Gingersnaps4;7539754[COLOR=“Red” said:]
I’m wondering what good a procreative form does if it is purposefully rendered empty?
Using the infertile periods CAN be morally bad. If the reason is bad. If you are avoiding conception because you want to go on vacation, or because you are afraid of stretch marks, or because you are just lazy and don’t care if God might be calling you to at least consider being open to the possibility of another child, you have a bad reason, and God will call you to account for that. Lucky for us, that is between God and each individual. Unfortunately for us, there is no clear cut-and-dried litmus test for whether our reasons are grave or valid. We must prayerfully consider our situations and consult authorities when in doubt, and pray that those authorities (priests) are open to the direction of the Holy Spirit, not just giving advice from their limited human perspective.I’m wondering what good a procreative form does if it is purposefully rendered empty? If you are doing it in a certain “form” yet hoping for it not to result in conception, to me it seems almost like miming. Probably a bad analogy but it’s off the top of my head. Either way an empty form, or pose if you will, doesn’t seem like a distinguishing factor for morality.
I’m not sure I expressed myself clearly. I feel that the “miming” takes place during all of the fun sex you have when you know you are infertile. Intent and morally guided reasons for avoiding conception, I feel can be the same with both NFP and abc users.Ahh, see? This is the next logical question that comes up.
This is where INTENT plays a role.
Are the REASONS that the couple is abstaining worth abstaining for?
Are they serious, well-founded, morally-guided reasons?
If not, then this is selfish. If they are, then it’s no issue.
Exactly. It’s no different than NFP. God isn’t fooled by a form either way, He knows our intent.Isn’t that what ABC does though? It renders the act empty.
You’re absolutely right. The intentions may be virtuous in either case. But in the case of ABC the act is rendered sterile… which we’ve already discussed is wrong.I’m not sure I expressed myself clearly. I feel that the “miming” takes place during all of the fun sex you have when you know you are infertile. Intent and morally guided reasons for avoiding conception, I feel can be the same with both NFP and abc users.
Also look at the word procreate. We procreate, God is the one to create.And on that same note… if a couple knows they are infertile - is that a mockery?
No, clearly not. They are still having procreative and unitive sex as well.
pro·cre·at·edpro·cre·at·ing
Definition of PROCREATE
transitive verb
: to beget or bring forth (offspring) : propagate
intransitive verb
: to beget or bring forth offspring : reproduce
Notice it doesn’t say anything about *potential *or intention. Procreation equals conception, not the thoughts that are put into said conception. I mean, look at the synonyms. They all mean that instant in which an egg is fertilized, not the sexual act itself. Therefore, not every sexual act is a procreative one.Synonyms: breed, multiply, propagate, reproduce
You haven’t looked up the ADJECTIVE form of the word… procreatIVE.I’m glad the discussion has turned to defining procreation, because this is a big beef I have with the Church. Type “procreation definition” into Google and there are completely different definitions than the one the Church gives. Good ole Webster says:
Notice it doesn’t say anything about *potential *or intention. Procreation equals conception, not the thoughts that are put into said conception. I mean, look at the synonyms. They all mean that instant in which an egg is fertilized, not the sexual act itself. Therefore, not every sexual act is a procreative one.
The church made up its own definition to suit its needs. Can someone site a secular source that agrees with the church’s definition?
Ok, I didYou haven’t looked up the ADJECTIVE form of the word… procreatIVE.
Defies your argument that infertile couples participate in procreative sex. They are incapable of reproducing.pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.
- Capable of reproducing; generative.
- Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.
No…Exactly. It’s no different than NFP. God isn’t fooled by a form either way, He knows our intent.
With NFP you observe, not render.ren·der1 /ˈrɛndər/ Show Spelled
[ren-der] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
- to cause to be or become; make: to render someone helpless. 2. to do; perform: to render a service.
- to furnish; provide: to render aid.
- to exhibit or show (obedience, attention, etc.).
- to present for consideration, approval, payment, action, etc., as an account.
- to return; to make (a payment in money, kind, or service) as by a tenant to a superior: knights rendering military service to the .
Again… it’s an adjective on the word sex.Ok, I did
Defies your argument that infertile couples participate in procreative sex. They are incapable of reproducing.
I stand by my argument that the Church made up its own definition.
