A
Abrosz
Guest
Let’s discuss it in a thread of its own. Here it would be just another derailment.
- Status
A
Anesti33
Guest
A discussion of “love” in a thread where you wish to promote contraception and abortion would indeed be troublesome.Anesti33:
Let’s discuss it in a thread of its own. Here it would be just another derailment.
K
kapp19
Guest
This is the problem. Every other item here is a distraction from this.
If you think we are “really smart apes,” then I don’t see a problem in your argument. But we’re not “really smart apes.” Until you see that, there’s really no point in arguing about this - or about “ethics” at all. After all, if all we have are instincts, and what we want is what we want, and if we can get it then why not get it at whatever cost?
This is why Aristotle and Thomas both start their discussions of ethics with an investigation into happiness. And it is why of the 10,000 threads on this forum (and the millions upon millions on other forums) whenever someone wildly apart from Catholic ethics (or even normal virtue-ethics) makes these kinds of arguments they will almost always not grasp the point if they don’t start with an inquiry into “happiness”… They want to know why x is bad, without ever agreeing on what the point of “ought” is at all.
I’d suggest a deep study of the first few Questions of the Prima Secundae in the Summa Theologica, on man’s last end… It is an eye-opener.
-K
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
You asked for practical solutions. I gave you the most practical solution.goout:
Your concept of virtue is not universal. Love would be a much higher virtue.
And you deflect.
Did you deflect because you don’t want to discuss virtue? Or is it inconvenient to your narrative…
Do you know what the virtue of chastity is…?
Last edited:
V
vsedriver
Guest
this is correct. But you can’t separate these three aspects. All 3 must be present for the sexual act to not be sinful.
It doesn’t matter how many people are doing what. What matters is knowing what is and what isn’t sinful behavior.
It is obvious that contraception has not led to happier marriages and families. And it is no coincidence that legalized abortion quickly followed social acceptance of a contraceptive mentality.
there are only two forms of successful contraception: abstinence and sterilization
G
goout
Guest
(I just want to head off the inevitable confusion by noting that abstinence is not contraception.)Abrosz:
this is correct. But you can’t separate these three aspects. All 3 must be present for the sexual act to not be sinful.
It doesn’t matter how many people are doing what. What matters is knowing what is and what isn’t sinful behavior.
It is obvious that contraception has not led to happier marriages and families. And it is no coincidence that legalized abortion quickly followed social acceptance of a contraceptive mentality.
there are only two forms of successful contraception: abstinence and sterilization
A
Anesti33
Guest
Any priest who hears you speak of “risk” will be inclined to withhold this “wonderful sacrament” from you until such time as you manifest the intention to accept children lovingly into your relationship.
F
fredystairs
Guest
Sterilization is not 100% effective at prevention. Of pregnancy. I used to have a newspaper article where the man had a tubal ligation and she got pregnant. After that pregnancy, the husband had a vasectomy and they got pregnant again!!
The only 100% methods of contraception are the removal of both ovaries in the woman or testicles in the man.
Pax
1
1ke
Guest
Actually, it isn’t correct. Unity and procreation are the twofold purposes of the conjugal act. Pleasure is a byproduct, not a purpose.
And of course, unity and procreation cannot be disconnected from one another. This is why each conjugal act must be per se ordered to both unity and procreation.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
A permanent intention against children is indeed an impediment to valid marriage. But that isn’t what we are talking about here. These are two different things.
It is entirely possible to have properly ordered intercourse that does not result in conception. And a couple may need to do that for an indefinite period.
A true permanent intention against children is indeed an impediment to valid marriage.
V
vsedriver
Guest
if a couple wants to marry in the Catholic Church they must be open to life. If either expresses the intention to never have children then they can’t get married in the Catholic Church.
All Catholic marriages must be open to life.
1
1ke
Guest
That is correct.
G
goout
Guest
The purpose of NFP is not to avoid having children, it’s to plan a family.
Married couples don’t become robots. Human beings are “left in the power of our own counsel…”
Married couples don’t become robots. Human beings are “left in the power of our own counsel…”
A
Anesti33
Guest
It depends on what you mean by “successful NFP”. Many couples use NFP to achieve pregnancy by optimizing their sexual activity for the woman’s most fertile times.
If you always practice NFP to avoid conception (and let’s assume you’re not just 100% abstaining from sex) then that could be a factor in a future nullity case. But since marriages enjoy the favor of the law, the marriage would not be presumed null until after a divorce and a tribunal case is brought by the parties.
Anecdotal evidence (and personal experience) shows that couples who do not intend to have children frequently have “oops, whatever” moments that result in conception of children.
If you always practice NFP to avoid conception (and let’s assume you’re not just 100% abstaining from sex) then that could be a factor in a future nullity case. But since marriages enjoy the favor of the law, the marriage would not be presumed null until after a divorce and a tribunal case is brought by the parties.
Anecdotal evidence (and personal experience) shows that couples who do not intend to have children frequently have “oops, whatever” moments that result in conception of children.
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
Can a vasectomy be used to achieve pregnancy with better results than random chance?
G
goout
Guest
So you’re saying that people who practice NFP never have children!!
do tell
W
whatistrue
Guest
No, it isn’t.
G
goout
Guest
Can you make the simple distinction between a vasectomy and natural family planning?
If you can’t, is there really much point in going on?
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Vasectomies are not a moral procedure to undergo. Your statements are not in accordance with the teaching of the Church.
A
Abrosz
Guest
Personally it would be a practical solution. But how can you convince others to follow it? The aim is still to minimize / eliminate abortions. Use that as a “filter” in your replies.
As for “virtue”, your concept of virtue is not universal. And there are many meta-ethical systems. A few are: divine command, deontological, virtue ethics, consequentialist, utilitarian… and a truckload more.
The concept of sin is meaningless for non-believers.
If that is what you wish to practice, it will be your business. I will not try to convince otherwise.
- Status