Posted on 10/20/2010 2:24:53 PM PDT by NYer
It works both ways.
Chemical contraceptives treat wives' fertility as a "disease" which must be "treated" with "medicine.
Barrier contraceptives treat husbands' fertility as a "poison" or "contagion" which must be contained to prevent "contamination" or "infection".
It's all very queer.
Well, I guess I'm aware that "the union of an egg and a sperm" can be prevented by a condom, by a hysterectomy, by abstinence and by a whole lot of other things that aren't crossing my mind right now.
I think there is a "time and place for everything."
Find out for yourself here.
How about narrowing it down a little? Top half, bottom half, or you could just tell me.
Saw some mention of a business, but not what that business actually was. He makes his living writing a book and reality tv show?
Scriptural references below .
"Toilet"? Interesting that you seem to equate semen with urine and feces, as if there is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with loving men unless they are literally in the act of procreation.
I don't know why any man would accept a woman who thought of him in that way.
Pope John Paul II explains this with what he calls the "language of the body." He observes that in the sexual act, man and woman implicitly give themselves totally to one another. That is what their bodies are saying, both symbolically and literally. Sexual expression, by its very nature, implies total gift of self to the other. The language of the body says, "I give myself to you completely, without reservation or condition.
This does not mean that sex can be truly self-giving only during fertile parts of a woman's cycle. The Church has never taught that couples must have as many children as possible. Rather, it means that interference with fertility both arises out of spousal selfishness and increases it. The Church approves natural family planning, in which couples abstain during fertile periods when they prayerfully have determined that there is a need to avoid pregnancy. In these cases the spouses are not separating the unitive and procreative.aspects of a sexual act; they are simply refraining from performing the act. Similarly, sex after menopause or when suffering from other forms of infertility do not divide the unitive from the procreative. The couple's act is still ordered toward procreation; it is simply that procreation will not occur.
Yes, you’re right. My comment was one-sided and not all that well-cogitated.
You’re right - that was badly said. The comparison doesn’t do justice to the topic.
We have five as well :). Our youngest is 2 months old. It is a trust issue and I continually struggle with it. My husband not so much, I am so grateful for his strength.
Well, except in Latin Mass communities. At my parish you can tell no one is using contraceptives. Most couples have 5 to 10 kids before they’re in their early forties!
You wrote:
“I’m sorry, but this sounds like crazy talk to me.”
Don’t most Christian things sound like crazy talk? Incarnation, virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.?
“Isn’t it more likely that a church would discourage contraception for business reasons - to grow the flock?”
No. The growing flock just costs the parish money: ministers, ministries, schools, scholarships, services of all kind. Ever notice how loaded with cash many contracepting sects are?
I think I understand. I’m 47, youngest of my 5 is 3, almost 4. The oldest is 24. I thank God for all of them. I’d love to have more. We weren’t supposed to be able to have any. But that was the doctor’s opinion, not God’s.
My parish too.
I know a mom who is on her 14th.
You think that not having sex is the same as birth control?
It also ignores that even Catholics are commissioned and charged to be evangelists. Children are more likely to stay in the religious faith of their parents, but Christianity is an evangelistic faith in which members sin by failing to communicate the gospel to the lost. The church grows by evangelism to both family members and to the unsaved.
Your Paragraph 2 hardly cites something that is "ignored" - in fact, it is used as evidence to support the assertion you try to dismiss in your Paragraph 1
And this next statement is more apropos of the fact that I'm about to leave work for my personal evangelism class at church and is not related to my above critique, but do you consider yourself to be a good person? If God were to judge you for how you've lived your life, do you think you'd be innocent or guilty?
Your question is an insult to all Christianity. You've conflated the insidious and utterly dishonest tactic of using an emotional attack to prevent cogent rebuttal of a spurious claim, with Jesus' command to spread His teachings.
Is there anyone on this planet - except for yourself, of course - who you would judge as innocent enough to take a position contrary to your own, without you judging them as too shamefully impure to have am independent personal opinion?
Tellya what - instead of going to evangelism class, why don't you go serve food at a homeless shelter for about twenty years - in silence - and learn some humility. Because all you're doing with your mouth is making Catholicism seem abhorrent.
If you're married and deliberately not having sex to avoid a pregnancy, yeah, that would be a type of birth control. Birth control comes in many forms. jmo
And what if a couple can’t AFFORD ten kids??? Are they just to NOT have sex ever again? How many times have we all bitched on other posts about welfare mothers having tons of kids they can’t afford. Or crappy parents who shouldn’t have kids because their just not parent material...should they NEVER have sex? ever?
Choosing to not have children you can’t afford should be a crime.
Abortion should be.
The pro-life movement will lose me if we throw anti contraception into the mix.
correction : choosing to not have children you can’t afford should NOT be a crime
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.