-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Forced birth controll?
- Thread starter lawtonfogle
- Start date
After a few miscarriage it would be wise to check parents for genetic diseases but even if there would be a chance of some disease, would it even then be right to force birth control, especially if there would be a chance that next baby would be perfectly normal?
Upvote
0
Oh, great, I'll be excommunicated... again. (How many times have the Popes excommunicated non-Catholics?)
Upvote
0
keith99
sola dosis facit venenum
Finally a thread where I can respond as an Evolutionist (and an avid Science Fiction reader).
Who decides becomes a very important question. That we will be able to select for traits in hte genome of the parents is inevetable. That we will be able to graft in specific sites is highly likely.
Which of my many genetic defects is enough to mean I would never have been born? Nearsightedness, a tendency to be heavy, my lack of pain receptors or perhaps my melanin defeciency?
I want to hit on being heavy for a second. In todays world this seems a bad thing. Imagine everyone selecting to have thin kids. No problem? Well not unless food becomes scarse, something quite forseeable. What is viewed as bad right now could be the most important good thing in 10 years.
Also has anyone noticed that it is superficial things that are easiest to detect. What if my bad eyesight is in fact linked to some genes that make upa part of my intellect? What if this is often the case with most easily observable 'bad' traits? Shouldn't bad eyes have been selected out by now? But not if there is a link with other more subtle and more important good traits!
This is dangerous ground. And more dangerous because if the techniques are perfected it can happen far too fast.
Who decides becomes a very important question. That we will be able to select for traits in hte genome of the parents is inevetable. That we will be able to graft in specific sites is highly likely.
Which of my many genetic defects is enough to mean I would never have been born? Nearsightedness, a tendency to be heavy, my lack of pain receptors or perhaps my melanin defeciency?
I want to hit on being heavy for a second. In todays world this seems a bad thing. Imagine everyone selecting to have thin kids. No problem? Well not unless food becomes scarse, something quite forseeable. What is viewed as bad right now could be the most important good thing in 10 years.
Also has anyone noticed that it is superficial things that are easiest to detect. What if my bad eyesight is in fact linked to some genes that make upa part of my intellect? What if this is often the case with most easily observable 'bad' traits? Shouldn't bad eyes have been selected out by now? But not if there is a link with other more subtle and more important good traits!
This is dangerous ground. And more dangerous because if the techniques are perfected it can happen far too fast.
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 39
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
You're advocating forced surgery? It's a life-threatening procedure for women.
Would men also be sterilised after fathering two children? What if they remarry?
Upvote
0
Yeah and what if the kids die? Sorry charlie, you shot your two loads.
I'm facinated by people who are under the impression that "the government" has the ability to do things like this. Their lives must be tightly controled by someone/something already for them to imagine it on this large a scale.
Upvote
0
horuhe00
Contributor
- Apr 28, 2004
- 5,132
- 194
- 44
- Country
- Puerto Rico
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Pretty radical, huh? Although it's not any more life threatening than geting your wisdom teeth pulled out.
I realy don't care either way if men are steralized. Sure, for the sake of it, let's have them steralized as well. The thing is that women are the critial sex. You can steralize 99% of males in a population and that 1% has the ability to empregnate all the females in one heat cycle. (1 month) That's why it must be the women that get steralized.
What if they remarry? What if a woman remarries 10 times? Will she have a child with every husband? That's at least 10 kids! No, after 2 births, steralization. Let's say it's an added incentive to marry a really good guy.
Upvote
0
Pretty radical, huh? Although it's not any more life threatening than geting your wisdom teeth pulled out.
I realy don't care either way if men are steralized. Sure, for the sake of it, let's have them steralized as well. The thing is that women are the critial sex. You can steralize 99% of males in a population and that 1% has the ability to empregnate all the females in one heat cycle. (1 month) That's why it must be the women that get steralized.
What if they remarry? What if a woman remarries 10 times? Will she have a child with every husband? That's at least 10 kids! No, after 2 births, steralization. Let's say it's an added incentive to marry a really good guy.
