Teacher Fired For Using In Vitro Fertilization

[Rhino]

Teacher Fired From Roman Catholic Schools For Using In Vitro Fertilization

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

MILWAUKEE — Kelly Romenesko was teaching French at two Roman Catholic schools in Appleton when she and her husband decided to start a family using in vitro fertilization.

After asking for some time off in September 2004 to complete the procedure, the lifelong Catholic gave her boss an update about a month later: She was pregnant.

But only days after that, she said, she got a pink slip from the Catholic school system. Administrators, according to her lawyer James C. Jones, claimed Romenesko violated a provision of her employment contract saying a teacher has to act in accordance with Catholic doctrine.

"All she was trying to do was have a child, which of course should be a wonderful thing," Jones said Tuesday.

In vitro fertilization involves extracting eggs from a woman's ovaries and fertilizing them with sperm in a laboratory dish or test tube. The fertilized eggs are implanted into the woman's uterus.

Catholic teaching holds that the procedure is morally wrong because it replaces the "natural" conjugal union between husband and wife and often results in destruction of embryos..........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195050,00.html

[JOEVIKING]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195050,00.html

She should be fired. If she is going to teach at a Catholic school, she should have to obey the rules as are suposed to all Catholics.

What kind of message would the kids be getting if the school allows one of their teachers to do as she wishes going against the Church??

She should be fired.

[Trevelyan]

Hah, this is a perfect example as to why I am not a "true Catholic" anymore.

[Rhino]

She forgot to provide the disclaimer:

No embryos were harmed in the making of this pregnancy.

[Incident_command]

If it was clear to her before the in vitro, well she knew what could happen. Rules are rules and the time to fight one isn't after you break it.

Not that I agree with Old Rome on this.

This is more doctrine by the catholic church, made by man, that has no clear scriptural support.
Molest a boy and be moved to another parrish. Try to have a child via in vitro and be fired. Come on.

[Trevelyan]

She forgot to provide the disclaimer:

No embryos were harmed in the making of this pregnancy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Trevelyan/laugh.gif

[JOEVIKING]

Hah, this is a perfect example as to why I am not a "true Catholic" anymore.
So Brian (that's what I'll call you since you have a pic of Brian from "Family Guy" as your avatar), you truely believe that God wants us to play God.

The Catholic Religion is the the one TRUE RELIGION!!!

[Trevelyan]

So Brian (that's what I'll call you since you have a pic of Brian from "Family Guy" as your avatar), you truely believe that God wants us to play God.

I do not see what is wrong about creating a new life if someone desperately wants a child.


The Catholic Religion is the the one TRUE RELIGION!!!

Sarcasm?

[Incident_command]

If its man playing God then the catholic church should be against most life saving medical treatment, such as organ transplants. It would be like saying if God wants life to continue in that person he should then heal the organ.

[Trevelyan]

Oh, I probably should have included this with my earlier post, but as is stated in my profile under the religion category, I am "A Catholicish/Deisty something." :)

[Rink]

The RCC has every right to keep its standards for the teachers they employ the way they want it, after all it IS a private school, a religious school and nobody forced that teacher to work there, by being employed at that school she agreed to the terms of employment, one being a good moral example.

now with the snipe over the Priest molestations, the few parishes that moved molesting priest to parish to parish were DEALT with.

They were priests who were found to have molested young boys (altar boys)

What the woman did here was against Core Catholic teaching, and she was dealt with as it would be disengenuous for the RCC to teach a particular core teaching only to turn a blind eye and allow individuals who break those core teachings to have positions of teaching certitude and moral example towards the children they teach.

The priest scandal was something hidden for a long time by those in power who were of the same sort, infesting homosexuals who got into positions of power then protected their own in the RCC till the lid got blown off of it. THEN the RCC dealt with it and has been dealing with it ever since then and has been hammered continuously and constantly for it ever since then also.

Nice, everytime something happens with the Catholic Church on matters such as this, everyone pounces on it readily, eagerly and hammers the old, well-worn hatreds against the RCC and continues to rub the priest scandals in our faces no matter how the Church has been dealing with it and has done its level best to put a stop to it.

