havok579257 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 The question I have directly realtes to being open to life during sex. Now I am specificly talking about a married couple who are currently pregnant. So let's say, a married couple who is 3-6 months pregnant. My question is why must a man end, we'll use the term, proper, during this time? I understand any other time since you need to be open to life, but specifically this time? YOur already pregnant and your not going to get pregnant while already pregnant. So why is it still essential to end the proper way? Is it just a broad rule the church has and just lumps all sex under this catagory? Or ave they addressed this specific situation? So anyone with an answer to this question, I would love to hear it. Cause so far, everyone I ask, can not give me an answer on this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 You are assuming that a pregnant woman can not conceive again. There are cases of women who continue to ovulate even when pregnant. There are twins born who have different fathers (although I understand it is medically feasible, I just can't imagine a woman doing that). There are babies born whose "twin" is born 3 months later. Just because it is rare, just like it would be for a 48 year old woman (the age of my grandfather's mom when she gave birth to him), it is still possible in God's plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Why would you want to "end" anywhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858191' date='May 5 2009, 01:48 AM']Why would you want to "end" anywhere else?[/quote] not to get bogged down in this topic, but due to wife and husband liking such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) [quote name='CatherineM' post='1858169' date='May 5 2009, 01:06 AM']You are assuming that a pregnant woman can not conceive again. There are cases of women who continue to ovulate even when pregnant. There are twins born who have different fathers (although I understand it is medically feasible, I just can't imagine a woman doing that). There are babies born whose "twin" is born 3 months later. Just because it is rare, just like it would be for a 48 year old woman (the age of my grandfather's mom when she gave birth to him), it is still possible in God's plan.[/quote] The whole different father thing only happens with in a week of first concieving. From everything i have read, a women can still menstraight during pregnancy but she is not ovulating, unless she has a very rare case of having 2 uteruses, which every women will know about way before she is sexually active. From everything I have read, its impossible for a women to be 7 months pregnant and then get pregnant again if having sex during pregnancy. I went back and read somethings and it said its only possible when a women has 2 uterus's and it is possible but only up to a few weeks after initially conception. All other cases of this happening months apart have turned out to be hoaxes. So its possible but only in the first weeks of conception, unless of course, like i said, the women has 2 uterus's. Edited May 5, 2009 by havok579257 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 It's just not natural, whatever it is you are implying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858387' date='May 5 2009, 11:15 AM']It's just not natural, whatever it is you are implying.[/quote] well thank you for your opinion of what someone likes and not likes being natural. not natural to whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1858400' date='May 5 2009, 11:26 AM']well thank you for your opinion of what someone likes and not likes being natural. not natural to whom?[/quote] [spoiler] Everything regarding sex in Catholic theology points to ejaculation taking place in the woman's vagina.[/spoiler] This is a natural function of our bodies and the way God intended for it to be. Any other "ending" is unnatural and against the body's design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858410' date='May 5 2009, 11:47 AM'][spoiler] Everything regarding sex in Catholic theology points to ejaculation taking place in the woman's vagina.[/spoiler] This is a natural function of our bodies and the way God intended for it to be. Any other "ending" is unnatural and against the body's design.[/quote] unnatural to do or unnatural to like the idea? they are 2 different things. everything in the catholic theology teachs that ending the proper way is to do it in regards to being open to life. well if someone is already pregnant are they not already open to life and they can't be more open to life than already ebing pregnat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missionseeker Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I think in that case it would have more to do with the dignity of the act and of the persons than necessarily being "open to life". However, being open to life doesn't mean just being open to having children. It means that the dignity of the person is respected. To take the unitive or procreative aspect from sex, goes against the intent (of God) for sex. It makes sex into something done for pleasure of desire and ONLY that and that's just not how it is supposed to be. When sex becomes the satiation of desires or wants and only that, then the other person involved becomes an object. And it doesn't respect the dignity of both persons. Nor of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1858415' date='May 5 2009, 04:54 PM']unnatural to do or unnatural to like the idea? they are 2 different things. everything in the catholic theology teachs that ending the proper way is to do it in regards to being open to life. well if someone is already pregnant are they not already open to life and they can't be more open to life than already ebing pregnat?