.


I know it is wealthy but I have no idea whether it is the wealthiest organisation on the planet.

There is no point in being skint mind you if you want to help the poor and needy! Can't really help the poor and needy if you're poor and needy yourself, can you? At least not in a financial sense anyway. That isn't a defence of the roman catholic church by the way but rather simply a truism.


Ok.


The amount of money was never the point. It was where the man placed his riches in his priorities. In other words, just how selfish was he? We're all selfish but when we have a lot it surely must be more tempting to keep hold of it rather than give it away or use it constructively to help others?

There is a constrasting story in the Bible about the 'widow's mite': that is, how often poor people who have very little will give a lot of what they have.

How did we get onto the usual arguement from the topic of revolution?