I suppose if some had their druthers with the Catholic church maybe they should allow women who advocate abortions, pedophiles. homosexuals, drug addicts, drunks, hookers and others into positions of moral examples just to be pleased.

[Rhino]

What do they do if they catch them masturbating?

[Lazarus]

...The Catholic Religion is the the one TRUE RELIGION!!!Lighten up Joe... Unless you're looking to start a nasty interdenominational fight...

[Rink]

Them as in who? the teachers?

I would hope they do the same thing, removal.

[Rhino]

Them as in who? the teachers?

I would hope they do the same thing, removal.
Fer killin them sperm cells?

[Rink]

lol well masturbation is against RCC teachings also, but the point of the matter here is this Teacher actively and Openly sought In-Vitro, knowing full well that doing so was against core RCC teachings.

Prob with masturbation is its not as easy to detect and most dont do it actively and out in the open like this woman did with In-vitro.

Big difference.

[JOEVIKING]

Lighten up Joe... Unless you're looking to start a nasty interdenominational fight...
Sorry Franis, but the Truth is the Truth, There is no reason to fight.
The Catholic Religion is the One True Religion
All others are false!!!

[Trevelyan]

Fer killin them sperm cells?

Hah, another teaching I do not agree with.

[Rhino]

Prob with masturbation is its not as easy to detect and most dont do it actively and out in the open like this woman did with In-vitro.I doubt she did in-vitro in the open, but she certainly talked about it openly. Guess she shouldn't mention masturbation openly either, huh? :grin:

[Lazarus]

Sorry Franis, but the Truth is the Truth, There is no reason to fight.
The Catholic Religion is the One True Religion
All others are false!!!Joe, I could debate that with you on that issue, but the difference between you and me is that I know there are some Catholics on this board and I respect them enough to avoid directly insulting them by spouting my personal beliefs... Why dont you do the same and limit your religious condemnations to PMs with your Catholic friends... You're not going to maintain friendships here by condemning other members' spiritual choices in this forum... If you want to play Torquemada, you might want to take it to the appropriate forum...

And BTW.... Who is Franis?:question:

[Rhino]

The Catholic Religion is the One True Religion
All others are false!!!Gee, you sound a lot like the Muslim extremists. "We're it! All others are infidels!" Makes me damn glad I'm not Catholic.

[Lazarus]

Gee, you sound a lot like the Muslim extremists. "We're it! All others are infidels!" Makes me damn glad I'm not Catholic.HAHAHA... I was thinking precisely the same, Rhino...;)

[Incident_command]

Nice, everytime something happens with the Catholic Church on matters such as this, everyone pounces on it readily, eagerly and hammers the old, well-worn hatreds against the RCC and continues to rub the priest scandals in our faces no matter how the Church has been dealing with it and has done its level best to put a stop to it.
.

I dont agree with that, but sin and refusal to deal with it over a prolonged time has its consequenses.

[Incident_command]

I suppose if some had their druthers with the Catholic church maybe they should allow women who advocate abortions, pedophiles. homosexuals, drug addicts, drunks, hookers and others into positions of moral examples just to be pleased.

They already have.

[Rink]

Having someone in a teaching position in a Religious PRIVATE school they are supposed to uphold a certain amount of moral example to the kids they teach, before being hired these teachers KNOW just exactly what is and isnt allowed, this teacher knowingly Violated the terms of that agreement by going against core Catholic teachings.

One note on this, gotta love the rampant Anti-Catholic bias here all over this whole thread.

Damn the RCC for firing that nice teacher, all she wanted is to have children, HUMAN Forbid we hold these people who are supposed to teach Catholic Church teachings to impressionable young children to a Catholic moral standard!!!!

[JOEVIKING]

Gee, you sound a lot like the Muslim extremists. "We're it! All others are infidels!" Makes me damn glad I'm not Catholic.