[/quote] Because it isn't just about being open to life. There is also the unitive aspect, which is frustrated by not properly finishing the act. As mission said, "it doesn't respect the dignity of both persons." Oh, and to answer a previous question, except in the case of a woman having 2 uteruses, if she releases 2 eggs, it is within 24 hours. Conception therefore can occur from intercourse up to 5 days prior and 1 day after she ovulates. In the case of twins appearing to be different gestational ages (and thus being born at different times), this is generally because one twin is receiving more nourishment than the other. [quote name='missionseeker' post='1858422' date='May 5 2009, 05:02 PM']I think in that case it would have more to do with the dignity of the act and of the persons than necessarily being "open to life". However, being open to life doesn't mean just being open to having children. It means that the dignity of the person is respected. To take the unitive or procreative aspect from sex, goes against the intent (of God) for sex. It makes sex into something done for pleasure of desire and ONLY that and that's just not how it is supposed to be. When sex becomes the satiation of desires or wants and only that, then the other person involved becomes an object. And it doesn't respect the dignity of both persons. Nor of God.[/quote] Very well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='missionseeker' post='1858422' date='May 5 2009, 12:02 PM']I think in that case it would have more to do with the dignity of the act and of the persons than necessarily being "open to life". However, being open to life doesn't mean just being open to having children. It means that the dignity of the person is respected. To take the unitive or procreative aspect from sex, goes against the intent (of God) for sex. It makes sex into something done for pleasure of desire and ONLY that and that's just not how it is supposed to be. When sex becomes the satiation of desires or wants and only that, then the other person involved becomes an object. And it doesn't respect the dignity of both persons. Nor of God.[/quote] Buts thats just your opinion. Just because a man does not end correctly does not mean he is inot respecting his wife and just because a man does not end properly does not mean the wife is being respected. also if a man does not end properly does in no way mean the couple is any less unnitive then if he ends properly unless that is the personal feelings of one of the couple. The problem with the procreative aspect is that you are already doing that by being pregnant and you can't get pregnant again while being pregnant. its an oxymoron in this one instance. i mean if your saying that unless you can be procreative during sex and being pregnant does not already cover that aspect, then anyone having sex during pregancy is doing it only out of their own desires. which isn;t the case at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) [quote name='havok579257' post='1858415' date='May 5 2009, 11:54 AM']unnatural to do or unnatural to like the idea? they are 2 different things. everything in the catholic theology teachs that ending the proper way is to do it in regards to being open to life. well if someone is already pregnant are they not already open to life and they can't be more open to life than already ebing pregnat?[/quote] Unnatural to do. This is the Church's teaching. I could not tell you if it is unnatural to like the "idea" since I have no clue what "idea" it is you are referring to. However, I have an ASSUMPTION of what you are thinking of, and if it IS what I am thinking of, I would call it degrading. Furthermore, you will begin to view pregnancy as a "cover" for your sexual practice. This just destroys the beauty of pregnancy. [quote name='missionseeker' post='1858422' date='May 5 2009, 12:02 PM']I think in that case it would have more to do with the dignity of the act and of the persons than necessarily being "open to life". However, being open to life doesn't mean just being open to having children. It means that the dignity of the person is respected. To take the unitive or procreative aspect from sex, goes against the intent (of God) for sex. It makes sex into something done for pleasure of desire and ONLY that and that's just not how it is supposed to be. When sex becomes the satiation of desires or wants and only that, then the other person involved becomes an object. And it doesn't respect the dignity of both persons. Nor of God.[/quote] EXACTLY. Edited May 5, 2009 by HisChildForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1858432' date='May 5 2009, 12:10 PM']Because it isn't just about being open to life. There is also the unitive aspect, which is frustrated by not properly finishing the act. As mission said, "it doesn't respect the dignity of both persons." Oh, and to answer a previous question, except in the case of a woman having 2 uteruses, if she releases 2 eggs, it is within 24 hours. Conception therefore can occur from intercourse up to 5 days prior and 1 day after she ovulates. In the case of twins appearing to be different gestational ages (and thus being born at different times), this is generally because one twin is receiving more nourishment than the other. Very well said.[/quote] Its only not unnative if one of the couple feels that way. like another example would be is some couples might not consider it unnative if the women does not orgasm. although other couple might consider it unnative as long as sex is performed. this is subjective to each couple. so a man not ending right not being unnative is subjective to each couple. exactly, twins born through seperate sex acts can only happen at the very beinging of pregnancy and not well into a womens pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1858440' date='May 5 2009, 12:13 PM']Its only not unnative if one of the couple feels that way. like another example would be is some couples might not consider it unnative if the women does not orgasm. although other couple might consider it unnative as long as sex is performed. this is subjective to each couple. so a man not ending right not being unnative is subjective to each couple. exactly, twins born through seperate sex acts can only happen at the very beinging of pregnancy and not well into a womens pregnancy.[/quote] The unitive aspect is OBJECTIVE. It is not to be interpreted subjectively. 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