Procreative refers to the act, not the people committing the act. An act hindered by chemicals or barriers is not procreative. AN act, even commited by people who are physically unlikely to conceive but are doing nothing artificial to negate that possibility are still engaging in a procreative act.Ok, I did
Defies your argument that infertile couples participate in procreative sex. They are incapable of reproducing.
I stand by my argument that the Church made up its own definition.
This was ok until the “big difference” (bolded part).Using the infertile periods CAN be morally bad. If the reason is bad. If you are avoiding conception because you want to go on vacation, or because you are afraid of stretch marks, or because you are just lazy and don’t care if God might be calling you to at least consider being open to the possibility of another child, you have a bad reason, and God will call you to account for that. Lucky for us, that is between God and each individual. Unfortunately for us, there is no clear cut-and-dried litmus test for whether our reasons are grave or valid. We must prayerfully consider our situations and consult authorities when in doubt, and pray that those authorities (priests) are open to the direction of the Holy Spirit, not just giving advice from their limited human perspective.
The big difference is the intent to accept that pregnancy that may occur in an act that is open to life. Those who contracept are unwilling to accept it. Those who practice NFP are allowing it, and will embrace it. Whether or not they hope for it or like it is another matter.
How can someone using ABC be open to pregnancy? The whole POINT is to avoid it. If a couple is using ABC and open to pregnancy, they are sabotaging themselves. Or very confused.This was ok until the “big difference” (bolded part).
That is a huge judgment and assumption, saying that someone on abc isn’t open to life and isn’t willing to accept a life that occurs. A case could be made that a person is more open to life if they don’t avoid their fertile time like the plague. I’m of the opinion that if a person isn’t open to life and won’t accept a pregnancy, then they have no business having sex. Period. I’m sure many people who don’t think abc is immoral feel that way.
Whoa, whoa… I’m sorry if the English language is difficult to understand… but this isn’t rocket science.I stepped out for a bit.
I think Plinko stepped in nicely.
The definition being give for procreative by the Church is contrived.
Procreative is an adjective. It describes the act. It means “done in a way that could, if fertility is present, achieve conception.”
In layman’s terms… the husband must finish inside his wife, without any barriers, chemicals, and without pulling out. Nothing must be done to the act to cause it to be sterile. The fertility of the woman or the man is not part of this descriptive term of how sex is done.
This is NOT the definition of procreative. This is the Churches. You put, right in the middle, “if fertility is present”. Really?
This definition does not exist outside the Church. Again, remember how I was talking about playing definition gymnastics? Here is example number 5.
Fine. My church does not include this narrow definition, and defines it as every other dictionary does, meaning NFP violates the spirit of procreative and unitive.
If you asked someone on the street the following:
I only have sex with my wife when she has a 0% chance of conceiving. Is this procreative?
I think, 9 out of 10 times, the answer is no.
I am not saying you can not believe this contrived definition. Its your church. What I can say is that it makes no sense without already subscribing to an altered view of simple concepts.
And, again, we are back to a point being made by you that requires religious dogma to trump common logic. ie, my church defines it differently, now YOU are wrong. All due to wordsmithing.
Will anyone admit that NFP is not procreative using the definition used by the rest of the world?
I would like to argue that playing symantics is not productive here. The issue is moral behavior.I stepped out for a bit.
I think Plinko stepped in nicely.
The definition being give for procreative by the Church is contrived.
Procreative is an adjective. It describes the act. It means “done in a way that could, if fertility is present, achieve conception.”
In layman’s terms… the husband must finish inside his wife, without any barriers, chemicals, and without pulling out. Nothing must be done to the act to cause it to be sterile. The fertility of the woman or the man is not part of this descriptive term of how sex is done.
This is NOT the definition of procreative. This is the Churches. You put, right in the middle, “if fertility is present”. Really?
This definition does not exist outside the Church. Again, remember how I was talking about playing definition gymnastics? Here is example number 5.
Fine. My church does not include this narrow definition, and defines it as every other dictionary does, meaning NFP violates the spirit of procreative and unitive.
If you asked someone on the street the following:
I only have sex with my wife when she has a 0% chance of conceiving. Is this procreative?
I think, 9 out of 10 times, the answer is no.
I am not saying you can not believe this contrived definition. Its your church. What I can say is that it makes no sense without already subscribing to an altered view of simple concepts.
And, again, we are back to a point being made by you that requires religious dogma to trump common logic. ie, my church defines it differently, now YOU are wrong. All due to wordsmithing.
Will anyone admit that NFP is not procreative using the definition used by the rest of the world?