Infertile Couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero_One
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HoppityRedux said:
If it was planned, then the planner did not design 60-year-olds to reproduce.
Click to expand...
Actually it was design to be grandparents. As a younger woman has her children, her own mother can focus on helping her raise the family. Women were designed to have children and live long enough also be there for grandchildren. Just because my ovaries naturally mature, doesn’t make me less of a sexual being. Menopause makes me no less of a woman.
 
renee1258 said:
Actually it was design to be grandparents. As a younger woman has her children, her own mother can focus on helping her raise the family. Women were designed to have children and live long enough also be there for grandchildren. Just because my ovaries naturally mature, doesn’t make me less of a sexual being. Menopause makes me no less of a woman.
Click to expand...
OK. But menopause does make women incapable of reproducing.
 
Even though cycles cease, her ovaries are still intact and the possibility even though remote of releasing a egg is there. You are never technically infertile unless something is completely missing. Even voluntary sterilization has failure rates, unless there is complete removal.
 
renee1258 said:
Even though cycles cease, her ovaries are still intact and the possibility even though remote of releasing a egg is there. You are never technically infertile unless something is completely missing. Even voluntary sterilization has failure rates, unless there is complete removal.
Click to expand...
OK. For my argument, then, I will revert to the example of complete hysterectomy.
 
renee1258 said:
Even though cycles cease, her ovaries are still intact and the possibility even though remote of releasing a egg is there. You are never technically infertile unless something is completely missing. Even voluntary sterilization has failure rates, unless there is complete removal.
Click to expand...
Has that been tested with 60-year-old women?
 
HoppityRedux said:
An infertile couple that conceives is a contradiction. The couple is not infertile.
Click to expand...
A couple can definitely be considered “infertile” UNTIL they conceive. There is no contradiction. My point was that many couples are called 'infertile" due to an inability to conceive for a period of time; that can CHANGE due to a number of factors. I think you may be talking about sterility vs. infertility. There is always a chance for an infertile couple to conceive…not so with a sterile couple. Homosexual relations never have the possibility to produce a baby.
 
Giannawannabe said:
A couple can definitely be considered “infertile” UNTIL they conceive. There is no contradiction. My point was that many couples are called 'infertile" due to an inability to conceive for a period of time; that can CHANGE due to a number of factors. I think you may be talking about sterility vs. infertility. There is always a chance for an infertile couple to conceive…not so with a sterile couple. Homosexual relations never have the possibility to produce a baby.
Click to expand...
We may call a fertile couple infertile, but pregnancy trumps whatever labels we attach.
 
HoppityRedux said:
Not at age 60.
Click to expand...
Men at age 60 can;) …also, my point was that, yes, all women were designed to produce babies…other factors such as age, illness, etc. may eliminate/reduce the possibility of it happening, but the design is still there in a 60 year old woman.
 
Giannawannabe said:
Men at age 60 can;) …also, my point was that, yes, all women were designed to produce babies…other factors such as age, illness, etc. may eliminate/reduce the possibility of it happening, but the design is still there in a 60 year old woman.
Click to expand...
The design cuts off ovulation.
 
HoppityRedux said:
We may call a fertile couple infertile, but pregnancy trumps whatever labels we attach.
Click to expand...
I…my point is that doctors, “specialists” etc. can diagnose a couple “infertile”, yet all of us know of these so-called “infertile” couples who get pregnant. So, if “infertile” couples are to be thought of the same as homosexual couples in the eyes of the Church, then they should not have sexual relations, right? If “infertile” couples don’t have sexual relations, then it would never come to light that they could have children. They difference with homosexual couples is that there NEVER will be a child produced. The OP was trying to say that “infertile” sex and homosexual sex are really the same thing, as they are both not open to life…I’m pointing out the difference.
 
Giannawannabe said:
I…my point is that doctors, “specialists” etc. can diagnose a couple “infertile”, yet all of us know of these so-called “infertile” couples who get pregnant. So, if “infertile” couples are to be thought of the same as homosexual couples in the eyes of the Church, then they should not have sexual relations, right? If “infertile” couples don’t have sexual relations, then it would never come to light that they could have children. They difference with homosexual couples is that there NEVER will be a child produced. The OP was trying to say that “infertile” sex and homosexual sex are really the same thing, as they are both not open to life…I’m pointing out the difference.
Click to expand...
When was the last time there was a child born to a 60+ woman without transplant?

Is that a rational basis upon which to base social policy?
 
HoppityRedux said:
When was the last time there was a child born to a 60+ woman without transplant? Basing a social policy on that is not reasonable.

However, the Church has a right to teach whatever it chooses.
Click to expand...
Except that there is a difference between this and a homosexual “couple” engaging in mutual masturbation.

The relationship with a sixty year old woman and her husband can be open to children, for God could cause a miracle, so that they have children. It would be in line with the nature of God to do so (as Scripture and Natural Law show). However, with a homosexual couple, God would not find it fitting to perform such a miracle, and so gay “couples” masturbating cannot result in children. The same goes with masturbating straight couples.

Sex was created to be between one man and one woman, to cause union, and to produce children. Just because one of these is unlikely does not make the other impossible. However, because of how we were made, neither union nor procreation is possible for two men.
 
HoppityRedux said:
When was the last time there was a child born to a 60+ woman without transplant?

Is that a rational basis upon which to base social policy?
Click to expand...
No one is basing a ‘social policy’ on this, with the possible exception of the GLTB lobbies.

The Catholic Church has a moral policy that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. This is based on it’s violation of the Natural Law of Marriage and well as being fornication.

An married but infertile couple neither violate Natural Law nor engage in fornication, so there is no moral wrong.
 
noma said:
Except that there is a difference between this and a homosexual “couple” engaging in mutual masturbation.

The relationship with a sixty year old woman and her husband can be open to children, for God could cause a miracle, so that they have children. It would be in line with the nature of God to do so (as Scripture and Natural Law show). However, with a homosexual couple, God would not find it fitting to perform such a miracle, and so gay “couples” masturbating cannot result in children. The same goes with masturbating straight couples.

Sex was created to be between one man and one woman, to cause union, and to produce children. Just because one of these is unlikely does not make the other impossible. However, because of how we were made, neither union nor procreation is possible for two men.
Click to expand...
Are you speaking for God? I’d suggest he decides when and where and why he wll do a mirale.
 
Brendan said:
No one is basing a ‘social policy’ on this, with the possible exception of the GLTB lobbies.

The Catholic Church has a moral policy that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. This is based on it’s violation of the Natural Law of Marriage and well as being fornication.

An married but infertile couple neither violate Natural Law nor engage in fornication, so there is no moral wrong.
Click to expand...
Good. I’m glad nobody is basing social policy on this.
 
HoppityRedux said:
Are you speaking for God? I’d suggest he decides when and where and why he wll do a mirale.
Click to expand...
I am speaking only about the certain logically possible actions taken by God being “fitting”. God has already spoken of His nature when He stated in Genesis, that He created them “Male and Female”, that the man leave his father and mother, and the two should become “one flesh”. And that they (the male and female couple) “be fruitful and multiply”.

Further, God stated that “I, Hashem, do not change” (Malachi 3:6).

So it is clear that allowing gay “couples” to procreate, even by miracle, would be against God’s unchanging nature, and so, though not impossible (for we speak of God not univocally, but by analogy), but unfitting.

I hope this clarifies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top