Such desires are in conflict with human flourishing, and specifically the inherent aim and fulfillment of sexual eros, which is the procreation and raising of children in unity with the beloved. A couple in love truly want their relationship to be creative, and there is no greater creation than a person.
Every marital act is supposed to be directed towards reproduction. When I said, “simply from the biological perspective”, I wasn’t discounting anything the Church teaches, but rather suggesting that, in addition to the biological perspective, I could add to the discussion on other grounds.
You remind me of the “Motion Picture Association of America”, which issues an “X” rated label for those movies which contain “sex AND violence”. As if there would be any connection between “sex AND violence”. If there is any activity which is the furthest away from violence, it is sex. To have sex is as “non-violent” as it can be. You should never place an “equal-sign” between them.
There are no species like that… because they do not even have the knowledge to connect sex with procreation. But they certainly do not have sex in order to procreate. They want to do it because it “feels good”. And if there is something that “feels good” and does not hurt others, then you are urged to participate in that activity whenever you have the opportunity.
With all due respect, I don’t think this is a solid argument for the pro-life position. There are plenty of pro-choicers who say they would support their mother’s right to terminate, they would not have known the difference. And being glad you are here does not automatically mean abortion is wrong.
I never said sex and violence were the same. If you’re going to make a proposition (we should learn from the animals), then you shouldn’t be upset when that proposition is carried to its logical conclusion.
Can you prove that they can’t make a connection between sex and the arrival of offspring? And are you so certain that, if they did know (assuming that they don’t), that they would seek out abortions or contraception? Or, in your words, “separating pleasure from conception.”
Not always due to the use of contraceptives. Nevertheless, if one does become pregnant, they may not have consented to pregnancy, or even sex for that matter, but they now have a child growing in their womb and they can’t just murder that child.
Obviously everyone hopes for the best and there is no way of knowing, nobody wishes for those things, but when a child exists, they exist, ‘consent’ is an invalid argument since there are two human lives involved.
Consent to anything can be reversible (e.g. I didn’t know about X at the time) or halted at any time for any reason.
Not sure I understand the question?
Does a woman have the right to leave her new born in the bottom of a storm drain without any intention of them starving to death?
The child in the mothers womb has a heartbeat, and brain activity.
Can I kill someone to advance a career, passion or other dream(s)?
There is a legal term for this sort of situation, can’t remember what it is though, it’s no different to a similar situation between other people, the problem with people like the guy asking these questions, is that they do not see that the child in the mothers womb is a human life, once that is established, the rest will follow suit, if this is not established, there is no point answering any of these hypotheticals because they are based on a faulty premise.
II am pro life, but I believe there are numerous species of animals that will harm, kill or eat their offspring upon birth, while others, either the male or female will kill, harm or eat the other sex partner, so its not that black and white. There must be some reason God created them this way and to do these things to their babies out of instinct.
The whole point of sex is babies.
You insinuated it.
A few thousand years ago people could not. Then, when they figured it out, they started to use elementary contraception. It was not the French who invented the “soixante neuf” method, they only gave it this beautiful, poetic name. By the way, many animals practice masturbation, and even homosexual acts.
I support the right to have abortion, which is not the same. I would support the development of contraceptive methods, so the need for abortion would never materialize. As soon as you (generic you, including the church) will come out and start marches for better, more effective contraceptive methods, and include the endorsement of them in your sermons, I will be happy to join your march against abortions. The ball is in your court.
Which I mentioned. And as I said, I doubt they do it because they want to separate the pleasure of sex from the “consequences” of having offspring.
I did not “insinuate” it. I took your argument to its logical conclusion. To prove so, here’s another example: one of my cats nudges the other away from the food bowl so he can eat first. Is this a behavior I should imitate? Push someone away from the table until I have eaten?You insinuated it.
A few thousand years ago people could not. Then, when they figured it out, they started to use elementary contraception. It was not the French who invented the “soixante neuf” method, they only gave it this beautiful, poetic name. By the way, many animals practice masturbation, and even homosexual acts.
I support the right to have abortion, which is not the same. I would support the development of contraceptive methods, so the need for abortion would never materialize. As soon as you (generic you, including the church) will come out and start marches for better, more effective contraceptive methods, and include the endorsement of them in your sermons, I will be happy to join your march against abortions. The ball is in your court.
So you don’t accept the teaching of Jesus because you can conceive of exceptions.
There is nothing logical in comparing sex to violence.
No. The fetus is human tissue, up until the brain’s electrochemical activity starts. I don’t support abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. But to use a morning-after pill or preventing the embedding into the uterus wall is perfectly fine. There is no human “being” without a functioning brain.
Who would “of thunk it”? The most effective way to avoid traffic accidents is - get rid of the cars and other vehicles. If you don’t want an accident, just walk to your destination.
And it looks like you are all for making sure there never is a “functioning brain.”
Let me remind you of what you said. You said that we need to “learn from the animals”. I asked, “Should we do so in all circumstances?” I provided some examples of why we shouldn’t “learn from the animals” and asked you to draw the line. Everything I have said is perfectly logical.