tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post8120990211464888836..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Quick Takes: The Coffinmaker, joy, tiaras, sex and hammersLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-84831306775819698902013-07-02T09:17:42.020-07:002013-07-02T09:17:42.020-07:00Regarding #3, this is very exciting:
My friend Ma...Regarding #3, this is very exciting:<br /><br /><i>My friend Marcus, who makes the Marian Caskets, is in the Smithsonian contest for the film and could use your votes! Here is what he got from the folks running the contest:<br /><br />Hi Marcus, <br /><br />I've got some more good news about The Coffinmaker: it's a finalist in Smithsonian's "In Motion" short video contest. Your story keeps reeling 'em in! <br /><br />I need your help. Please vote for and invite your friends to vote for this video on the contest page at http://www.smithsonianmag.com/inmotion/<br /><br />It's in the People category.</i><br /><br />Let's rally for this brother in Christ and his Divine Mercy casket ministry -- imagine that the secular world is enthralled by what they see! And please post to your fb pages if you can! :)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35720939906387985462013-06-27T22:16:47.990-07:002013-06-27T22:16:47.990-07:00Well, biology. Like you said, romantic feelings an...<i>Well, biology. Like you said, romantic feelings and sexual attraction are 'carrots' that are used to help us want to have sex and create human mating patterns. So such an emotionally important activity will have greater effects on children than a simple bowl of ice cream.</i><br /><br />But <i>why</i>? I mean, the pleasurable tastes involved in eating are the "carrots" that are used to help us want to eat to stay alive. But ice cream eating does not devastate a child. So what is different about sex?<br /><br />And, I don't understand this. You just said that random hook ups are good (can help build relationships), but then you call sex an "emotionally important activity". What does that even mean, then? And why are emotionally important activities bad for children?<br /><br />And, what does it matter if the carrot is about getting us to mate (for procreation, right)? I thought you said that sex can be separated from procreative aspects and be purely for pleasure, even hook ups? So, why would it affect kids negatively? I'm still not getting the <i>why</i> it's different from coercing a child to have more ice cream. Pleasure, casual, hook up, random, all seem to point to "if it feels good, do it". Unless you really do know (and I think you do) that there is something about sex, in the bonding that comes with sex, in the intimacy in giving <i>all of oneself</i> to the trust and tender care of another. It's serious, serious business, this sex thing, and I think you know that. But you seem to want it both ways (just for fun, but emotionally important) and I can't understand that? <br /><br />Tell me how it can be casual, even anonymous, only about fun and pleasure, but still leave adults utterly devastated, and in the case of children, perhaps destroyed. Why is that true of sex, but not of anything else, including ice cream?<br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90420050479471507452013-06-27T22:04:34.195-07:002013-06-27T22:04:34.195-07:00forthewar, it is a universal truth (and a common u...forthewar, it is a universal truth (and a common understanding of human nature) that bad, bad things happen (both psychologically and physically) with the misuse of human sexuality.<br /><br />Look, I sat down once with my liberal, Jewish neighbor, a friend. She was curious about Church teaching on sexuality. I told her that in my opinion and experience, the most painful things that happen in most women's lives have had something to do with misuse of sex (abortions, rape, being used and discarded, objectification, molestation, STDs, affairs, divorce, degradation through porn, etc.). She agreed totally. We sat there, on two different sides, and we agreed as women. She didn't argue that promiscuity was great for women, that non-commitment was great for women, that porn and abortion (she was pro-"choice") was great for women, etc. Heart to heart…. she <i>knew</i>.<br /><br />Opinion, generalization? Perhaps. But people know.<br /><br />I don't get the "enthusiastically" part of the consent. What is that about? So, consent has to be at a certain level? And what if she is faking her enthusiasm to make you happy? I just don't get that; I've never heard that before as a condition for something being right or good or moral. And, are you saying that consent is the sole criterion of the good?