Yes maybe it does sound like that, I don't really care it is TRUTH.
However, I never said if you don't convert you should die.
No, I really don't care if you convert or not, but you will after you die.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholics believe that theirs is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, firstly, because theirs is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ; secondly, because theirs is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church; and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ's true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles' Creed and the Primitive Christian letters). Wrote Ignatius of Antioch, illustrious Church Father of the first century: ``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.'' Our Lord said: ``There shall be one fold and one shepherd, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism (``And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.'' <cite>Mark</cite> 3:25), Catholics cannot believe that He would ever sanction it in His Church

[JOEVIKING]

Joe, I could debate that with you on that issue, but the difference between you and me is that I know there are some Catholics on this board and I respect them enough to avoid directly insulting them by spouting my personal beliefs...
And BTW.... Who is Franis?:question:

Wow, so easliy offended??

Franis is a reference to the Movie "Stripes"
You said "Lighten Up" Joe
Get it????

[Rink]

Its meddling Protestants like this who seek to interfere, and hamstring the RCC's efforts to keep to RCC moral standards is the reason why I get tired of this whole Catholic bashing thing.

Keep to your own and leave the RCC alone, if you cant then Quit judging us by standards you protestants dont even keep to.

Nobody's perfect but then at least SOME Catholic Churches try to maintain a moral standard, only to be hammered mercilessly for trying to uphold a moral standard is the height of hypocrisy in this day and age where children are having children, and millions of innocent babies are murdered at the altar of abortion, and homosexual activism is dragging the rest of human society down with them into the sewer and scandals are rampant as the day is long.

You want abortion, you want pedophilia? you want sexual licentiousness and homosexuality shoved into everyones faces and 'do as you please' and if it 'feel sood then it is good' attitude then DO it yourself but dont go pushing that immoral gabrage on the Catholic Church.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!

[Incident_command]

Having someone in a teaching position in a Religious PRIVATE school they are supposed to uphold a certain amount of moral example to the kids they teach, before being hired these teachers KNOW just exactly what is and isnt allowed, this teacher knowingly Violated the terms of that agreement by going against core Catholic teachings.

One note on this, gotta love the rampant Anti-Catholic bias here all over this whole thread.

Damn the RCC for firing that nice teacher, all she wanted is to have children, HUMAN Forbid we hold these people who are supposed to teach Catholic Church teachings to impressionable young children to a Catholic moral standard!!!!

If that was for me
No as I said, if she knew the rules so be it. My problem is how the RCC came about this so-called core belief, and the discrepancy of treatment between priests and teachers. I see nothing wrong with in vitro as long as there is not selective reduction. To me selective reduction is abortion. But remember not all in vitro results in life. God still has to grant that.

[Rink]

Its obvious you never understood let alone know core Catholic teaching and Catechism.

Or you would understand

Selective reduction means killing a viable human being off for the few others, a viable human being is when egg and sperm meet and become one, that starts the process of life, it is the same as aborting a child in the womb for its twin 'viable reduction' is invitro abortion and is morally WRONG

[JOEVIKING]

Its meddling Protestants like this who seek to interfere, and hamstring the RCC's efforts to keep to RCC moral standards is the reason why I get tired of this whole Catholic bashing thing.

Keep to your own and leave the RCC alone, if you cant then Quit judging us by standards you protestants dont even keep to.

Nobody's perfect but then at least SOME Catholic Churches try to maintain a moral standard, only to be hammered mercilessly for trying to uphold a moral standard is the height of hypocrisy in this day and age where children are having children, and millions of innocent babies are murdered at the altar of abortion, and homosexual activism is dragging the rest of human society down with them into the sewer and scandals are rampant as the day is long.

You want abortion, you want pedophilia? you want sexual licentiousness and homosexuality shoved into everyones faces and 'do as you please' and if it 'feel sood then it is good' attitude then DO it yourself but dont go pushing that immoral gabrage on the Catholic Church.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!


RINK for President!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awesome Post!!!!

[Rhino]

One note on this, gotta love the rampant Anti-Catholic bias here all over this whole thread.All over? Joe didn't sound very anti-Catholic to me!

If you're thinking of Laz and my responses to Joe, they weren't anti-Catholic. They were anti-asshole.

