[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Meaning you brought it up first.[/quote]
You did bring up IVF first. But, I digress.
Point in case, Catholic Church likes science. Case closed.[/quote]
Contraception. That was you. Jesus Christ it’s like talking to a brick wall.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Meaning you brought it up first.[/quote]
You did bring up IVF first. But, I digress.
Point in case, Catholic Church likes science. Case closed.[/quote]
Contraception. That was you. Jesus Christ it’s like talking to a brick wall.[/quote]
IVF is the other side of the contraception argument. Contraception blocks or frustrates the reproductive side of the marital act. IVF takes out love from the equation.
Anyway. Not my point of this thread.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Meaning you brought it up first.[/quote]
You did bring up IVF first. But, I digress.
Point in case, Catholic Church likes science. Case closed.[/quote]
Contraception. That was you. Jesus Christ it’s like talking to a brick wall.[/quote]
IVF is the other side of the contraception argument. Contraception blocks or frustrates the reproductive side of the marital act. IVF takes out love from the equation.
Anyway. Not my point of this thread.[/quote]
So IVF is for couples that don’t love each other?
So black and white it’s not funny anymore.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Meaning you brought it up first.[/quote]
You did bring up IVF first. But, I digress.
Point in case, Catholic Church likes science. Case closed.[/quote]
Contraception. That was you. Jesus Christ it’s like talking to a brick wall.[/quote]
IVF is the other side of the contraception argument. Contraception blocks or frustrates the reproductive side of the marital act. IVF takes out love from the equation.
Anyway. Not my point of this thread.[/quote]
So IVF is for couples that don’t love each other?
So black and white it’s not funny anymore.[/quote]
Silly atheists only loveless couples have trouble conceiving, there is no such thing as a low sperm count that’s just a loveless marriage.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Meaning you brought it up first.[/quote]
You did bring up IVF first. But, I digress.
Point in case, Catholic Church likes science. Case closed.[/quote]
Contraception. That was you. Jesus Christ it’s like talking to a brick wall.[/quote]
IVF is the other side of the contraception argument. Contraception blocks or frustrates the reproductive side of the marital act. IVF takes out love from the equation.
Anyway. Not my point of this thread.[/quote]
So IVF is for couples that don’t love each other?
So black and white it’s not funny anymore.[/quote]
non sequitur on the love thing.
It never was, sorry that wrong is wrong.
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Meaning you brought it up first.[/quote]
You did bring up IVF first. But, I digress.
Point in case, Catholic Church likes science. Case closed.[/quote]
Contraception. That was you. Jesus Christ it’s like talking to a brick wall.[/quote]
IVF is the other side of the contraception argument. Contraception blocks or frustrates the reproductive side of the marital act. IVF takes out love from the equation.
Anyway. Not my point of this thread.[/quote]
So IVF is for couples that don’t love each other?
So black and white it’s not funny anymore.[/quote]
Silly atheists only loveless couples have trouble conceiving, there is no such thing as a low sperm count that’s just a loveless marriage.[/quote]
Again, non sequitur. That is not what I am talking about, you’re taking a word I used in an argument and using it in an alternative method or using a different definition. That is of course because you don’t have a defense against my argument you have to commit fallacies.
I said takes love out of the marital act. I am sure there are couples who love each other that have used IVF. However, that doesn’t make IVF right, it is still wrong because it takes love out of the marital act, and not as you insinuated love out of the relationship.
As I said, when contraception is used you frustrate the natural purpose of the marital act, procreation. When one uses such things as IVF it takes the love or marital unitive act out of procreation. And, IVF is also wrong because it treats humans like objects.
Not only are you taking the marital unitive act out of procreation, you are treating, usually, several humans as objects as they are conceived in vitro and then the ‘best’ is selected, implanted for the mother to come to term with usually. Now, if there is multiple unborn babies that are implanted they sometimes do selective abortions in order to remove said ‘unwanted’ baby from the womb.
This explains what I am talking about more clearly:
Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.
Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union. . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Contraception is never okay? Really? There are a lot of people out there who should never have children. If they are wise enough to know it and be responsible with their reproductive health that’s a good thing.[/quote]
See, another good point raised here, even if me and Sifu don’t always see eye to eye. What possible justification is there for making a blanket statement about contraception like that?[/quote]
Because it is always true??? I guess some things do have absolute answers.
[/quote]
If there is a God, he is glad that I’ve been using condoms all this time. I assure you.[/quote]
See: ‘Onan’ and ‘go forth and multiply’[/quote]
Yeah well, unless he was specifically commanded to impregnate a certain woman I think Onan is hardly an issue, he would also have problems finding a desert to spill his seed in (on?).
[/quote]
That’s not the sin of Onanism.
Who gives you the authority to determine if we over did it?
I made this about stem cell research and science, everyone took it to contraception and corrupting the marital act.[/quote]
Well who are you to decide it?
I think it should be up to the person who has to deal with the effects of a pregancy and that is neither you, me, or the Catholic Church.
Also, Onanism as you call it, seems only to be “wrong” if the Lord, your God, specifically commands you to lie with a woman and you refuse.
Anyhow, good luck with a crusade against masturbation, how could that possibly fail?
Luckily, thanks to the Freemasons and other assorted heathens, the Catholic Church is in no position to enforce its moral teachings and we are all better off for it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This explains what I am talking about more clearly:
Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union. . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”[/quote]
First of all, if it were true that procreation were the only purpose of mating in humans, female humans would be in heat once a year, like a lot of other mammals.
Second, even if it were true, contraception is no more “undignified” than using your feet to operate a car instead of walking contrary to what God apparently intended, unless of course you believe that the human penis is an extra special appendage.
Third, I am glad that men in womens clothing who have sworn to remain chaste have such strong opinion on how intercourse is properly conducted, including the right mind set and all, but maybe they would sound less ridiculous if they stuck to things they actually knew something about.
[quote]orion wrote:
Well who are you to decide it?[/quote]
I am not.
[quote]
I think it should be up to the person who has to deal with the effects of a pregancy and that is neither you, me, or the Catholic Church.[/quote]
Cop out. If something is wrong, it is wrong. Us having to deal with it has nothing to do with it. And, we all deal with someone’s pregnancy as someone who is pregnant affects the whole community.
That’s not Onanism, it’s interrupting the procreative act.
Well, except for a few decades ago, FM agreed with us. Not until the mid century did even liberal Protestants consider contraception.
[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, if it were true that procreation were the only purpose of mating in humans, female humans would be in heat once a year, like a lot of other mammals. [/quote]
I never said that procreation was the only purpose. I explained very clearly that for the marital act to be complete it had to have both the natural, procreative aspect combined with the marital unitive act.
A car helps transportation, contraception frustrates the natural or procreative aspect of coitus. Big difference between assisting and frustrating.
Men in woman’s clothing? Last time I checked the only women wearing clerics or vestments were heretics. Nice try, but a fallacy.
Oh, more fallacy. You mean the 20% of the priesthood that is married, because they don’t know anything about making babies? The fact remains that even if none were married they has no basis on if they are right in their teachings. If something is true, its truthfulness is not contingent on someone’s abundance of sex.
And, so you know when you’re talking to someone that is even mildly catechized, as I am, everyone is called to be chaste IN marriage and OUT of marriage.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, if it were true that procreation were the only purpose of mating in humans, female humans would be in heat once a year, like a lot of other mammals. [/quote]
I never said that procreation was the only purpose. I explained very clearly that for the marital act to be complete it had to have both the natural, procreative aspect combined with the marital unitive act.
A car helps transportation, contraception frustrates the natural or procreative aspect of coitus. Big difference between assisting and frustrating.
Men in woman’s clothing? Last time I checked the only women wearing clerics or vestments were heretics. Nice try, but a fallacy.
Oh, more fallacy. You mean the 20% of the priesthood that is married, because they don’t know anything about making babies? The fact remains that even if none were married they has no basis on if they are right in their teachings. If something is true, its truthfulness is not contingent on someone’s abundance of sex.