<br /><br /><i>limbs and eyesight do not result in medical conditions that are harmful or undesirable</i>. <br /><br />Fertility is not harmful, it's health. Pregnancy means a new human being is there now. So, we can't actually kill humans once they exist (that's called murder). We can desire the best for our child, even if that means a sacrifice of making an adoption plan if we are unable to parent. (Check out Grace In My Heart's newest post on my blog roll to see how such a miracle plays out, and no one has to die.)<br /><br />Undesirable is subjective. There are folks who have urges to cut off their limbs (it's a condition). They find them undesirable. Is it a moral action, then, for a doctor to accede to such a demand and amputate? I would argue no.<br /><br /><i>And it can also deepen the relationship between husband and husband, wife and wife, girlfriend and boyfriend, girlfriend and girlfriend, boyfriend and boyfriend, random guy and random girl, etc. There is nothing showing that the benefits of sex are constrained to married couples.</i><br /><br />Did you just advocate random hook ups? Yeah, we are definitely on two different planes for what is good. How can sex "deepen" their relationship? Isn't it just about using one another? Be honest. <br /><br />And, would you advocate that to teens? That they could get to know each other better through hook ups and casual sex? Do you know how that tends to affect young girls? I wish you understood girls. It's very sad to hear you say that. <br /><br />You say you don't believe in order and disorder. So, when a doctor says your daughter has an eating disorder, or a disorder of the brain, or a personality disorder, what will you understand him to mean? Why do you suppose that particular word is used?<br /><br /><br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-44189271380653958372013-06-27T20:56:03.642-07:002013-06-27T20:56:03.642-07:00Sex is not ice cream because sex has more of an ef...Sex is not ice cream because sex has more of an effect on the human psyche than ice cream. Why? Well, biology. Like you said, romantic feelings and sexual attraction are 'carrots' that are used to help us want to have sex and create human mating patterns. So such an emotionally important activity will have greater effects on children than a simple bowl of ice cream.<br /><br />Not to mention, kids have no idea how to act responsibly for themselves, that includes consent, and protecting themselves. Heck, some adults can't do it properly.<br /><br />This all comes down to the fact that children's brains are still developing and they do not have the ability to take on extremely emotionally and physically risky activities at that age. It's not just those either, minors can't sign contracts without an adult, because we recognize they likely would not understand the ramifications.forthewarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01760634551267268352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-61540505687177371942013-06-27T20:49:31.398-07:002013-06-27T20:49:31.398-07:00Yes, and both are rightly ordered and good!
I don...<i>Yes, and both are rightly ordered and good!</i><br /><br />I don't believe in ordered and disordered things, like they are described in natural law. It's basically a naturalistic fallacy.<br /><br /><i>Now, if we went in an excised part of our brain because we didn't want to have long-term memory or something like that, or because we wanted to stop being able to use our healthy limbs, or because we wanted to derail our vision, then we would be doing something that goes against health.</i><br /><br />But we need long term memory to function properly in society, and limbs and eyesight do not result in medical conditions that are harmful or undesirable. Those are equivalent to the non essential reproductive system. If someone's uterus stopped working tomorrow, nothing would change in their physiological health besides the uterus. It's not essential.<br /><br /><i>Can sex build up and deepen the relationship between a husband and wife?</i><br /><br />And it can also deepen the relationship between husband and husband, wife and wife, girlfriend and boyfriend, girlfriend and girlfriend, boyfriend and boyfriend, random guy and random girl, etc. There is nothing showing that the benefits of sex are constrained to married couples.<br /><br /><i>In fact, having sex while dating gets in the way of getting to know one another.</i><br /><br />This is a generalization.<br /><br /><i>Instead, they go straight to the most intimate thing that two people can do before they really know each other and before there is a permanent commitment -- there is no relationship building as they "skip" that part.</i><br /><br />There is no reason there needs to be a permanent commitment between anyone having sex as long as both parties enthusiastically consent.