KnightofChrist Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 And by that logic NFP seeks to preclude a potential subset of a subset of unique individuals of the human race from existence. This is a specific subset that they want to deliberately block from existing. If I sought to specifically preclude a subset of black Americans from existing would I be a bigot? NFP used properly is always open to life coming into existence and it is not a contraceptive. So again your analogy is weak and fails. Your position stands on a misunderstanding of NFP or a twisting of its true nature. I would suspect the latter. Deliberately blocking, being closed to the creation of life, would be an improper and perverted use of NFP. If you or any one sought to deliberately exclude the coming into existence of an African American person that would be a bit bigoted yes, and it would not be a proper use of NFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Of course pro-life means being against abortion, assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, and any other practice that is an attack to the dignity of the human person. But being pro-life isn’t solely about being against things. Being pro-life means being for something; means loving God’s gift of life, and acting on that love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 NFP used properly is always open to life coming into existence and it is not a contraceptive. So again your analogy is weak and fails. Your position stands on a misunderstanding of NFP or a twisting of its true nature. I would suspect the latter. Deliberately blocking, being closed to the creation of life, would be an improper and perverted use of NFP. If you or any one sought to deliberately exclude the coming into existence of an African American person that would be a bit bigoted yes, and it would not be a proper use of NFP. I thought that the point of NFP was to make it less likely for a couple to conceive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 I thought that the point of NFP was to make it less likely for a couple to conceive? A couple can choose when and when not to have intercourse. Intercourse can reslut in pregancy and creation of a new life. A couple praticing NFP properly in no way deliberately try and prevent a life from coming into existence during intercourse. A couple that is using actual contraception are trying to deliberately prevent a life from coming into existence during intercourse. I believe you know the difference, but whether or not you will openly admit it is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-fish Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Why waste money and time on poor kids whom God can save on His own? This troll doesn't even try. Yawn. Yeah, everyone who's not currently banging every fertile member of the opposite sex he/she can find is evil for not bringing new life into existence. Obviously, there's a difference between killing a human life that already exists and avoiding sexual activity that could conceive a new life, but then I'm stating the obvious. Hasan, your trolling skills have gotten rusty. Why didn't you quote Pope Francis' line? huh? It is up to Us to save the children that are born into this world. How many single women are rejected by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? How many foster kids live at your home? Get for real. I'm tired of seeing this baby picture on the back of catholics cars that say: Choose Life. It should say Choose Life and then don't come to our church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-fish Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Btw, I'm a chick. A Joan of Arc/Judith type. Blow your horn Gabriel and let the Saints come marching in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (that wasn't what I was saying. At all. Careful reading is your friend) Perhaps then you explain in plain English what you were saying, because your post made absolutely no sense. (And, yes, I realize that you think abortion is ok, rather than that NFP is evil, but I was playing along with your attempted sarcasm.) Equivocating NFP (involving sexual abstinence) with abortion is simply ridiculous. It would make just as much sense to say that a person avoiding marriage/sex and living a life of celibacy because he/she does not want to have children is the same as one getting abortions. KoC's post you were responding to concerned the denial of "personhood" to certain classes of (existing) human beings - in the present case unborn children - in order that they may be killed or otherwise denied basic human rights. Abortion kills a living human being already in existence. If someone abstains from having sexual intercourse, no human being is conceived to begin with. You can't kill or deny personhood to a non-existent entity. It's that simple. (And, yes, I get that you don't consider an unborn child a "person," but you're begging the question. In the case of sexual abstinence, there is nothing conceived period. If there was no new human being in existence after conception, there would be nothing to abort.) (Basic logic and coherent thought is your friend.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Btw, I'm a chick. A Joan of Arc/Judith type. Blow your horn Gabriel and let the Saints come marching in. I wasn't aware they do sex changes in South Dakota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 They do them at Walmart now, or so I hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 So Catholics who practice NFP are also occasionally bigots since they actively work to prevent a fetus from coming to be. Anyone who uses NFP seeks a total understanding of a woman's fertility and approach her womanhood with great awe. Couples might choose to make love when conception is less likely to occur but they make love with the full knowledge that conception CAN occur, and they embrace this joyfully - following the natural cycle of the body is not "active work", that would be taking artificial hormones or preventing sperm from entering through the cervix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 A couple can choose when and when not to have intercourse. Intercourse can reslut in pregancy and creation of a new life. A couple praticing NFP properly in no way deliberately try and prevent a life from coming into existence during intercourse. A couple that is using actual contraception are trying to deliberately prevent a life from coming into existence during intercourse. I believe you know the difference, but whether or not you will openly admit it is another matter. There's too much intercourse happening here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 There's too much intercourse happening here. You can never have too much of a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now