toldailytopic: What forms (if any) of contraception are immoral?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Dena
New member
But it doesn't nourish. So tell me Trad, do you avoid candy because it is in fact mostly a useless food? I eat chocolate because I enjoy it. I know full well it is not a nourishing food.
1. Pleasure follows upon activity. Aristotle says this in the Nicomachean Ethics.
2. Appetition follows upon apprehension, as stated above, and as St. Thomas Aquinas insists.
There are two senses in which the chocolate bar can be nourishing. Either in terms of the result, or in terms of satisfying the natural impulse. It may not be the best option for nourishing the body in the first sense, but it satisfies the natural impulse. If you're hungry, the chocolate bar is appetible because it's food. It satisfies your hunger.
Pleasure comes in all forms ... including sitting down and watching a movie with your kids or reading a book.
Perhaps Aristotle was a diabetic. :think:
No, you're entirely right. There's all kinds of different pleasures; but each kind of pleasure is the "crown" of its correlate activity. There is a pleasure of eating, a pleasure of drinking, a pleasure of sex, a pleasure of contemplation, etc.
This, in my view, is absolutely essential. A pleasure always accompanies and must be evaluated in terms of the activity it accompanies.
1. It's called "gluttony."
2. Nonetheless, you still have a natural impulse to eat, even if you're not necessarily hungry at this particular moment. Since we are body-soul composites, and the soul has care over the body, one of the natural impulses that we have in order to take care of the body is to take in food and drink.
Well, not exactly.
Genesis 2
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
And here is some commentary. Just for our auopilot.
Which proceeds from the natural desire to eat, which itself proceeds from the need to do so.
If she did not need to eat to survive she would not have desire for pleasuring the taste buds.
That's not necessarily true. The additives are the diminishing factor, wherein the chocolate itself is actually very good for you.
all forms of contraception are wrong in that they frustrate the ultimate purpose of sex
and
you don't need the bible to tell you this
natural law tells us that
and
you don't need the bible to tell you this
natural law tells us that
What are your thoughts on prematurely ending a pregnancy through the means of ending the life of the human in the womb?
After 26 weeks? I find it immoral (depending on the circumstance)*, and a stupid stupid idea. Under regular circumstances, after 22 weeks is wrong in an ideal world.
But... if a woman killed an unborn baby on purpose even though she could have EASILY got an abortion (which is probably rare) then she has committed murder - yet I'd give her a lesser sentence than someone who murders a born child.
I wouldn't really judge me through my position on sentences because they are non-intuitive in reverse. If I say that I wanted someone who murdered a 6 year old to spend longer in prison than if they murdered a 5 year old (or vice versa), it could just mean that I want to punish somebody more, not somebody less. (You'd have to be understanding to consider that, so I'm not expecting that from anyone here.)
I don't think that many here fully concede the difficulty of actually getting an abortion in a lot of states (you'd think they'd want to praise themselves for their success, sadly they prefer fear tactics of being overwhelmed).
If you fear constitutional rights... you have a very uphill battle on your hands, perfect for self-inflicted worry.
Thanks for your time reading, I hope I cannot be accused of avoiding your question, I certainly cannot be accused of brevity.
- I don't expect someone who murders a 6 year old to get longer than a 5 year old, but for example: If someone steals a baguette as opposed to a car... either way it's still stealing yet you expect harsher consequences for the car.
Last edited:
You didn't avoid the question.
I disagree, and we could get into that, but later, and maybe elsewhere.
Also, while I might expect a different sentence regarding the thefts under our current system
Anything that aborts the child at any stage of his development.
Autumn Delight
New member
None.
I really admire the way you supported your position with evidence, such as medical facts.