<br /><br /><i>That's why when the sex is no longer satisfying, or they find someone else more attractive or alluring, they move to the next partner. What if sex were off the table? Would the guy actually get to know the girl for herself and vice versa? I think it's much easier to do so, yes. I think building a relationship comes before intimacy.</i><br /><br />This is a generalization <i>and</i> a opinion. :) If that works for you and other Catholics, great. I'm not saying it's wrong. Just that it's not a universal truth.<br /><br /><i>But yes, sex is about pleasure and bonding, and I've never disagreed with that. It should be in a committed, married relationship, where hearts don't break, disease doesn't outbreak, and babies don't die.</i><br /><br />Leila, this response was sure chock full of generalizations! Haha.<br /><br />Any relationship where there is enthusiastic consent and safe sex practiced is not a threat for disease. Hearts can break in any marriage, and be emboldened by a one night stand. These are not universial truths.forthewarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01760634551267268352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21976232640378384802013-06-27T10:24:59.704-07:002013-06-27T10:24:59.704-07:00Breathtaking , yes!Breathtaking , yes!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15188319685568262029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-60977207404740705712013-06-27T10:20:07.814-07:002013-06-27T10:20:07.814-07:00Joanna, that's awesome congrats and may God Bl...Joanna, that's awesome congrats and may God Bless you guys and St. Gianna pray you and baby safely through. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15188319685568262029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38019571267703816982013-06-26T22:55:01.197-07:002013-06-26T22:55:01.197-07:00This part should have read:
We recognize fun thin...This part should have read:<br /><br /><i>We recognize fun things that kids can't do because they aren't ready.</i><br /><br />What fun things? And why wouldn't they be ready?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34382425937646209312013-06-26T22:52:17.003-07:002013-06-26T22:52:17.003-07:00I'm going to press you on this next part, so p...I'm going to press you on this next part, so please don't get offended. I want to really challenge you to think deeply on this. It's of utmost importance and most people do not think this through….<br /><br /><i>Because children cannot consent to sex.</i><br /><br />Agreed, but not everyone thinks like we do. So let's go further and think it out...<br /><br /><i>Sex is not ice cream. It's a big deal.</i> <br /><br />Yes, but <b>why</b>?<br /><br /><i>It has lasting ramifications for mental health</i><br /><br />Yes, but <b>why</b>?<br /><br /><i>Children are not mentally prepared for sex.</i><br /><br />Yes, but <b>why</b>? If sex can be only about recreation and pleasure, then what do they need to be mentally prepared for?<br /><br /><i>And even if they were, adults would not be able to get enthusiastic consent from them. It is inherently coercive.</i><br /><br />What does that matter? Why is that different than coercing a kid to eat just one more scoop of ice cream? Even if it were not enthusiastic, it can be pleasurable. Some pedophiles say that the child even wants to do these things. There are some people who find it funny if a female teacher seduces a twelve-year-old boy, for example. They think it's almost something the boy should brag about. And they will say, "Hey, the boy came back to her and sought her out for sex several times after that." Now, you and I understand that to be rape by the teacher, no matter how the boy acted or how interested he was in the sex, but how would you explain why it's wrong (which we agree, it is wrong!)? <br /><br /><i>I don't get it. To me, it's like you're arguing that children should be able to sign business contracts, take out loans, or drink a fifth of Jack. </i><br /><br />If kids are millionaires, they may be able to sign contracts, or take out loans, but most kids don't have the money so we don't bind them to contracts they cannot fulfill or pay. As for the fifth of Jack, that could really bodily injure them (although children are allowed to drink alcohol in other nations and no one says it's wrong or inherently evil).<br /><br /><i>We recognize fun things that kids can't do because they aren't ready.</i><br /><br /><i><b>But why?</b></i><br /><br /><i>Sex does not have the same consequences as ice cream. They aren't old enough for sex!</i><br /><br /><i><b>But why?</b></i><br /><br />Think harder….Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-59432146935869097552013-06-26T22:41:22.394-07:002013-06-26T22:41:22.394-07:00forthewar, you said:
