L
LittleFlower378
Guest
It does, even by purposely stopping some sperm. I agree with you, thanks.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
I have a really hard time believing God would condemn someone for collecting bodily fluids for medical reasons.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Not only not virtuous, but an actual crime. That’s crazy.
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
Maybe there is a different way instead of using contraception?
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
But who cares? This insane focus on avoiding condoms at all costs, even for valid medical reasons, becomes almost like self-parody at a certain point. God does not have OCD. We’re allowed to apply some basic common sense here.
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
I agree.
I wonder what the response would be if a man and wife were already pregnant, the man contracts Zika or something similar and they opted to use condoms to prevent causing possible birth defects of their baby.
Using condoms couldn’t be contraceptive because she’d have already conceived. So what would the argument against them be then
I wonder what the response would be if a man and wife were already pregnant, the man contracts Zika or something similar and they opted to use condoms to prevent causing possible birth defects of their baby.
Using condoms couldn’t be contraceptive because she’d have already conceived. So what would the argument against them be then
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
I’m sure someone would argue they just shouldn’t have sex at all.
I just find the whole thing so ridiculous. I mean, yes, you shouldn’t use condoms for contraceptive. Got it. But when you insist on reading that injunction in a way that throws common sense out the window, you come off more like an OCD person obsessively washing their hands or memorizing train timetables than an adult seriously attempting to apply moral principles.
I just find the whole thing so ridiculous. I mean, yes, you shouldn’t use condoms for contraceptive. Got it. But when you insist on reading that injunction in a way that throws common sense out the window, you come off more like an OCD person obsessively washing their hands or memorizing train timetables than an adult seriously attempting to apply moral principles.
M
MaryEstelle2
Guest
Nothing…or very little scandalizes me as I come from a large family with 6 brothers and a host of uncles. Everything was openly discussed. My comment was made because after reading a couple of replies I had no longer an interest in the subject. It was not a medical post so I just lost interest.
A
Augustinian
Guest
Maybe you’re right. I was just brainstorming and that was just the first thing that came to my mind when I thought about perforated condoms.Not only not virtuous, but an actual crime. That’s crazy.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is possible to get a sperm sample through biopsy…How the heck will you have this needed medical analysis be done?
Context, context, context. Contraception is considered intrinsically morally evil because it frustrates God’s intention for procreation. Acquiring a sperm sample to address fertility issues so that one CAN improve chances of procreation has an entirely opposite intention and purpose.The Magisterium has taught that it is not acceptable for a wife to agree to marital relations if the husband is using a condom (Denz. 2795). She would be formally cooperating with an intrinsically evil act.
This applies to contraceptive intentions, not collecting lab specimens!
Honestly, I have been on CAF for a long time, and this should get an award for one of the best ways to derail a thread I have seen yet! (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)About perforated condoms, a related query.
Is it virtuous for a Catholic drug store clerk to perforate the prophylactics he sells to prevent his customers from committing mortal sin?
Using latex with perforations cannot in any way be construed as contraceptive, even if the intent were contraceptive, which it is not.Maybe there is a different way instead of using contraception?
On second thought, this one might be a contender for the derailment prize!In a related topic, would only a spouse be able apply a suppository to their significant other if their significant other gets sexual satisfaction from such an act? Of course, the suppository would have to be applied during a unitive and procreative sexual act.
A
alice24
Guest
Yes, this was my second thought when I googled it - seems to be better (non-contamination!) for the sample. The only thing I can image what could prevent one from chosing this method is maybe a matter of costs for this?How the heck will you have this needed medical analysis be done?
S
Steve4321
Guest
Occasionally there is a CAF thread that should be required reading for anyone considering converting to Catholicism. This is one of those threads.
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
Cost, time, pain - clearly a perforated condom with one’s spouse would appear to be an amicable alternative!The only thing I can image what could prevent one from chosing this method is maybe a matter of costs for this?
G
guanophore
Guest
Don’t hold back…tell us how you REALLY feel!Good Grief, what a moronic debate in the first place to even have.
E
exnihilo
Guest
The biggest issue I would think is the idea of sticking a needle into a man’s sensitive parts. That sounds awful.The only thing I can image what could prevent one from chosing this method is maybe a matter of costs for this?
A
alice24
Guest
well yes, this is also a point - but don´t get me wrong, I had to endure so many medical issues the past years that this wasn´t the first thing in my mind…At least, labour is also painful, but you are right, no one wants to endure this when there´s a better alternative.The only thing I can image what could prevent one from chosing this method is maybe a matter of costs for this?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The first font of morality is “the intention for which the choice was made”. The second font is the moral object, which determines whether the act itself is “morally evil according to its species” (intrinsically evil). The third font is the circumstances, which is evaluated based on “the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned” [VS 82]This applies to contraceptive intentions
Contraception is intrinsically evil, so it is immoral even if the intended end is not to thwart procreation, but some good end.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The chosen act is still morally disordered. It is not the attainment of the moral object (in this case procreation) that makes the act intrinsically evil, but the choice of a disordered act. An incompetent bank robber, who has no chance of successfully robbing the bank still commits a crime if he knowingly chooses the disordered act.I wonder what the response would be if a man and wife were already pregnant, the man contracts Zika or something similar and they opted to use condoms to prevent causing possible birth defects of their baby.
Using condoms couldn’t be contraceptive because she’d have already conceived. So what would the argument against them be then
A
Augustinian
Guest
Just don’t look, they do numb you with lidocaine first you know. When I had my prostate biopsies they didn’t have mirror set up to let me see them do it, and its just as well. The most distressing part of the procedure was when the nurse comes in and shows you the instrument they will be shoving when the sun does not shine.The biggest issue I would think is the idea of sticking a needle into a man’s sensitive parts. That sounds awful.
No real need to do that, I think they used to that before a torture session i the middle ages, give you one last chance to repent.
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes.Contraception is intrinsically evil, so it is immoral even if the intended end is not to thwart procreation, but some good end.
Where you have erred is assigning the collection of a lab specimen to “contraception” because of the article being used to collect the sample. This collection does not meet any of the criteria you have cited here.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.