Would it be sin?!?

[thereselittleflower]

logical fallacy, appealling to traditions.

LOL When the traditional teaching of all of Christianity is the topic, it is not a logical fallacy to point out what the traditional teaching of all of Christianity is.

You are misusing ths logical fallacy.

no evidence that assertion is true.

Since it is impossible to prove a negative claim, the burden of proof now falls upon the one who challenges it, to prove this is not true by providing examples that disprove this claim -

Yours is the positive claim, by implication, that there is evidence that Chrsitainity approved of contraception.

The burden of proof now falls on you to prove this to be true.

(I've demonstrated that numerous times.)

Demonstrated what? No evidence has been forthcoming.

beyond that Catholisism =/= All Christianity.

Nonsensical argument. Ignores facts in evidence.


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

really? I never knew! Of course I know this. What seems to be glossed over and over and over again is that using NFP is still attempting to limit procreation, hence is a form of birth control.

The issue is not birth control in general. . . the topic is artificial birth control which sterilizes the sexual act.

By playing the birthcontrol card repeatedly as we see here, we see nothing more than a strawman.

false.

Prove this.

true, if they are ovulating.

Whether they are ovulating or not is not the issue . . They are used in women who are ovulating . .so we see here the raising of a non issue. . . there is no use for such devices unless one is ovulating.

possibly. Are you stating everyone? Or just Christians?

Everyone. Hormonal contraceptives are the most popular form of ABC around.

unsubstatiated. Has not been demonstrated that birth control is a crime against God. And if it is, so is NFP. You can't wiggle out of that hypocracy.

Ignores facts in evidence.

And continues to ignore that NFP does not sterilize the sexual act in any way so all claims of hypocrisy are nothing more than ad hominems .. logical fallacies . .

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hormonal Contraceptives - abortifants:

Hormonal Contraception/Birth Control
What is it?


Hormonal contraception is one approach to birth control. It may be accomplished through various methods, which all involve interference with normal sex hormone function in the body. Hormonal contraception for men is under study, but existing hormonal contraception is used almost exclusively by women. Currently-available hormonal contraceptives disrupt the normal menstrual cycle by altering the levels of the female hormones, mainly estrogens and/or progesterone. By changing the amounts of estrogens, progesterones, or both; hormonal contraceptives interfere with the release, fertilization, and/or implantation of human eggs.

http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/HC/WhatIs/0,4044,550100,00.html



How Does Hormonal Contraception Work?

Hormonal contraception upsets normal female hormonal cycles in the human body. Generally, additional amounts of one or two female hormones are used to disrupt the balance of hormones that is needed for pregnancy to occur.

Estrogens:

• prevent ovulation (the release of eggs from the ovaries)
• affect the time needed for an egg to travel through the fallopian tubes, thus interfering with precise timing needed for fertilization
• interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg on the wall of the uterus

Progestins:

• prevent ovulation (the release of eggs from the ovaries)
• affect the time needed for an egg to travel through the fallopian tubes, thus interfering with precise timing needed for fertilization
• increase the amount and thickness of mucus at the cervix (the opening of the uterus), thereby decreasing sperm entry to and passage through the vagina
• decrease the ability of sperm to fertilize an egg
• interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg on the wall of the uterus

http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/HC/Causes/0,4045,550100,00.html

​

All hormonal contraceptives are either one or both of these hormones . . . both have, as one of their methods of action, the prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg onto the uterine wall . . so all are effectively abortifants.

Hormonal contraceptives are available in the following manner:

Combination Oral Contraceptive (COC)
Contraceptive Patch
Injectable Estrogen and Progestin Combination
Vaginal Ring
Injectable Progestin
Intrauterine Device (IUD)
Progestin-only Pill​

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I am speaking only of the abortificant property. You use it as objection, I refute the abortifican property argument, based on facts.

I understand your position on it.

See the post immediately above entitled:

Hormonal Contraceptives - abortifants:

 

[Uphill Battle]

The issue is not birth control in general. . . the topic is artificial birth control which sterilizes the sexual act.

I fail to see the difference. Preventing pregancy is preventing pregnancy.

By playing the birthcontrol card repeatedly as we see here, we see nothing more than a strawman.

please look up definition of strawman.

Prove this.

Prove I'm wrong.

You are using this logical fallacy. Roses are red. Roses are flowers. Therefore all flowers are red.

Doesn't work. A great deal of studies disagree with the abortifacient properties of the pill, and indicate some do not have this effect AT ALL.

Whether they are ovulating or not is not the issue . . They are used in women who are ovulating . .so we see here the raising of a non issue. . . there is no use for such devices unless one is ovulating.