Seriously though, I haven't seen any anti-Catholicism here. IC pointed out the inequity of some punishments, but that's just a statement of fact, albeit tragic ones. One could find hypocrisy in almost any group, religious or otherwise. That's not a bias against the religion. It's a bias against some of the seemingly non-thinking human beings who are sometimes put in power positions within those religions. That isn't confined to any single religion.

Honestly, Rink, I think your skin's a little thin here.

[Trevelyan]

The Catholic Church is considering softening its opposition to condoms. I never understood this opposition to begin with, so I hope a change occurs.

[Incident_command]

Its obvious you never understood let alone know core Catholic teaching and Catechism.

Or you would understand

Selective reduction means killing a viable human being off for the few others, a viable human being is when egg and sperm meet and become one, that starts the process of life, it is the same as aborting a child in the womb for its twin 'viable reduction' is invitro abortion and is morally WRONG

Rink relax its a debate. As I said and I'll say it again for you I am against selective reduction, I know what it means I brought it up . Try not to accuse me of wanting abortions, homos teaching, pedophiles, and what else, oh yea drug addicts.

But you are right on one point, I dont understand the RCC on this and how they back it in scripture. Please explain it.

[Trevelyan]

homos teaching

There's something wrong with that?

[JOEVIKING]

The Catholic Church is considering softening its opposition to condoms. I never understood this opposition to begin with, so I hope a change occurs.

No it is not.

Better check your facts.

Vatican office clarifies: teaching on condoms and AIDS will not change (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558

Vatican City, Apr. 24, 2006 (CNA (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/)) - An official from the Pontifical Council for Health and Pastoral Care, presided by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, made it clear today that the recent interview given by the Mexican prelate to the Italian daily La Reppublica, doesn’t hint at any change in the doctrine of the Church on the use of condoms to fight Aids.

Over the weekend, numerous dailies and news agencies have headlined the Cardinal’s interview, in which he declared that: "This is a very difficult and delicate subject that requires prudence. My department is studying this closely with scientists and theologians expressly assigned to draft a document that will be issued soon," he said.

The prelate’s declarations became the basis of heavy speculations, especially his thoughts on making “the Church’s position more flexible,” in respect to the use of condoms.

For the rest http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558

[Trevelyan]

No it is not.

Better check your facts.

Vatican office clarifies: teaching on condoms and AIDS will not change (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558

Vatican City, Apr. 24, 2006 (CNA (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/)) - An official from the Pontifical Council for Health and Pastoral Care, presided by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, made it clear today that the recent interview given by the Mexican prelate to the Italian daily La Reppublica, doesn’t hint at any change in the doctrine of the Church on the use of condoms to fight Aids.

Over the weekend, numerous dailies and news agencies have headlined the Cardinal’s interview, in which he declared that: "This is a very difficult and delicate subject that requires prudence. My department is studying this closely with scientists and theologians expressly assigned to draft a document that will be issued soon," he said.

The prelate’s declarations became the basis of heavy speculations, especially his thoughts on making “the Church’s position more flexible,” in respect to the use of condoms.

For the rest http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6558



That's a shame.

[JOEVIKING]

All over? Joe didn't sound very anti-Catholic to me!

If you're thinking of Laz and my responses to Joe, they weren't anti-Catholic. They were anti-asshole.

Seriously though, I haven't seen any anti-Catholicism here. IC pointed out the inequity of some punishments, but that's just a statement of fact, albeit tragic ones. One could find hypocrisy in almost any group, religious or otherwise. That's not a bias against the religion. It's a bias against some of the seemingly non-thinking human beings who are sometimes put in power positions within those religions. That isn't confined to any single religion.

Honestly, Rink, I think your skin's a little thin here.

Now when Did I attack you or Laz??
I threw no stone, only spoke truth and for that I get called names.
Not very christian thing to do is now??
Seems very much like what a Liberal might do.
Hah, I called you Liberal. LOL Take that!!! LOL

[Incident_command]

There's something wrong with that?

Oh hell yea without a doubt. But thats for another thread.

[JOEVIKING]

That's a shame.

Not a Shame. It's Truth.

Truth is Truth and won't change just cause the times do.

Over 2000 years and still Truth
It will always be truth.