And, so you know when you’re talking to someone that is even mildly catechized, as I am, everyone is called to be chaste IN marriage and OUT of marriage.[/quote]
First, you understood men in womens clothing quite well. The only other place where you can see costumes like in the Vatican is a gay pride parade.
Second, contraception assists in rutting like a rabbit in heat without becoming pregnant. See, problem solved. Or, if you wish, it assists in strenghtening the bond of marriage without producing offspring.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Well who are you to decide it?[/quote]
I am not.
[quote]
I think it should be up to the person who has to deal with the effects of a pregancy and that is neither you, me, or the Catholic Church.[/quote]
Cop out. If something is wrong, it is wrong. Us having to deal with it has nothing to do with it. And, we all deal with someone’s pregnancy as someone who is pregnant affects the whole community.
That’s not Onanism, it’s interrupting the procreative act.
Well, except for a few decades ago, FM agreed with us. Not until the mid century did even liberal Protestants consider contraception.[/quote]
Not really Onan was commanded to lie with his brothers wife to produce offspring in his stead. It is questionable whether he simply drew it out or never put it in in the first place, but he was killed for not doing as commanded.
Interestingly enough, I have my doubts that the Catholic church would endorse auto marriage to your brothers wife in case that he died.
So what we have here is a case of willfully ignoring the custom in question, deciding that he must have masturbated and then condemning this act because it is apparently the only conclusion one could possibly draw from it.
Seems to me that a “monopoly on truth” leads to the same results like all other monopolies, people become fat, lazy and complacent.
Then, it matters not what the Free Masons do believe or did believe, what does matter is that they, among others managed to break the chokehold teh Catholic Church had on European societies.
As an addendum, the whole contraception stance of the Catholic Church is blatantly absurd, why allow for “natural” contraception methods when condoms are the devils work?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Meaning you brought it up first.[/quote]
You did bring up IVF first. But, I digress.
Point in case, Catholic Church likes science. Case closed.[/quote]
Contraception. That was you. Jesus Christ it’s like talking to a brick wall.[/quote]
IVF is the other side of the contraception argument. Contraception blocks or frustrates the reproductive side of the marital act. IVF takes out love from the equation.
Anyway. Not my point of this thread.[/quote]
So IVF is for couples that don’t love each other?
So black and white it’s not funny anymore.[/quote]
Silly atheists only loveless couples have trouble conceiving, there is no such thing as a low sperm count that’s just a loveless marriage.[/quote]
Again, non sequitur. That is not what I am talking about, you’re taking a word I used in an argument and using it in an alternative method or using a different definition. That is of course because you don’t have a defense against my argument you have to commit fallacies.
I said takes love out of the marital act. I am sure there are couples who love each other that have used IVF. However, that doesn’t make IVF right, it is still wrong because it takes love out of the marital act, and not as you insinuated love out of the relationship.
As I said, when contraception is used you frustrate the natural purpose of the marital act, procreation. When one uses such things as IVF it takes the love or marital unitive act out of procreation. And, IVF is also wrong because it treats humans like objects.
Not only are you taking the marital unitive act out of procreation, you are treating, usually, several humans as objects as they are conceived in vitro and then the ‘best’ is selected, implanted for the mother to come to term with usually. Now, if there is multiple unborn babies that are implanted they sometimes do selective abortions in order to remove said ‘unwanted’ baby from the womb.[/quote]
I insinuated your argument is flawed unless you’re trying to say some couples who could easily have healthy offspring via IVF but not other wise is wrong. Excellent job addressing my post without addressing my point.
[quote]orion wrote:
First, you understood men in womens clothing quite well. The only other place where you can see costumes like in the Vatican is a gay pride parade. [/quote]
Hey, least I don’t support Nazi’s and their eugenics.
I’ll say it again, it goes against the natural or procreative aspect of the marital unitive act. Therefore it is immoral as it goes against the marital unitive act’s nature.
As well, I’d guess those that use condoms are more likely to cheat (correlation not causation, I have another reason for causation) and be unfaithful to their spouse. As well, that their marriages are less satisfying that couples who don’t use contraception.
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]otar wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Meaning you brought it up first.[/quote]
You did bring up IVF first. But, I digress.
