|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:50 pm
Renkon Root MingLeChat what the hell do they want us to do? suppress our natural instincts? or have tons of kids? Precisely.
Remember: "Every sperm is sacred." ... could kick your a** !! but..... if you dont have sex.... you still make sperm... and they still die....
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:56 pm
MingLeChat Renkon Root MingLeChat what the hell do they want us to do? suppress our natural instincts? or have tons of kids? Precisely.
Remember: "Every sperm is sacred." ... could kick your a** !! but..... if you dont have sex.... you still make sperm... and they still die.... You haven't watched much Monty Python's Flying Circus, have you. stare T'was a joke.
And besides, back in "the day" people didn't know that about male biology and human reproduction. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:58 pm
MingLeChat why arent all those against abortion using condoms? Last time I checked, the church was against abortion and using BC. what the hell do they want us to do? suppress our natural instincts? or have tons of kids?
The idea is that we're supposed to abstain until marriage, and then once we're married we're supposed to have a bunch of kids.
Most modern people against abortion want you to use birth control though.
I don't know if the church even still condemns birth control anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 4:01 pm
brainnsoup Remember, God told Adam and Eve to multiply.
The idea is that we're supposed to abstain until marriage, and then once we're married we're supposed to have a bunch of kids.
Most modern people against abortion want you to use birth control though.
I don't know if the church even still condemns birth control anymore. Catholicism does prohibit BC. Scroll down to section 32 concerning this.Concerning Protestants though it varies from denomination. Anglicans aren't against BC from what I understand. Edit: here's even more explicit of BC being a no-no to Catholics. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:Humanae Vitae Unlawful Birth Control Methods 14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15) Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (1 cool —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 6:29 pm
rmcdra Edit: here's even more explicit of BC being a no-no to Catholics. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:I think I found a loophole. BC doesn't make it impossible, just very very unlikely. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 9:55 pm
Shiori Miko rmcdra Edit: here's even more explicit of BC being a no-no to Catholics. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:I think I found a loophole. BC doesn't make it impossible, just very very unlikely. wink Nice try and I'm sure an Anglican would see it that way but the Catholics would argue that since the intended purpose of BC is to make procreation impossible, it would still be intrinsically evil. Since purpose is a main factor in this, BC pills are allowed to be taken if the intended purposed of taking them isn't for BC. There's some disorders that BC pills are the only effective solution for treating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:26 pm
Personal opinion: It's fine, as long as it can be made cheap and there isn't a high rate of babies who die in the transfer. It's expecially fine if they don't make a rule that says deformed babies can still be aborted, or something like that. It'll contribute to overpopulation, but my Environmental Science class says we're pretty much screwed already, so if this way would save lives, I'm all for it.
And I'm not sure how many pro-life people are deeply involved with science, which might be part of the reason it hasn't been developed. Being pro-life or pro-choice doesn't really demand a large interest in science, since it tends to be more of a question of morality. Of the ones who are involved in science, they might not be deeply commited to whatever side they're on, or they might just work on another field. It's not like just anyone could whip up an artificial womb. It'd take a inventor who had a pretty good understanding of human anatomy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:41 pm
Oh I just found out we do have the technology to support and raise a fetus that is as young as 23 weeks old. It's looking more and more like a possibility.
@Blue
That's why a lot of research would need to be done before it goes full scale. We'd have to figure out how to perform such a procedure, how to make it cost effective, and how to preserve and develop a fetus younger than 23 weeks. Concerning the deformities eugenics is not something that is ethically supportable in the US at least, so killing an "undesirable" would be harshly criticized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:01 am
rmcdra Oh I just found out we do have the technology to support and raise a fetus that is as young as 23 weeks old. It's looking more and more like a possibility. @Blue That's why a lot of research would need to be done before it goes full scale. We'd have to figure out how to perform such a procedure, how to make it cost effective, and how to preserve and develop a fetus younger than 23 weeks. Concerning the deformities eugenics is not something that is ethically supportable in the US at least, so killing an "undesirable" would be harshly criticized. Actually, that's a large reason for abortion now- Birth defects. We're already doing it now. It's just OK in the eyes of the law because a fetus isn't granted magical personhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:02 am
rmcdra Shiori Miko rmcdra Edit: here's even more explicit of BC being a no-no to Catholics. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:I think I found a loophole. BC doesn't make it impossible, just very very unlikely. wink Nice try and I'm sure an Anglican would see it that way but the Catholics would argue that since the intended purpose of BC is to make procreation impossible, it would still be intrinsically evil. Since purpose is a main factor in this, BC pills are allowed to be taken if the intended purposed of taking them isn't for BC. There's some disorders that BC pills are the only effective solution for treating. Does this mean it's inherently evil to have a low sperm count?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:07 am
divineseraph Does this mean it's inherently evil to have a low sperm count? If it was caused intentionally by the male in question then no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:29 pm
...