[Lazarus]

Its meddling Protestants like this who seek to interfere, and hamstring the RCC's efforts to keep to RCC moral standards is the reason why I get tired of this whole Catholic bashing thing.Ok Rink... You made tha comment so you're gonna have to clarify your meaning... Just WHO is the meddling Protestant and where is the Catholic bashing?...

[Trevelyan]

Not a Shame. It's Truth.

Truth is Truth and won't change just cause the times do.

Over 2000 years and still Truth
It will always be truth.

But why? I do not see why condoms are viewed negatively, but natural family planning is alright. Also, I have never heard of "pulling out" being against Catholic doctrine either. I do not see what the differences are.

[Rhino]

Now when Did I attack you or Laz??I never said you attacked.

I threw no stone, only spoke truth and for that I get called names.No, you were being arrogant and condescending, and for that you got called a name.

Not very christian thing to do is now??
Seems very much like what a Liberal might do.No it isn't, and yes it does, so will you please stop it now?

Hah, I called you Liberal. LOL Take that!!! LOLI'm amused. No, really. Calling names is easy. At least I didn't do anything to deserve mine. Besides, only Rhino insults are the True Insults. All others are false!!!

Cept maybe fer Doc.

[Rink]

In a nutshell I_C you can find it ALL over the place in the Bible basically - Life is sacred, and the killing of innocent babies is absolutely abhorrent all throughout the bible.

[Rhino]

It's based on the belief that life begins at conception. The fetus being 'reduced' is still a true fetus, and thus selective reduction kills it. Such a killing would violate the sanctity of life, which is indeed addressed all through the Bible.

[JOEVIKING]

But why? I do not see why condoms are viewed negatively, but natural family planning is alright. Also, I have never heard of "pulling out" being against Catholic doctrine either. I do not see what the differences are.

The Catholic Church is not opposed to birth control when it is accomplished by natural means, by self control. She is opposed only to birth control by artificial means, by the employment of pills, condoms, IUD's, foams, jellies, sterilization, non-completion of the act of sexual union--or any other means used to prevent conception from resulting from this act--because such means profane the marital embrace and dishonor the marriage contract. God slew Onan for practicing contraception (<cite>Gen</cite>. 38:9-10); the word ``onanism'' derives from Onan's deed. In fact, up until the Church of England's Lambeth Conference of 1930, which accepted contraception and thus broke with the Christian tradition, contraception had been considered by all Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant, to be gravely sinful. The Catholic Church does not feel free to change the law of God, as do Protestants.

In the New Testament, there is only one instance where sin is punished by God with immediate death, this was the fate of Ananias and Saphira, a husband and wife who went through the motions of giving a gift to God but fraudulently kept back part of it. The Bible says they lied to the Holy Spirit. (<cite>Acts</cite> 5 : 1-11 ). In contraception, two people go through the motions of an act of self-giving, but obstruct the natural fruition of their act, i.e., the conception of children, which is the ultimate purpose for which God created sexuality. Sexual union is a gift from God to the married, but by practicing contraception, married couples are accepting the pleasure God built into the act and yet denying Him its purpose, new people. They are in effect mocking God. But ``Be not deceived, God is not mocked.'' (<cite>Gal</cite>. 6:7). Christ cursed the fig tree which, despite a fine external appearance, bore no fruit. (<cite>Matt</cite>. 21:19; <cite>Mark</cite> 11:14). Marriage is God's plan for populating Heaven, yet contracepting couples refuse Him the specific fruit of their marriage, which is children, when they engage in the act which should produce children yet frustrate the natural, God-intended result.

Further, the sin of ``sorceries'' or ``witchcrafts'' (``pharmakeia'' in the Greek--<cite>Gal</cite>. 5:20; <cite>Apoc</cite>. 9:21; 21:8)--which the Bible condemns along with fornication, murder, idolatry, and other serious sins--very possibly includes secret potions mixed to prevent pregnancy or cause abortion. Such potions were known and used even in the first century.