Point in case, Catholic Church likes science. Case closed.[/quote]
Contraception. That was you. Jesus Christ it’s like talking to a brick wall.[/quote]
IVF is the other side of the contraception argument. Contraception blocks or frustrates the reproductive side of the marital act. IVF takes out love from the equation.
Anyway. Not my point of this thread.[/quote]
So IVF is for couples that don’t love each other?
So black and white it’s not funny anymore.[/quote]
Silly atheists only loveless couples have trouble conceiving, there is no such thing as a low sperm count that’s just a loveless marriage.[/quote]
Again, non sequitur. That is not what I am talking about, you’re taking a word I used in an argument and using it in an alternative method or using a different definition. That is of course because you don’t have a defense against my argument you have to commit fallacies.
I said takes love out of the marital act. I am sure there are couples who love each other that have used IVF. However, that doesn’t make IVF right, it is still wrong because it takes love out of the marital act, and not as you insinuated love out of the relationship.
As I said, when contraception is used you frustrate the natural purpose of the marital act, procreation. When one uses such things as IVF it takes the love or marital unitive act out of procreation. And, IVF is also wrong because it treats humans like objects.
Not only are you taking the marital unitive act out of procreation, you are treating, usually, several humans as objects as they are conceived in vitro and then the ‘best’ is selected, implanted for the mother to come to term with usually. Now, if there is multiple unborn babies that are implanted they sometimes do selective abortions in order to remove said ‘unwanted’ baby from the womb.[/quote]
I insinuated your argument is flawed unless you’re trying to say some couples who could easily have healthy offspring via IVF but not other wise is wrong. Excellent job addressing my post without addressing my point.[/quote]
You didn’t make a point except that you wanted to make fallacious statements. You didn’t address any point in my argument, so I guess it was also a straw man argument.
It is ALWAYS wrong to use IVF, I already explained that it takes the marital unitive act out of the procreative act and it also treats human beings as objects and commonly kills several humans in the process.
Now, if someone wants a child so much that they can’t possible wait for hormonal therapy to work or to naturally conceive, then there is always adoption.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
First, you understood men in womens clothing quite well. The only other place where you can see costumes like in the Vatican is a gay pride parade. [/quote]
Hey, least I don’t support Nazi’s and their eugenics.
I’ll say it again, it goes against the natural or procreative aspect of the marital unitive act. Therefore it is immoral as it goes against the marital unitive act’s nature.
As well, I’d guess those that use condoms are more likely to cheat (correlation not causation, I have another reason for causation) and be unfaithful to their spouse. As well, that their marriages are less satisfying that couples who don’t use contraception.[/quote]
What problem could you possibly have with eugenics?
If Gods ordained government does it, it is obviously a-ok.
When it no longer does you are of course free to have an opinion, until it does it again of course.
Then, just because you postulate that marriage serves a specific purpose that seems to exclude contraceptives in your mind does not make it so.
[quote]orion wrote:
What problem could you possibly have with eugenics?[/quote]
It is immoral.
Yes, God ordains government, but he does not ordain sin. He permits it for the greater good, but it is not his will. And when you go against his will you tempt hell.
[quote]When it no longer does you are of course free to have an opinion, until it does it again of course.
Then, just because you postulate that marriage serves a specific purpose that seems to exclude contraceptives in your mind does not make it so.[/quote]
My mind has nothing to do with the matter, this is not opinion.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
What problem could you possibly have with eugenics?[/quote]
It is immoral.
Yes, God ordains government, but he does not ordain sin. He permits it for the greater good, but it is not his will. And when you go against his will you tempt hell.
[quote]When it no longer does you are of course free to have an opinion, until it does it again of course.
Then, just because you postulate that marriage serves a specific purpose that seems to exclude contraceptives in your mind does not make it so.[/quote]
My mind has nothing to do with the matter, this is not opinion.[/quote]
Aha.
So I take it SS guards in concentration camps are free of sin?
[quote]orion wrote:
Aha.
So I take it SS guards in concentration camps are free of sin?
[/quote]
No, I doubt it.