Evolution created our big br...forthewar, you said:<br /><br /><i>Evolution created our big brains partly as one of our foraging tools, to help distinguish between good and poisonous food -- but that doesn't mean we can't use it for art, or other things.</i><br /><br />Yes, and both are rightly ordered and good! Now, if we went in an excised part of our brain because we didn't want to have long-term memory or something like that, or because we wanted to stop being able to use our healthy limbs, or because we wanted to derail our vision, then we would be doing something that goes <b>against</b> health. It would be unhealthy, and no one would call that "preventative medicine" or claim that it's standard healthcare (that should be paid for by others who object to such things).<br /><br /><i>And when you say 'recreation', you're also referring to relationship building? Because that is also an established function of sex.</i><br /><br />Can sex build up and deepen the relationship between a husband and wife? Yes, of course! That is a function (bonding). It bonds, quite deeply, the spouses. Sex is meant for permanence.<br />If you are saying that a dating couple (including dating teens) use sex to build their relationship, I would disagree. In fact, having sex while dating gets in the way of getting to know one another. I've talked to plenty of teens about chastity (and had my own experiences), and when the relationship moves to sex (and usually quite quickly), the "end" of each date, the thing that they are trying to get to, is the sexual part. There is no time to get to know each other, spend time with each other's family, find out each other's likes and dislikes, have long conversations (not about sex), just hang out and enjoy a friendship (which is the basis of any long-term commitment). Instead, they go straight to the most intimate thing that two people can do before they really know each other and before there is a permanent commitment -- there is no relationship building as they "skip" that part. That's why when the sex is no longer satisfying, or they find someone else more attractive or alluring, they move to the next partner. What if sex were off the table? Would the guy actually get to know the girl for herself and vice versa? I think it's much easier to do so, yes. I think building a relationship comes <i>before</i> intimacy. <br /><br />But yes, sex is about pleasure and bonding, and I've never disagreed with that. It should be in a committed, married relationship, where hearts don't break, disease doesn't outbreak, and babies don't die. Shoot for the ideal, since that is how humans thrive. It's always best for children, too. :)<br /><br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85243574475831368462013-06-26T22:23:07.475-07:002013-06-26T22:23:07.475-07:00Click on some of these beautiful photos (images th...Click on some of these beautiful photos (images that you may have never seen before, none are gory abortions, so no worries):<br /><br /><br />http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fetaldevelopment.htm<br /><br />From seven weeks on. Truly breathtaking! These are clearly babies.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-59584082755976228482013-06-26T21:31:13.255-07:002013-06-26T21:31:13.255-07:00but foremost for me and other couples it also has ...<i>but foremost for me and other couples it also has a lot to do with being romantically connected with your SO. Monogamous sex with a SO is how we connect with each other.</i><br /><br />forthewar, do you think that there are other ways to romantically connect to your SO? Are there not other ways of showing your love and affection towards the other person?<br />Margohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456678968658724716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-40161938113301874282013-06-26T21:26:39.038-07:002013-06-26T21:26:39.038-07:00forthewar, I will get back to you in a bit about t...forthewar, I will get back to you in a bit about the other questions (spending some time with the fam!), but first, did you know that "fetus" means "little one"? It does. <br /><br />What do you think is in JoAnna's womb right now? You know it's not an elephant or a rabbit. And it's of the species <i>homo sapien</i>.<br /><br />It's a little one of our own species. We call those wee ones "babies". ;)<br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-4667047919703207052013-06-26T19:04:05.378-07:002013-06-26T19:04:05.378-07:00Also, forthewar - the reproductive system isn'...Also, forthewar - the reproductive system isn't essential? So I guess we can just remove the testicles and uteri of every child at birth and doing so will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the human race?<br /><br />Is that honestly what you believe?JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-28721668799094979112013-06-26T18:51:33.540-07:002013-06-26T18:51:33.540-07:00A fetus isn't a baby.
