'Catholic' Response

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro-Life_Teen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Hello Victoria:nope: Are you on the site again?:mad: If you are posting where I think you are let me know and I will go over ther and get Rayne,Felicity,and Jlw:nope:
Click to expand...
Hey do any of you guys have trouble geting to the other forum board. More than half the time the page takes an enternity to load up and then it says something about script time error or something. Is it just me?
 
40.png
rayne89:
Hey do any of you guys have trouble geting to the other forum board. More than half the time the page takes an enternity to load up and then it says something about script time error or something. Is it just me?
Click to expand...
No, it’s me too. I think it has something to do with the site or memory. Not certain. shrugs
 
40.png
rayne89:
Hey do any of you guys have trouble geting to the other forum board. More than half the time the page takes an enternity to load up and then it says something about script time error or something. Is it just me?
Click to expand...
Yes I have trouble with it too sometimes.Also, although they claim to have moderators for some reason I think they are on an extended vacation:nope:
 
Steve Andersen:
I have a 46 inch chest…the shoulders and arms (and elbows) stick out much further

A space 48 inches on a side isn’t going to cut it 😉
Click to expand...
You can stand next to my three youngest. Then you could have plenty of space! At least for a few years yet…
 
40.png
rayne89:
Hey do any of you guys have trouble geting to the other forum board.QUOTE]RAyne–(me too…) And BTW Super post on the Neither Abortion nor Contraception thread. You do a great job charitably pointing out QM’s inconsistancies! 👍 I tend to get a little caustic at times…:nope:
Click to expand...
 
What I heard once at a talk given by Janet Smith (btw, good stuff) is that you can fit the worlds population in the state of Texas with room to spare. I went home, did the math on it and it turns out that you can.

If that day ever does come then I suggest standing up-wind. 😉
 
Steve Andersen:
I have a 46 inch chest…the shoulders and arms (and elbows) stick out much further
Click to expand...
Ahhhh – that’s 46 inches in CIRCUMFERENCE, not diameter!

Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t 46 inches WIDE.
 
vern humphrey:
Ahhhh – that’s 46 inches in CIRCUMFERENCE, not diameter!

Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t 46 inches WIDE.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know…but I’m a little more spherical than Arnold 😉

I figure that if you add in the arms and shoulders I’m easily 60-65 inches around more if you include teh elbows. That is a diameters of over 20 so I’ pushing the 2x2 foot limit.

(and it ain’t all fat, I’m broad shouldered. I remind myself of Atlas…albeit a dissipated, over 40, Atlas who enjoys his beer… but you get the picture…the kind of guy you don’t want to sit next to on a long plane ride)

Actually in her original post she didn’t mention “elbow room” at all just that we all would fit in X space and that we wouldn’t starve implying that the 2 were linked
 
Steve Andersen:
Yeah I know…but I’m a little more spherical than Arnold 😉

I figure that if you add in the arms and shoulders I’m easily 60-65 inches around more if you include teh elbows. That is a diameters of over 20 so I’ pushing the 2x2 foot limit.

(and it ain’t all fat, I’m broad shouldered. I remind myself of Atlas…albeit a dissipated, over 40, Atlas who enjoys his beer… but you get the picture…the kind of guy you don’t want to sit next to on a long plane ride)

Actually in her original post she didn’t mention “elbow room” at all just that we all would fit in X space and that we wouldn’t starve implying that the 2 were linked
Click to expand...
When considering how much space people will “fit in” we have to take into account construction. For example, a family of 5 in a 2500 square foot house would have 500 square feet of living space apiece on a 2500 square foot footprint.

Put that same family in a Manhatten high-rise, with the same amount of living space, and we get a proportional foot print of 50 square feet or less. So if we were to built to the same density and height as major cities, we could fit the population of the earth into Texas easily.

As for not starving, we produce far more food than we can consume.
 
as a land improvments designer I’ve long argued that density is good in that it preserves open space
 
rayne89 said:
*On 5/11/2005 6:17:43 AM, Y Deny? wrote: *

"To insist on abstaining from BOTH abortion and contraceptives is IDIOTIC! If 100% of the world population REALKLY obeyed both of those CATHOILIC laws, we’d be long extinct from over-population, disease and strarvation.

The Pope is a MORON, and it doesn’t matter where he gets his stupid ideas. To cling to such teachings is AGAINST common sense and helps no one. A family with 8 or 10 children is NOT the way to go in the 21st century. To PREVENT unwanted pregancies is SESIBLE and applaudable. Contraceptives PREVENT more abortions than anything else. Why bite the hand that helps you? The Pope needs to go to hell, and FAST! He doesn’t do the world a damn bit of good with his homo-phobic, dress-wearing, (supposedly) non-screwing bullcrap! A hypocrite will NEVER be able to tell the undeniable truth. That’s why all Popes are lying sons of you know whats!"

To which I responded:

First of all the pope is not a moran, he’s an educated and highly intelligent man. He was a professer both at the university of Bonn and then later at the university of Munster. Why don’t you stick to the discussion at hand instead of flinging insults about a doctrine you do not understand.

I do not use contraception nor have I ever had an abortion. I have one child and I have been married 14 years. I have no problems with fertility infact I got pregnant on the first try. I am intimate with my husband considerably more than any of my contracepting friends.

So what gives? I use natural family planning (NFP). The reason for me using NFP in limiting my family size is because I have a very serious health problem, and another pregnancy would be life threatening. It has a 99% acurracy rate. I do not have any chemicals running through my body. I have not had to have unnecessary surgical procedures. I do not have a peice of latax between myself and my husband.

The pope does speak the truth. But there are many who refuse to hear it. Those who use NFP have a less than 3% divorce rate. Those who contracept have a 50% divorce rate. The pope teaches what is good for strong happy marriages, and what he teaches is the truth.