Haha, I don't think for a second you are serious, so I wont rise to the bait.
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 39
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
You are mistaken about the comparative risks of dentistry and hysterectomy. Hysterectomy requires a general anaesthetic, which is always more risky than a local one. Also, see below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterectomy#Risks_and_side_effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterectomy#Risks_and_side_effects
Upvote
0
Rebekka
meow meow meow meow meow meow
Not necessarily. For catholics, the use of birth control (in a non-abstinent situation) is a mortal sin, but you can only commit a mortal sin when it's grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and committed in full freedom. When someone forces birth control on a catholic, that isn't full freedom. So it would not be a mortal sin for a catholic to continue to have sex with their spouse. After all, they didn't choose to use birth control.
And in case of sterilization, even if the catholics agreed with the procedure (so full freedom would apply), they wouldn't necessarily have to be abstinent for the rest of their lives: if they repented and then went to confession and were forgiven for their sin, they would not have to abstain.
Forcing birth control on people is highly immoral, and forcing sterilization is even worse because it has medical risks and makes one permanently sterile.
Upvote
0
Rebekka
meow meow meow meow meow meow
Well, that's not how they explain it.As I said, in case of forced birth control, the one who forces it on them would be the one sinning, not the catholic couple that is forced - so long as they would not use birth control if they weren't forced. So it's not a continuation of sin for them, as there is no sin - they are not free to do otherwise.
In case of (voluntary) sterilization, there isn't really a continuation of sin, either, IF the couple is truly sorry. The harm is done and can't be undone (reversals are often unsuccessful, and the church doesn't insist on them); they would not use (non-permanent) birth control if they repented, and would wish they had not had the surgery done. The sin is forgiven. They don't get a new sterilization procedure (sin) done every time they have sex, so there is no continuation of sin (I hope I made myself clear here!
).(Because it's not the sex that is the sin, but the use of birth control.)
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 39
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
As I said, in case of forced birth control, the one who forces it on them would be the one sinning, not the catholic couple that is forced - so long as they would not use birth control if they weren't forced. So it's not a continuation of sin for them, as there is no sin - they are not free to do otherwise.
In case of (voluntary) sterilization, there isn't really a continuation of sin, either, IF the couple is truly sorry. The harm is done and can't be undone (reversals are often unsuccessful, and the church doesn't insist on them); they would not use (non-permanent) birth control if they repented, and would wish they had not had the surgery done. The sin is forgiven. They don't get a new sterilization procedure (sin) done every time they have sex, so there is no continuation of sin (I hope I made myself clear here!
(Because it's not the sex that is the sin, but the use of birth control.)
Handy.
Upvote
0
I see people on this site saying mad things like they want birth control, or zero tolerance on criminals, so why don't they move to China or Saudi Arabia... The reason they don't move there is because, whether they are aware of it or not, they quite like the way things are in the west.
Upvote
0
horuhe00
Contributor
- Apr 28, 2004
- 5,132
- 194
- 44
- Country
- Puerto Rico
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You're talking about removal of the ovaries. I wasn't very clear on that. I was talking about preventing the eggs to reach the womb. Girls need their ovaries, or at least one.
I was put on general anestesia when my wisdom teeth were pulled out and I'm all right. (I tnhik)
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 39
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Nevertheless, you are not legally required to have your wisdom teeth removed. Any surgical procedure carries risks, and I think it would be a very bad idea to force people to undergo one.
Upvote
0
Rebekka
meow meow meow meow meow meow
Yes, my dentist would like to remove my wisdom teeth, but as long as I don't give him permission, he's not allowed to. And should not be allowed to.
Also, tubal ligations are always done under general anesthesia, which isn't always the case with pulling out wisdom teeth.
Upvote
0
I completely disagree with forced birth control, or forced sterilization. It is morally wrong no matter what the reasons is. I also consider it to be a major violation of one's basic human rights.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