I thought we were talking about B.C. pills? They wouldn't be ovulating. If you are talking IUD, that is a different matter.

Everyone. Hormonal contraceptives are the most popular form of ABC around.

And???

Ignores facts in evidence.

And continues to ignore that NFP does not sterilize the sexual act in any way so all claims of hypocrisy are nothing more than ad hominems .. logical fallacies . .

.

Ignores nothing. I know it doesn't sterilize. We've been over that. It is STILL PRACTICING BIRTH CONTROL. Avoiding pregancy using one method is no different than other.

 

[ScottBot]

Lets make the clear distinction. TLF and UB are both correct.

If you were to LIST the TYPES of artificial birth control methods, the number of methods which are abortifacient would be less than half. In this respect, UB is correct.

If you were to look at the number of people who use the different methods of birth control, then TLF would be correct. Again, these would be based on US statistics only. I think worldwide the numbers would favor UB.

 

[icedtea]

My doctor said birth control pills tell your brain that ovulation has already occured, so your body doesn't ovulate again.

 

[ScottBot]

My doctor said birth control pills tell your brain that ovulation has already occured, so your body doesn't ovulate again.

..with the hope that the ovaries do not release ova. They chemically mimic the hormonal influxes that happen pre-ovulation, so that the ovaries do not release an egg. This doesn't always happen, so the OTHER effect of the BCP is to thicken the endometrium thus making it hostile to embryonic implant. This is the abortifacient aspect of the pill.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Ok, situation regarding a bone of contention in regards to a particular doctrine.

Most protestant denominations do not believe that family planning via birth control (whatever method) is sin.

RCC states that it is sin. (I am not aware what the EO position is on the matter.)

Now, we have a married couple, who find out after a miscarriage, that she has a condition (I forget the name of it.) that will not allow her to carry properly, the odds of bringing a live child to term is 1 in 4, and the risk of septicemic infection, twisted uterus, etc... is about the same, 1 in 4. The risks are NOT worth having a pregnancy again.

So, the husband gets a vasectomy. They are still very much in love with each other, and want to continue their sexual relationship, just not risk a dangerous pregancy.

Is the sterilization sin? (given the doctrine that it is sin, according to the RCC.)

Ignores nothing. I know it doesn't sterilize. We've been over that. It is STILL PRACTICING BIRTH CONTROL. Avoiding pregancy using one method is no different than other.

It appears that the OP has either forgotten the original question was one of sterilization and has errected unintentional strawman arguments about BC in general, or is deliberately errecting strawman arguments about BC in general . . . .




.

 

[icedtea]

..with the hope that the ovaries do not release ova. They chemically mimic the hormonal influxes that happen pre-ovulation, so that the ovaries do not release an egg. This doesn't always happen, so the OTHER effect of the BCP is to thicken the endometrium thus making it hostile to embryonic implant. This is the abortifacient aspect of the pill.

Oh! I see. Well, he probably didn't need to tell me that as I am not taking it for birth control anyway.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It appears that the OP has either forgotten the original question was one of sterilization and has errected unintentional strawman arguments about BC in general, or is deliberately errecting strawman arguments about BC in general . . . .




.

you shifting the goal posts? YOU pronounced all BC sin, not I.

 

[elsbeth]

I'm changing the subject a little here. NFP has been brought up several times in this discusion. Now this is avoiding intercourse at the points in a woman's cycle when she is most likely to be fertile, right? Does anyone but me feel that this would be a tremendous strain on the woman, to refrain from intimacy right when she wants it most? I know not every woman experiences hormonal changes to a huge degree, but many do. I always knew exactly when I was ovulating. I can't be alone in this.

 

[thereselittleflower]

One has to wonder at how many countless billions upon billions of chlidren have been aborted because of the use of hormonal contraception.

Such is the legacy of the Lambeth decision and departure from 1900 years of clear unanimous Christian teaching. . .


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

you shifting the goal posts? YOU pronounced all BC sin, not I.

So, the OP, who originally asked specifically about sterilization and has since tried to change the focus to one about birth control in general, which is nothing other than shifting the goal posts, is now accusing another of doing so when it is pointed out to him that he has done so?

Red herring . . . nothing more than that.

It is also nothing more than a Red herring and a Strawman to argue that I have pronounced all BC sin, when nothing of the sort is true, and all I have done is focus on artificial BC which sterilizes the sex act - something in keeping with the theme of sterilization in the original question of the OP.