Common sense and conscience both dictate that artificial birth control is not only a violation of the Natural Law but is a perfidious insult to the dignity of man himself. For it implies free reign to physical impulses; it implies total disregard for the fate of the human seed; it implies utter contempt for the honorable birth of fellow humans, those fellow humans who are born as the result of a contraceptive having failed and whose very existence is therefore considered to be an unfortunate ``accident,'' rather than a gift of God; it implies the most extreme selfishness, for no advocate or practitioner of artificial birth control would have wanted it for his or her own parents. Further, contraception undermines the respect of husband and wife for each other and thereby loosens the marriage bond. Worst of all, many ``contraceptives,'' such as the IUD and most if not all birth control pills, work by actually causing an abortion early in the pregnancy; thus, this so-called ``contraception'' is in reality abortion--the killing of a human being--rather than the preventing of conception.


In every age there is some favorite sin which is accepted by ``respectable'' worldly Christians; in our times the ``acceptable'' sin is contraception--a sin which fits in perfectly with the view that the purpose of human life is to attain earthly happiness. The true Christian couple, on the other hand, will realize that God desires them to have children so that these children can come to know Him and love Him and be happy with Him eternally in Heaven. Marriage is God's plan for populating Heaven. How wise it is to let God plan one's family, since He loves children much more than do their earthly parents, and His plans for them go far beyond any plans of these parents. Innumerable stories are told of God's Providence to Christian parents who trusted in Him and obeyed His law. For those who have a true and serious need to space or limit the number of their children, the new methods of natural family planning (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Issues/NFP.html) based on periodic abstinence have proven to be extremely reliable (unlike the earlier ``rhythm'' methods) .


Finally, the Christian will realize that the self-denial involved in bearing and raising Christian children is a school of Christlikeness. Our Lord said: ``If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.'' (<cite>Matt</cite>. 16:24). But He also said: ``My yoke is sweet and my burden light.'' (<cite>Matt</cite>. 11:30). God promises sufficient grace to those who seek to obey Him. And the resulting peace of soul which the obedient married couple enjoys is beyond all price. Why does the Catholic Church make no exceptions when it comes to divorce? Does not the Bible say that Christ permitted divorce in case of fornication? (<cite>Matthew</cite> 19:9).


The Catholic Church makes no exceptions when it comes to divorce because Christ made no exceptions. When Christ was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife ``for every cause,'' He replied that a man ``shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh . . . What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.'' (<cite>Matt</cite>. 19:3-6). And the Apostle Paul wrote: ``But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.'' (<cite>1 Cor</cite>. 7:10-11). In <cite>Matthew</cite> 19:9 Christ does not permit divorce in cases of fornication. He permits separation. This is clear from the fact that those who separated were cautioned not to remarry. Read <cite>Mark</cite> 10-12 and Luke 16:18.


Also, we know that divorce is against Divine Law because it is plainly against right reason. Were it not for our man-made laws which ``legalize,'' popularize, and even glamorize divorce, discontented married couples would make a more determined effort to reconcile their differences and live in peace; they would be obliged by necessity to swallow their false pride and accept the responsibilities they owe to their spouses, to their children, to society as a whole, and to God. Any sociologist will confirm that there is far less immorality, far less suicide, far fewer mental disorders and far less crime among peoples who reject divorce than among the so-called ``progressives'' who accept it

[Trevelyan]

In the New Testament, there is only one instance where sin is punished by God with immediate death, this was the fate of Ananias and Saphira, a husband and wife who went through the motions of giving a gift to God but fraudulently kept back part of it. The Bible says they lied to the Holy Spirit. (<CITE>Acts</CITE> 5 : 1-11 ). In contraception, two people go through the motions of an act of self-giving, but obstruct the natural fruition of their act, i.e., the conception of children, which is the ultimate purpose for which God created sexuality. Sexual union is a gift from God to the married, but by practicing contraception, married couples are accepting the pleasure God built into the act and yet denying Him its purpose, new people. They are in effect mocking God. But ``Be not deceived, God is not mocked.'' (<CITE>Gal</CITE>. 6:7). Christ cursed the fig tree which, despite a fine external appearance, bore no fruit. (<CITE>Matt</CITE>. 21:19; <CITE>Mark</CITE> 11:14). Marriage is God's plan for populating Heaven, yet contracepting couples refuse Him the specific fruit of their marriage, which is children, when they engage in the act which should produce children yet frustrate the natural, God-intended result.