When was the last time ...<i>A fetus isn't a baby.</i><br /><br />When was the last time you went to a fetus shower? Or heard an excited expectant mother say, "I felt my fetus kick!" <br /><br />I recently had a Level II ultrasound and the ultrasound tech called my baby a baby throughout as she was pointing out his/her various body parts. <a href="http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t229/jrwahlund/WAHLUND_0029.jpg" rel="nofollow">Please see this picture</a> -- was this highly qualified and experienced ultrasound technician, a woman who works at a perinatalogist's practice and does dozens of ultrasounds per day -- lying to me when she labelled it as she did?<br /><br />Also, please see <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby" rel="nofollow">definition #5</a> here. The dictionary disagrees with you.JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-69802374469809893582013-06-26T18:32:07.249-07:002013-06-26T18:32:07.249-07:00There is something wrong with a society's view...<i>There is something wrong with a society's view of sexuality when it has to walk over 54 million tiny baby corpses in the process of getting some "free love". Something is not right with our thinking on sex.</i><br /><br />A fetus isn't a baby.forthewarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01760634551267268352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85324115218614745052013-06-26T18:31:55.181-07:002013-06-26T18:31:55.181-07:00Biologically speaking only (for any materialists o...<i>Biologically speaking only (for any materialists out there), the pleasure is the "carrot" to get folks to reproduce. ;) But sex is inherently, intrinsically, connected to reproduction as well (that is why the sex organs are part of the reproductive system ("reproduce" = make babies!).</i><br /><br />But just because evolution designed a system one way does not mean we cannot improve it or find other functions for it. Evolution created our big brains partly as one of our foraging tools, to help distinguish between good and poisonous food -- but that doesn't mean we can't use it for art, or other things.<br /><br />And when you say 'recreation', you're also referring to relationship building? Because that is also an established function of sex.<br /><br /><i>And really, there are perverts who could certainly pleasure kids without hurting them, so why not let kids have fun, too? It's recreational!</i><br /><br />Because children cannot consent to sex.<br /><br />Sex is not ice cream. It's a big deal. It has lasting ramifications for mental health and a poor sex life or education, especially child abuse, can result in mental disorders or self esteem issues. Children are not mentally prepared for sex. And even if they were, adults would not be able to get enthusiastic consent from them. It is inherently coercive.<br /><br />I don't get it. To me, it's like you're arguing that children should be able to sign business contracts, take out loans, or drink a fifth of Jack. We recognize fun things that kids can't do because they aren't ready. Sex does not have the same consequences as ice cream. They aren't old enough for sex!<br /><br /><i>Our conscience tells us there is something wrong with porn and kiddie sex and yes, even consensual using of the other.</i><br /><br />My conscience tells me nothing is wrong with contraception, though. It's why I use it.<br /><br /><i>Vaccines prevent diseases. Again, pregnancy is NOT a disease. Risky? Yes, so is being alive. Having a heart is risky. Eating food is risky.</i><br /><br />All of those things you need to do to be alive. You do not need to take on the risk of pregnancy to be alive.<br /><br /><i>If folks really cannot accept the risk of having a baby, then they really should refrain from performing the baby-making act. It's called personal responsibility. Being in control of our actions and their consequences. <br /><br />Pregnancy is not a "medical choice", it's a natural state of a woman's functioning body when she is gestating a child. </i><br /><br />I agree with you on the first part, if you want to be <i>100%</i> sure you won't get pregnant, don't have sex. I am okay with 99% for the rewards of sex though.<br /><br />Pregnancy is certainly a choice! People by their actions can choose whether or not to be pregnant.