How would they get the little fetus out?
They'd have to perform major surgery, like a C-Section, and cut the baby out and then immediately get it into a safe plastic place...
which, by the way, does not exist. =/ not for a fetus that young anyway, even before it's an official fetus, but a cell...
I just don't think it'd work, not because of the cultural understanding of abortions, but because of the risks that are still involved.
Abortions are kinda...easy. They are. Okay, they cost enough, but it's a one time operation and while there is pain involved, it doesn't last too long and the whole thing, is just physically not - so - bad.
To get this baby out alive, when the mother doesn't want it, now that's going to be pretty hard on the mother herself, because she will be in the hospital for days after the surgery and she will have to fight possible infection..
Abotions are just EASY, you see?
Besides, what you're talking about, I see absolutely no major difference from that than of adoption. That baby is STILL going to be alive somewhere - and that's a major reason why women chose abortion, is because they just want to forget about the "problem", but when adoption or your idea is concerned, that baby is still out there somewhere...
and what if IT tries to find the mother?
-shakes head.-
no no no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:55 pm
lavender opheliac ...
How would they get the little fetus out?
They'd have to perform major surgery, like a C-Section, and cut the baby out and then immediately get it into a safe plastic place...
which, by the way, does not exist. =/ not for a fetus that young anyway, even before it's an official fetus, but a cell...
I just don't think it'd work, not because of the cultural understanding of abortions, but because of the risks that are still involved.
Abortions are kinda...easy. They are. Okay, they cost enough, but it's a one time operation and while there is pain involved, it doesn't last too long and the whole thing, is just physically not - so - bad.
To get this baby out alive, when the mother doesn't want it, now that's going to be pretty hard on the mother herself, because she will be in the hospital for days after the surgery and she will have to fight possible infection..
Abotions are just EASY, you see?
Besides, what you're talking about, I see absolutely no major difference from that than of adoption. That baby is STILL going to be alive somewhere - and that's a major reason why women chose abortion, is because they just want to forget about the "problem", but when adoption or your idea is concerned, that baby is still out there somewhere...
and what if IT tries to find the mother?
-shakes head.-
no no no.
I know I'm treading into science fiction here but isn't that where all scientific advancements start? It seems like a possibility so why not look into it? I mean the cell phone was considered science fiction when it was first shown on Star Trek. I'll admit I'm not a doctor but I know that medical techniques can become quite sophisticated once they are perfected that the risks become minimal. Abortions used to be much riskier than they are now but over time the correct techniques were developed. You response seems to imply that you are against increasing our knowledge in the medical field. So because the mother wants to just "forget about it" this idea should not be pursued? I was under the impression that most women get abortions because they are choosing not to be pregnant. If this became a viable option it would do just that. Your comment also seems to imply that you are against women having a choice. Some women don't want to have an abortion but they don't want to go through pregnancy. So rather than researching this avenue you seem to imply that you wish to deny women of this potential option and force them to chose between pregnancy or abortion. Aren't you quite the forward thinker?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:42 pm
Okay it may be the paranoia speaking or the fact that I watch too many horror/scifi movies but correct me if I am wrong. Momma don't want baby. Momma chooses to use machine. Machine nurtures/developes baby. Baby goes into adoption. good.
Lots of mommas don't want baby. Mommas choose machine. Machine nurtures/developes the babies. Adoption declines due to access of babies. bad.
Running with the bad. A) Less adoption leads to government involvment. Government brainwashes children to obey utterly. Children grow up. Children become extremist government zombies. Government zombies rule the planet...or government jacks up taxes again because the states want to put children through school.
B) Government reinstates work houses. Cheap manual labor when children reach age 16/18.
C)Children grow up with attachment to machines. Children make better machines. Better machines become sentient and enslave all of humanity.
D) Machine doesn't work and lotsa babies die either way.
I'm going to answer myself. It's both paranoia and movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:51 pm
There's something to me that's just inherently wrong with having a child born from a machine.
How do I put this? You know how when humans hand-raise animals they act differently than their wild counterparts? For instance birds, ever notice how when chicks for various birds are hatched in rescue that they use gloves and different things that look like birds rather than feed them or take care of them by hand? I don't know how to describe this, to me it seems like being born from a machine will cause the baby in it to come out somehow...abnormal. Not quite right. Of course this could also be a case of paranoia, but I can't help but think of those animals that are raised by a species other than their own that just come out...different. Not that a machine would end up raising them but just the social interaction alone from being inside of a womb.
Eh I have no solid arguments though. It's just my spider sense is tingling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
