Benedicta00
Well-Known Member
what is nonfactual about "causes changes to the uterus so pregnancy is less likely to occur?"
This is what the packaging says.
We do not conceive in the uterus.
Upvote
0
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.
what is nonfactual about "causes changes to the uterus so pregnancy is less likely to occur?"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.
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.
Which sterilized the sex act he was engaging in . .the sex act was created to be fertile . . he made it deliberate unfertile - sterile . .no chance of life being conceived . .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"?
mostly because you have no evidence to support that claim. No single person can say "All christians believed this." It's impossible..
Why, is it a problem for you for someone to present the historical position of all of christianity?
.
So it's stupid to sacrifice your life for your baby's life WOW_________________________________
If a woman had cancer and deiced to abort her bay to treat her cancer- would you say that was alright?
There is evidence. Luther himself said after sola scripture was abused that "the peasants" were "better off as papists."show me evidence, from Luther, stating that he was the infallible, only truth bearer.
The bible says no such thing.
I see . . it is stupid . . Let's take that to its logical conclusion . .
Conclusion:
- The bible tells us that no greater love does a man have than to lay down one's life for another
- This is the greatest expression of love possible from one human being to another.
- She laid down her life for another . .
- CLAIM: That's stupid she laid down her life for another
Quite telling isn't it?
- 1) The words of Jesus are stupid for telling us that there is no greater expression of love than to lay down one's life for another.
- 2) She was stupid for giving that greatest expression of love to her child and example of that greatest expression of love to her family and others. . .
Jesus' words must not mean much if it is stupid for a mother to give this greatest expression of love to her child.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion . . . . . .
that's why we use NFP. A morally acceptable way to "control birth."No. And, incidentally, I KNEW that this is exactly how you would twist and illogically apply what I said.
I'm saying that it is STUPID to continue getting pregnant when you know it will very likely kill you. That's not heroism, that's STUPID. Leaving little children motherless - when you could simply choose not to - is STUPID.
Furthermore, for a husband to keep getting his wife pregnant, in full knowledge that it will likely kill her, is SELFISH and MORALLY BANKRUPT.
Thank you for taking the bait!
This thread is getting unruly and is lacking the charity requisite to be called a Christiam place of interaction. The staff has received numerous complaints out of this thread, and if the sniping and hostilities continue, we will have to close the thread for good. Thank you for your cooperation.
no but they are immoral.condoms are not drugs. Diaphragms are not drugs. Vasectomies are not drugs. Etc....
and if that ever fails which it can, and you do convince your body will reject the baby.My doctor said birth control pills tell your brain that ovulation has already occured, so your body doesn't ovulate again.
all abc is.you shifting the goal posts? YOU pronounced all BC sin, not I.
that's why we use NFP. A morally acceptable way to "control birth."
God wanted a child to be conceived and he had other plans. How many times does God want us to conceive but we have other plans?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"?
but I use a moral means. there in lies the difference. And I am open by not drugging myself up or having myself mutilated so if God were to speak to me, i will be able to hear him.Yeah, okay.
Dance the dance all you want. You're practicing Birth Control - just like my wife and I are practicing Birth Control.
The DIFFERENCE is that I'm not condemning you, I'm not judging you, I'm not taking an arrogant condescending attitude toward your Birth Control, and I'm not accusing you of engaging in "Marital Sodomy".
Have as many babies as you want.
Die having a baby if you wish.
Have babies until you're in your 70s if you can.
Feel superior about it, as you obviously do.
Judge and condemn others who don't follow your CHURCH teaching, which you already have done.
Make sick accusations against people.
But leave me out of this insanity. My wife and I are richly blessed with our 3 children. We are finished having children, because I refuse to selfishly imperil her life.
This is the end for me. It is pointless to argue with a pair of angry women who want to sit in judgment where the Bible does not judge.
search the thread and find out if I am the first to bring up ABC apart from Sterilization.
how is my asking others to settle the dispute about logical fallacy a logical fallacy? I did not use it at ALL to prove my point.
I regret I cannot continue this conversation with you. It has lost all sense of reason, charity, and good humour. Instead, we find constant misplaced allegations, Irrational posts, and displaced smug selfsatisfaction, as if by merely throwing out a logical fallacies name, you have proven it's existance.
I am sure you will take me disregarding your following posts in this thread as victory, and proof of your logical prowess. Feel free to do so, I'm sure you would never concider for a split second that you weren't correct in the first place.[/
I told you it was going to be a fun thread. I said I only want to have to explain the Catholic position once...search the thread and find out if I am the first to bring up ABC apart from Sterilization.
how is my asking others to settle the dispute about logical fallacy a logical fallacy? I did not use it at ALL to prove my point.
I regret I cannot continue this conversation with you. It has lost all sense of reason, charity, and good humour. Instead, we find constant misplaced allegations, Irrational posts, and displaced smug selfsatisfaction, as if by merely throwing out a logical fallacies name, you have proven it's existance.
I am sure you will take me disregarding your following posts in this thread as victory, and proof of your logical prowess. Feel free to do so, I'm sure you would never concider for a split second that you weren't correct in the first place.
Yes, it is VERY telling - to me - that you would promote the non-Biblical Roman Catholic idea that a woman should keep getting pregnant, die as a result of it, and leave her children without a mother.
That's not just stupid, that's insane.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?