<br /><br /><i>Self-mutilation for the right cause is okay, though, correct? If I want to have a vasectomy or a tubal, in order to have unfettered sex with no consequences (well, no babies), then I self-mutilate my organs, and everyone congratulates me. But if someone doesn't want to hear, or doesn't want to see, then they are self-mutilators if they do something about that. </i><br /><br />There's a difference between elective surgery that will prevent your body from doing something medically in the future that you don't want it to do (cancer, like elective mastectomy) and simply removing a part of your body for no reason.<br /><br /><i>If you don't want a baby, then why engage in the act that is designed to make babies?</i><br /><br />Sure, sex is designed to make babies, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have other benefits.<br /><br />I really feel like I say this a lot on here, haha, but I didn't fail 7th grade biology. I agree with you here too. I know that having sex can make me pregnant, no matter what precautions I take. And *knocks heavily on wood* if it did happen, I'd suck it up, and find a way to make it work. Life happens, and I'd never abort. Simply doing everything I can to *prevent* childbirth doesn't mean I don't realize this.forthewarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01760634551267268352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-18753195487179911312013-06-26T17:37:49.798-07:002013-06-26T17:37:49.798-07:00Yes, sex is pleasurable. Hooray for that! ;) Biolo...Yes, sex is pleasurable. Hooray for that! ;) Biologically speaking only (for any materialists out there), the pleasure is the "carrot" to get folks to reproduce. ;) But sex is inherently, intrinsically, connected to reproduction as well (that is why the sex organs are part of the reproductive system ("reproduce" = make babies!).<br /><br />If it's ONLY purpose is for recreation (with no respect for or understanding of its connection to reproduction), and if we <i>can</i> disconnect the two, then really why not have sex with the same attitude that we eat ice cream? And really, there are perverts who could certainly pleasure kids without hurting them, so why not let kids have fun, too? It's recreational! (As I've pointed out a zillion times, IPPF wants children to have fun, so wants them to have sexual rights. Why not?) And as for coercion of pleasure… We can coerce or coax our kids to eat ice cream, and no one objects ("come on, Tommy! You know you want a double scoop!"). What makes sex different from eating ice cream? I'm seriously asking. What is the problem if we groom kids at a young age to like eating ice cream? If sex is NOT connected to procreation, or to lifelong commitment to another, then it's simply casual fun and pleasure, right? So what's the objection?<br /><br />But of course, we all know in our hearts that there is something about sex that is NOT like other pleasurable acts. There is a natural law understanding there that we really mustn't ignore. Our conscience tells us there is something wrong with porn and kiddie sex and yes, even consensual using of the other. It's not just about recreation after all, is it? Again, what is different about sex than eating ice cream?<br /><br />Vaccines prevent <i>diseases</i>. Again, pregnancy is NOT a disease. Risky? Yes, so is being alive. Having a heart is risky. Eating food is risky. If folks really cannot accept the risk of having a baby, then they really should refrain from performing the baby-making act. It's called personal responsibility. Being in control of our actions and their consequences. <br /><br />Pregnancy is not a "medical choice", it's a <i>natural state</i> of a woman's functioning body when she is gestating a child. <br /><br />Self-mutilation for the right cause is okay, though, correct? If I want to have a vasectomy or a tubal, in order to have unfettered sex with no consequences (well, no babies), then I self-mutilate my organs, and everyone congratulates me. But if someone doesn't want to hear, or doesn't want to see, then they are self-mutilators if they do something about that. <br /><br />"Eyesight does not result in something like pregnancy that people don't want."