Posted on 08/27/2010 6:52:49 AM PDT by markomalley
If it’s morally right now, what made it morally wrong then?
There are some situations in which contraception is necessary. As for being moral or immoral, that is a matter of opinion.
Right on.
My wife and I decided that 3 kids was enough, and then I got a vasectomy. How is that wrong?
Our priest gave a great homily on the use of artificial b.c. some time ago. I think I felt some people squirming in their pews ;) It was one of those times when I wanted to jump up and shout ‘AMEN’!
I made sure to thank Father Greg for the great homily after Mass. I hope that countered any ‘hate mail’ he received on the matter.
Separating sex from lifelong married commitment is really a detriment to a society, because it diminishes the basic building block institutions of marriage and family.
So, contraception, in and of itself, is amoral, but how it is used certainly a moral question.
Such is the nature of human progress.
Civil union is an inevitable. We can differentiate CU from ‘marriage’ because of the religious connotations.
Religions emphasize that marriage is a sacred oath. Civil unions are legal partnerships.
If civil unions are ‘permitted’, then the gay community should not be the only beneficiaries.
Two orphaned sisters who find themselves single, by divorce, choice, widowhood, etc., should be able to join in civil unions for the same advantages: property inheritance, job benefits, pensions, insurance and so forth.
Any combination...elderly father and son living together, Mother and daughter, two middle aged ‘friends’ of any sex, etc., who find a civil union would provide legal and financial advantages should have the same access to this legal provision.
The key word is "decided". The ability to decide is what separates man from beast. The ability to actually implement one's decisions effectively is what separates advanced societies from primitive ones.
No.
Not long ago, people were sick, and hungry, and overworked. They didn't bathe. They didn't go around in sexy outfits. Yes, they had sex -- but not like Cameron Diaz has sex.
Our culture shows us Henry VIII and says "See? It's always been about sex!" But not everyone is King of England.
Contraception changed everything. Now we are free to be tremendously irresponsible. Before, there were consequences. We have been lessened by our rampant sexual behavior -- but we try to convince ourselves that it's always been this way and that nothing has really changed.
It has to be taken on a case by case basis. Having sex out of wed lock is amoral, from a Christian point of view, regardless of contraception. I don't see where contraception is amoral, it is a tool, like a gun, that accomplishes a function. Tools are not amoral but how they are used can be.
No, it is not. It is a matter of moral judgment, as to whether something is right or wrong, just as the morality or immorality of (for example) abortion, racial discrimination, theft, adultery, and drunk driving are matters of moral judgment.
If you wish to say that there are no genuine judgments of right or wrong, that in itself is a judgment that you have made, and it's one that requires a defense, rather than simply an assertion.
This post (if I may extrapolate) demonstrates the author's point about the uselessness of "dialogue." If dialogue is only, "This is your opinion; that is my opinion," with the assumption that there is no right or wrong, it's a waste of time. Useful dialogue would start with the premise that there is a right and wrong, which we can determine using our reason, and that all the parties involved are interested in finding the truth and living according to it.
In the absence of that bedrock principle - which is the ambient state of our society - exhortation is what is needed, especially from our clergy.
People need to seriously think through the question of whether they’re cut out to be parents — and, if the answer is “no”, to take appropriate precautions.
I’ve done the same when our pastors have spoken out.
Our priest gave a great homily on the use of artificial b.c. some time ago. I think I felt some people squirming in their pews ;) It was one of those times when I wanted to jump up and shout ‘AMEN’!Plaudits to Fr Greg. Fr John gave a similar homily at our church, and it was just weeks after his very descriptive partial birth abortion homily. After the BC one, there were literally people waiting for him after Mass. Ugly scene. They transferred him within weeks.
I agree. If there is a need for the legal provisions of "domestic partnership," on top of what current contract law already provides, then whether the couple or group is engaging in some kind of sexual activity should be irrelevant.
As a practical point, I question whether this legal provision is necessary, unless it forcibly (so to speak) tidies up the current stew of contract, power-of-attorney, estates-and-trusts, real estate, and other relevant law.
Slight clarification of terms:
amoral - having no moral component, no right or wrong attribute.
immoral - morally wrong
Now, I’m sure you meant that sex outside of marriage is IMmoral from a Christian point of view. Contraception is Amoral - it’s a tool or a concept. Tools are Amoral.
With that clarification, you and I agree.
Contraception use in marriage is the choice of the couple involved.
Catholics are of the opinion all contraception is amoral, most of us are not Catholic.
It's a whole thought system.
IF suddenly another child was shoved into your life (pregnancy, adoption, space aliens cloned/doubled one of your children) would you love another child just because he was there?
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.