I would guess up until coming to this forum you’d never heard the word NFP, and I would also guess you don’t have a clue how it works. Catholics are not expected to just pop out children with out any thought or consideration for how they will provide for their care. NFP is there for those that have serious reasons for limiting family size. It works and it brings couples closer together.

So you would ask what about those outside of marriage? Am I nieve enough to believe they’ll all just abstain until marriage? No, I do not believe that will happen. But we are talking about truth here right? The pope is required to teach the truth, the truth that will bring the most happiness, the fulfillment - to teach what God know’s will bring us the greatest satisfaction in life. Those who have sex before marriage have a considerably higher rate of divorce than those that wait. Those that that live with someone before marriage have a much higher rate of divorce. And that is the truth.

Whether it’s unpopular or not politically correct, does not change what the ultimate truth is. The truth that comes from God, the truth that does not change and that the pope has not authority over. Maybe God isn’t particularily important in your life, but the pope is Christain and he will teach the laws of christianity. Not of atheists or agnostics. He’s not a politician he’s the Vicar of Christ.
Click to expand...

well apparently you’re not supposed to use NFP unless there are ‘grave reasons’ for avoiding pregnancy. Not wanting many children is not good enough. Even if you already have 5. Since what are defined as grave reasons don’t exist with the majority of couples, it means that most couples AREN’T allowed to use NFP and will thus by default have 6-10 children over their married lives if they follow catholic teaching to the letter.

So if all the couples in the world followed church teaching on this then MOST would be having 6-10 children each.
 
…hence the catholic church has absolutely no solution for population growth, even if there was an undeniable overpopulation problem in 150 years time, catholic church teaching would not allow couples to limit there family size by using NFP. So the idea that such teaching allows people to responsibly have chidren is rubbish, since not even total lack money to support more children is a good enough reason. By this reasoning every healthy couple must have child after child after child with no thought put to how to supprt them, or what the cumulative effects of everyone doing this might be… that is the effect of it because the only resonable grounds for using NFP are life threatening complications at birth.
 
40.png
cynic:
…hence the catholic church has absolutely no solution for population growth, even if there was an undeniable overpopulation problem in 150 years time, catholic church teaching would not allow couples to limit there family size by using NFP. So the idea that such teaching allows people to responsibly have chidren is rubbish, since not even total lack money to support more children is a good enough reason. By this reasoning every healthy couple must have child after child after child with no thought put to how to supprt them, or what the cumulative effects of everyone doing this might be… that is the effect of it because the only resonable grounds for using NFP are life threatening complications at birth.
Click to expand...
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decisions to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth…
  • Humanae Vitae*
No where does the church promote having children with no means to support them - that is rubbish. Grave reasons include economic ones.
 
rayne89 said:
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decisions to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth…
Humanae Vitae

No where does the church promote having children with no means to support them - that is rubbish. Grave reasons include economic ones.
Click to expand...

but are economic reasons really considered grave enough for a couple to avoid pregnancy? some might say to trust in God to provide… and certainly avoiding poplulation growth would never qualify, no matter what the circumstances. So a reasonable discussion on population growth beomes impossible
 
40.png
cynic:
but are economic reasons really considered grave enough for a couple to avoid pregnancy? some might say to trust in God to provide… and certainly avoiding poplulation growth would never qualify, no matter what the circumstances. So a reasonable discussion on population growth beomes impossible
Click to expand...
Some might say to trust in God to provide but the church doesn’t teach irresponsible parenting. I am referring to church teaching not personal opinion.

Yes economic reasons are really considered grave enough for a couple to avoid pregnancy - according to official church teaching.

What issues are you having with population growth?
 
Promiscuity is a bad deal. Sex is not like food or water. You can live without it. You most certainly don’t need to have it here and now, anyway. You can wait for the infertile day. Protection from communicable disease is not necessary when you aren’t promiscuous. Being promiscuous is not compatible with Catholicism and I don’t mean just sex by this.

I know a very happy married couple. Little older than I, if at all. Probably not younger, anyway. They have been each other’s first for everything, starting from holding hands. Nowadays, even church-going Catholics tend to think it’s all right to have many dates and kiss and embrace lots of people so long as no sex follows.

Don’t just stick to telling them about contraception and abortion being bad. Tell them the whole thing, how it is supposed to look.
 
40.png
chevalier:
Promiscuity is a bad deal. …
Don’t just stick to telling them about contraception and abortion being bad. Tell them the whole thing, how it is supposed to look.
Click to expand...
We are…and that really makes it hit the fan… Telling them contraception leads to promescuity and irresponsibility leads to more disease and more abortion really ticks them off. We’re a bunch of Catholic prudes now, who won’t put our money where our mouths are and adopt an “unadoptable” child.
 
Better prudes than untouchables… and that’s pretty much what you get when you get an STD. The best way to avoid STD and unwanted pregnancy is to be a virgin and marry a virgin when you’re both ready to have children.
 
40.png
cynic:
…hence the catholic church has absolutely no solution for population growth, even if there was an undeniable overpopulation problem in 150 years time, catholic church teaching would not allow couples to limit there family size by using NFP. So the idea that such teaching allows people to responsibly have chidren is rubbish, since not even total lack money to support more children is a good enough reason. By this reasoning every healthy couple must have child after child after child with no thought put to how to supprt them, or what the cumulative effects of everyone doing this might be… that is the effect of it because the only resonable grounds for using NFP are life threatening complications at birth.
Click to expand...
If you are so sure of this overpopulation, then thats going to lead to a grave economic circumstance. So use a licit rather than an illicit way of limiting children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top