Again, the original question of the OP was:

Is the sterilization sin? (given the doctrine that it is sin, according to the RCC.)​

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm changing the subject a little here. NFP has been brought up several times in this discusion. Now this is avoiding intercourse at the points in a woman's cycle when she is most likely to be fertile, right? Does anyone but me feel that this would be a tremendous strain on the woman, to refrain from intimacy right when she wants it most? I know not every woman experiences hormonal changes to a huge degree, but many do. I always knew exactly when I was ovulating. I can't be alone in this.

Self Control is a virtue . . . NFP also gives opportunity to practice self control . . .


.

 

[Uphill Battle]

So, the OP, who originally asked specifically about sterilization and has since tried to change the focus to one about birth control in general, which is nothing other than shifting the goal posts, is now accusing another of doing so when it is pointed out to him that he has done so?

Red herring . . . nothing more than that.

It is also nothing more than a Red herring and a Strawman to argue that I have pronounced all BC sin, when nothing of the sort is true, and all I have done is focus on artificial BC which sterilizes the sex act - something in keeping with the theme of sterilization in the original question of the OP.


Again, the original question of the OP was:

Is the sterilization sin? (given the doctrine that it is sin, according to the RCC.)​

.

Red Herring

a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments (see Ignoratio elenchi).

how have I done this?

I sincerely suggest reading up on the matter.


yes, and the conversation has shifted since then. I don't believe I was the first to bring up BC, outside of sterilization.

I do invite others on the thread to give input as to whether or not I have used the logical fallicies I have been accused of.

 

[elsbeth]

Self Control is a virtue . . . NFP also gives opportunity to practice self control . . .

I realise that. But it definately puts more strain on the woman than on the man, since men don't have those hormonal changes.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Red Herring

a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments (see Ignoratio elenchi).

how have I done this?

By arguing about Birth Control in General when the subject of the OP is specifically BC that sterilizes the sex act, and trying to leave the issue of sterility of the sex act behind.

Since a Red Herring is:

Exposition:
This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy.

This fallacy is often known by the Latin name "Ignoratio Elenchi", which translates as "ignorance of refutation". The ignorance involved is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refuted—even deliberately ignoring it—or ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html
​

the conclusion that I have moved the goal posts is not logically related to any premise. Since the response ignores the conclusion needing to be refuted (the OP's own moving of the goal posts), it is "Ignoratio Elenchi"

I sincerely suggest reading up on the matter.

May I recommend this to you.

yes, and the conversation has shifted since then. I don't believe I was the first to bring up BC, outside of sterilization.

That is not the issue . . the issue is that we have been talking about sterilization, the deliberate sterilization of the sexual act. There have been many attempts to shift it off the topic by the use of multiple logically fallacious devices to do so. We have kept it focused, and when we continue to keep it focused, more logical fallacies have been forthcoming instead of any evidence to prove the claims of those taking the opposing position.

That is the focus of our posts in this thread. In response, Strawman arguments have been rasied about BC in general . .

I do invite others on the thread to give input as to whether or not I have used the logical fallicies I have been accused of.

An another logical fallacy - appeal to opinon and emotion rather than simply disprove the claims of engagement in logical fallacy with factual evidence to the contrary . . . .


This only serves to underscore the OP's failure to engage logically, rationally in discussing the issue of sterilization of the sexual act he himself introduced with his OP.


.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

If you would take time to read the scriptural evidences I gave, you would see that this is not true.

It also amazes me that some people today make the claims you did above, yet all of Christianity for 1900 universally understood the sin of Onan to be that of deliberately sterilzing the sexual act . . .

Somehow, all of Christianity (not just Catholicism .. so please stop playing the Catholic card in such a manner - which is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well, a logical fallacy) got it wrong for 1900 years and now some are so enlightened as to understand what all of Chritianity failed to udnerstand all those centuries . .

Never mind that such "enlightenment" came only after secular humanism, rationalism and modernism . . . grave errors that deny God . . . began to make their mark on Protestant theology. . . .


.

Nevermind that the sin of Onan was NOT - as the RCC asserts - masturbation, or sterilization.

Hello?

Onan simply refused to do what God commanded - which was to provide his dead brother an heir.

Onan was NOT masturbating. He was having sex with the woman. Onan did NOT sterilize anything. He simply paid a severe penalty for an early with-drawl.


And why do you keep speaking for "all of Christianity"?

 

[thereselittleflower]

I realise that. But it definately puts more strain on the woman than on the man, since men don't have those hormonal changes.

If there was no strain, there would be no need for self control for there would be nothing to control.

When one puts indulging their passions over virtue, then nothing but problems ensue . . .


.