<br /><br />If you don't want a baby, then why engage in the act that is designed to make babies? Even when I was an unmarried contracepter, I realized the logic that this act could make a baby, so I'd better keep that at the forefront of my mind and make sure I take responsibility for any human being I created. I look back and can't believe how foolish I was, but I at least knew that much. I knew that if I really didn't want a baby, I should not be having sex at all, which is the act that makes (billions and billions of) babies.<br /><br />There is something wrong with a society's view of sexuality when it has to walk over 54 million tiny baby corpses in the process of getting some "free love". Something is not right with our thinking on sex.<br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-13179114725169679962013-06-26T17:08:32.319-07:002013-06-26T17:08:32.319-07:00forthewar, why engage in the baby-making act if yo...<i>forthewar, why engage in the baby-making act if you are utterly opposed to it producing babies? Can sex really be just for pleasure and recreation, with no deeper meaning connected to it?</i><br /><br />Sex isn't just about babies though? It is really that bizarre to enjoy sex but not want kids? It's about pleasure and recreation too, but foremost for me and other couples it also has a lot to do with being romantically connected with your SO. Monogamous sex with a SO is how we connect with each other.<br /><br /><i>And if so, then doesn't that view open up a whole host of abuses connected to sex? </i><br /><br />Not if everyone's enthusiastically consenting.<br /><br /><i>Because if it's just for fun, I still can't figure out why those who think that way are against children having some fun, too? </i><br /><br />If we're talking about pedophilia, it's because kids do not understand what sex is, it can often hurt them, and they can't properly consent.<br /><br />If we're talking about statutory rape, it's because adults have a sway over a minor that inherently makes consent coerced.<br /><br /><i>Because healthcare brings the body to health. There is no disease or disorder that is treated by contracepting. </i><br /><br />Not true, there is also preventative healthcare. Vaccines treat no disease or disorder, yet are given to a healthy person. Contraception is preventative healthcare.<br /><br />Pregnancy isn't a disease, but it is medically risky (and a medical choice) and so therefore if someone wishes to avoid it becomes a preventative healthcare issue.<br /><br /><i>With your statement, then you'd agree, I'm guessing, that abortion is also good healthcare?</i><br /><br />I don't know how I feel about abortion.<br /><br /><i>And if I didn't want to have eyesight, then poking out my eyeball is also good healthcare</i><br /><br />You're much more likely to have a self-mutilation disorder. Eyesight does not result in something like pregnancy that people don't want.forthewarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01760634551267268352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-36585778155528310562013-06-26T16:38:01.851-07:002013-06-26T16:38:01.851-07:00forthewar, why engage in the baby-making act if yo...forthewar, why engage in the baby-making act if you are utterly opposed to it producing babies? Can sex really be just for pleasure and recreation, with no deeper meaning connected to it? And if so, then doesn't that view open up a whole host of abuses connected to sex? Because if it's just for fun, I still can't figure out why those who think that way are against children having some fun, too? Serious question, not being snarky.<br /><br /><i>If we don't want kids, how are medical options to drastically increase our likelihood of remaining sterile *not* healthcare related?</i><br /><br />Because healthcare brings the body to health. There is no disease or disorder that is treated by contracepting. Unless you classify babies or pregnancy as diseases or disorders?<br /><br />With your statement, then you'd agree, I'm guessing, that abortion is also good healthcare? And if I didn't want to have eyesight, then poking out my eyeball is also good healthcare (could you find an ophthalmologist to agree with that? Doubtful).<br /><br /> Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45779104433942969232013-06-26T16:30:53.773-07:002013-06-26T16:30:53.773-07:00CS, I had no idea you used NFP! What type?
