Ice_nine Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 do you have a factual reference for that? Cause if so thats abhorent. yes http://m.snopes.com/2015/05/26/jim-bob-duggar/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 do you have a factual reference for that? Cause if so thats abhorent. I don't think you're the person to judge what is or is not abhorrent, Mr. I Support Giving Students Bad Grades Based Off Their Looks. Thought: Is it possible that he was speaking about adults? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) I don't think you're the person to judge what is or is not abhorrent, Mr. I Support Giving Students Bad Grades Based Off Their Looks. Thought: Is it possible that he was speaking about adults? Wow. I never said I supported it. I said it was life and it happens. I cannot change when teachers or professors give bad grades becuase Sally Student dosn't comb her hair and dressess in pj bottoms or when Junior Jobseeker can't even get a job at McDonalds because he's too proud of his all of 6 wiskers. Appearance matters. That's all I'm saying. You can't control other's views, but you can control how you present yourself. As far as Duggar, if you are going to make blanket statements about serious topics, you darned well better be knowlegable in that topic. Considering that most offenders 1) start young and 2) were often victims themselves, criminal justice is more than just killing off everyone who does bad things. Plus, the Catholic church dosn't even support the death penalty so Catholics should be scandalized by someone throwing the death sentence around, even when serious matters are at hand. Edited May 30, 2015 by hotpink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 yes http://m.snopes.com/2015/05/26/jim-bob-duggar/ Not exactly the same, but rather ugly none the less. He said that we should be executing the perp rather than executing the child that came as a result. To me that seems like scare-tactic anti-abortion lingo rather than being a proponent of the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 You forgot to mention the part where Northern Europe contracepts so much that it is under its replacement rate and, if it keeps going on this trajectory, will contracept itself out of existence. This is irrelevant to the discussion. The lowest birth rates are in Italy and Spain, very strong traditionally Catholic countries, though Spain has approved same-sex marriages. Italy, at least, has virtually no support system for working mothers. No child care, no maternity (let alone paternity) leave. Women are supposed to stop working after they give birth, irrespective of how important their jobs are to family income. Young people live with their parents, as they can't afford to live elsewhere, marry late, and when they have children, there is no child care, and their parents are too old to take care of the children. Spain is undergoing a prolonged, severe recession, and it is known that in these circumstances, the birth rate will drop even further. Low birth rates, below replacement, have nothing to do with contraception. The birth rate depends on the economy, people's attitudes towards bringing children into an increasingly unstable and dangerous world, and the availability of good, affordable child care. Without contraception, countries with poor economies will end up creating orphanages, like the ones in Ireland which lead to such appalling abuses, and in Romania, where a generation of irreversibly damaged children was created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 This is irrelevant to the discussion. The lowest birth rates are in Italy and Spain, very strong traditionally Catholic countries, though Spain has approved same-sex marriages. Italy, at least, has virtually no support system for working mothers. No child care, no maternity (let alone paternity) leave. Women are supposed to stop working after they give birth, irrespective of how important their jobs are to family income. Young people live with their parents, as they can't afford to live elsewhere, marry late, and when they have children, there is no child care, and their parents are too old to take care of the children. Spain is undergoing a prolonged, severe recession, and it is known that in these circumstances, the birth rate will drop even further. Low birth rates, below replacement, have nothing to do with contraception. The birth rate depends on the economy, people's attitudes towards bringing children into an increasingly unstable and dangerous world, and the availability of good, affordable child care. Without contraception, countries with poor economies will end up creating orphanages, like the ones in Ireland which lead to such appalling abuses, and in Romania, where a generation of irreversibly damaged children was created. I'm sorry, I was the one off-topic? This is a thread about the Duggars, not whether contraception is good or bad. If you want a debate on contraception, I encourage you to make a thread in the Debate Table. I will gladly join in, as will others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 This is Open Mic. I assumes that means that anything goes, as long as it isn't obscene, personal, too long, or grossly objectionable. I think that the moderator could close this thread if (s)he wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 This is Open Mic. I assumes that means that anything goes, as long as it isn't obscene, personal, too long, or grossly objectionable. I think that the moderator could close this thread if (s)he wanted to. I'm afraid you do not know the rules of Phatmass. You can speak about whatever you want, but you can't just start talking about whatever you want in a thread someone's thread. If you want to talk about something and it is off-topic, you must make your own thread. It must be organized like this, otherwise Phatmass would be chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Phatmass isn't chaos?! It seems that this thread has already been hijacked. Edited May 30, 2015 by Yaatee edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 Hmm, as the OP, I can see where the thread has diverged in several areas. As infertility is also my area of expertise, I have to point out IVF per se doesn't require embryo discarding. Beatitude if you really think "there's no way to have IVF without embryo destruction" you're just misinfomed about it. And the vast, vast majority of IVF doesn't involve embryo adoption, surrogacy, egg/sperm donation, etc. Like 95%. So separation from the natural parents is not something that applies very often. If the Catholic argument rested on these 2 legs there wouldn't be much there. In fact the actual reason why the church is opposed to IVF is that it is viewed as replacing the marital act. this is the actual problem. This is why the church has no problem with GIFT (gamete interfallopian transfer) which is identical to IVF except that there is no watching the embryo in a lab. Instead the dr takes sperm and eggs, mixes them in a catheter and then injects them both into the woman's Fallopian tube. This procedure is acceptable for Catholics as of now although since the 1980s few doctors do it. The reason it's acceptable is the idea that this procedure completes, rather than replaces, the marital act. It's beyond me but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 The reason it's acceptable is the idea that this procedure completes, rather than replaces, the marital act. It's beyond me but there you go. Yeah I don't get that at all. Not to question your expertise but do you have a source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 About GIFT being acceptable? The US Bishops have this on their site. Neither approved nor unapproved, insemination falls into this category as well. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/resources/upload/Reproductive-Technology-Evaluation-Treatment-of-Infertility-Guidelines-for-Catholic-Couples.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 How does a 3rd party taking sperm and eggs (presumably outside of the body), mixing them, and then injecting the mix (back) into the Fallopian tube not replace the marital act? It seems to me that this would also deprive the child of his right to be conceived by natural means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 How does a 3rd party taking sperm and eggs (presumably outside of the body), mixing them, and then injecting the mix (back) into the Fallopian tube not replace the marital act? It seems to me that this would also deprive the child of his right to be conceived by natural means. Like I said, beyond me, but... Apparently because fertilization takes place inside the body it's a grey area. Intrauterine insemination is similar. You can get the sperm from the normal marital act and then the doctor washes it and reinserts the filtered swimmers. So technically it's the same act just with an extra help at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Like I said, beyond me, but... Apparently because fertilization takes place inside the body it's a grey area. Intrauterine insemination is similar. You can get the sperm from the normal marital act and then the doctor washes it and reinserts the filtered swimmers. So technically it's the same act just with an extra help at the end. I appreciate that you either don't know all the details, @Maggyie, or aren't convinced by the reasoning. I don't mean to sound harsh. My mind is just looking at this and poking more holes in it than a sabotaged rubber prophylactic. 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