And y...CS, I had no idea you used NFP! What type? <br /><br />And yes, I would still say it's not the same, not the ideal (in fact, fornication is mortally sinful, enough that Jesus said that those who engage in it will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven; I know you are a Christian, so that is very important to realize).<br /><br />I see a great deal of difference between sodomy and normal intercourse. Let me ask you: If a couple were to be united in Holy Matrimony, and the "consummation" of that love were to be effected by the husband lovingly ejaculating into the mouth of his wife, and that is the way they "made love" every time, you think that is the same thing, morally, as if the couple made love in the "old fashioned" (vagina/penis intercourse) way? Do you think that is what Jesus meant when he said that the "two shall become one flesh"? Oral copulation? <br /><br />As far as the "I do" not changing things. Well, the body speaks a language. The thing that makes me sad is that your bodies are saying one thing when you have sex ("I accept you totally, completely, faithfully), but you mean something different. But you mean ("I don't accept all of you -- definitely not your fertility and life-giving qualities, and we have no real commitment at this point"). So, the body says one thing but you are saying another. <br /><br />It's exactly why when your friends were asked by you to find the downside of the hook-up culture, they couldn't find any -- except for the "constant sobbing". They don't even realized that they were lying (as in telling lies) with their own bodies, as were the "boys" (not men!) who were using them. <br /><br />We are made for something so much higher!<br /><br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85569591566020346662013-06-26T16:06:20.791-07:002013-06-26T16:06:20.791-07:00Hi Leila,
I don’t mean to quibble with you on you...Hi Leila,<br /><br />I don’t mean to quibble with you on your own blog. But as a woman in her early twenties, I have a pet peeve about people (on every side of the issue) setting grandiose expectations about sex. <br /><br />I use NFP in my relationship. It’s pretty hyperbolic to say that it is nothing like ‘sterile sex.’ I understand that I’m not yet married but I think it’s more than a stretch of the imagination to think that someone’s entire sexual relationship changes completely as soon as they say ‘I do’. <br /><br /><br />The Catholic faith can still have a unified vision on sex even if individuals acknowledge that people’s experiences will be different and some things will be more personally rewarding. It wouldn’t change how God feels or what one should do. <br /><br />And no I couldn’t honestly tell you I see some great distinction between ‘completion’ in oral sex versus traditional sex. I certainly see personal preferences but cant possibly see some measurable moral difference between the two. <br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29992011798466717542013-06-26T16:05:43.981-07:002013-06-26T16:05:43.981-07:00The human reproductive system is not an essential ...<i>The human reproductive system is not an essential organ system. It function/disfunction has nothing to do with a healthy human being, unless its disfunction is causing issues with essential organ systems. </i><br /><br />Why,no, it has nothing to do with a healthy human being, only the generating of human beings entirely.<br />If it's not "essential", let's see human kind produce and go on without it.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-28447655688845782522013-06-26T16:00:49.356-07:002013-06-26T16:00:49.356-07:00The human reproductive system is not an essential ...The human reproductive system is not an essential organ system. It function/disfunction has nothing to do with a healthy human being, unless its disfunction is causing issues with essential organ systems.forthewarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01760634551267268352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-91498487409739685432013-06-26T15:58:16.630-07:002013-06-26T15:58:16.630-07:00When a body is working well, doing exactly what it...<i>When a body is working well, doing exactly what it's supposed to (ovulating, having regular cycles, humming along healthily), and a medicine is introduced to stop the functioning of those healthy organs and systems, then yes, of course it's designed to derail healthy functioning! That is the point of the Pill! To derail healthy fertility. No?</i><br /><br />But merely stopping a bodily function (whether it can be done in a healthy body or not) does not mean the stoppage is unhealthy. People are perfectly healthy while taking contraception (rare side effects not withstanding).<br /><br /><i>I asked you if there were something inherently wrong with a woman's healthy, functioning body? You didn't answer. Instead you asked:</i><br /><br />I didn't answer that question directly, that's true, but I didn't ignore it either! I said there are a number of things that can be improved upon in a human body. Do I think that the human body is "inherently wrong" because I'd be in favor of devising a way so we don't breathe and drink through the same hole, ending choking? I have the same philosophy about pregnancy. I guess you can say that, yes, I do then. But the way that question is phrased makes me wary about answering it.<br /><br />Now for my question again, expanded (sure Nubby answered, but let's just say I want to hear your opinion instead):<br /><br />I'm happily in a relationship. We'll likely be married within a few years time. We both agree that we do not want kids, because it would take a lot of time away from my career and frankly, pregnancy and kids are not for us. It's a mutual personal preference. If we don't want kids, how are medical options to drastically increase our likelihood of remaining sterile *not* healthcare related?forthewarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01760634551267268352noreply@blogger.com