Again, natural family planning and "pulling out" can prevent the conception of children. I would understand it if the church opposed these methods as well, but they do not, and it makes absolutely no sense to me. The intentions and results are the same, so I do not see why whether it is natural or artificial is the crux of the matter.

[Rhino]

She is opposed only to birth control by artificial means.....She? I've never heard the church referred to as feminine, and my wife is Catholic. Guess she's keeping secrets from me.

[Lazarus]

...Guess she's keeping secrets from me.Its all you deserve, you meddling Protestant...:licky:

[Rhino]

LOL! Shame on me!

[Trevelyan]

She? I've never heard the church referred to as feminine, and my wife is Catholic. Guess she's keeping secrets from me.

So, like do you go to church separately, or do you alternate together, or what?

[Lazarus]

...or do you alternate together, or what?Trev!!! Watch your mouth, young man... This is a Family Forum..!:licky:

[JOEVIKING]

Again, natural family planning and "pulling out" can prevent the conception of children. I would understand it if the church opposed these methods as well, but they do not, and it makes absolutely no sense to me. The intentions and results are the same, so I do not see why whether it is natural or artificial is the crux of the matter.

Pulling out is not acceptable to the Church.

With NFP the male still seeds inside the women. She just can't get pregant if NFP was done right.


The sex act should always end with the male seeding the female.
These are my own words but basicaly what the Church teaches.

[Trevelyan]

.
The sex act should always end with the male seeding the female.
These are my own words but basicaly what the Church teaches.

Well, about 95% of what you posted prior seemed to imply it was all about having children. I still do not see a real distinction, because it is still the intent to not have children. Is there some point where if you never have a child because you keep practicing NFP, it is sinful in the eyes of the church?

[Incident_command]

In a nutshell I_C you can find it ALL over the place in the Bible basically - Life is sacred, and the killing of innocent babies is absolutely abhorrent all throughout the bible.

Show me where in vitro, WITHOUT reduction, is spoken against in the bible. Life still comes from God in in vitro. The doctors doing the lab work and the transfer are not giving life. Or is it your opinion someone other than God can give life?

[Incident_command]

It's based on the belief that life begins at conception. The fetus being 'reduced' is still a true fetus, and thus selective reduction kills it. Such a killing would violate the sanctity of life, which is indeed addressed all through the Bible.

I agree with all that. My point was for a transfer/in vitro without any reduction. On most occasions they will put in the number the parents request.

[True Grace]

The Catholic Religion is the the one TRUE RELIGION!!!

I don't follow a religion. I follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

[JOEVIKING]

I don't follow a religion. I follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

And Jesus wants you to join the Church he created, the Catholic Church.

[True Grace]

The sex act should always end with the male seeding the female.

What about when the woman is pregnant? Menopausal? On her period? What if the man just "seeded" his wife and still wants some oral sex? How much seed deposited within the vagina is acceptable per 24 hour period? Should the woman stand on her head to keep the seed from running out? Cross her legs? If the seed comes out, should she try to stick it back in? What if the man has premature ejaculation and the show's over before it starts? Is that a sin? Should they scoop up the "seed" and try to plant it in the woman's vagina?

:uhh:


I understand the "no birth control" position. I just don't get the "church" trying to dictate how married couples make love. The Bible says that the marriage bed is undefiled. That means we are free to make love with our spouses as we desire, not as some "church" dictates.

[True Grace]

And Jesus wants you to join the Church he created, the Catholic Church.

Jesus wants me to have faith and trust in Him as my Lord and Saviour. He wants me to pattern my life after His life when He was on this earth. He wants me to worship Him. He wants me to pray, study Scripture, fellowship with believers, and live a life of obedience and submisison to Him. And as one who does these things, I am part of His church.

[Trevelyan]

What about when the woman is pregnant? Menopausal? On her period? What if the man just "seeded" his wife and still wants some oral sex? How much seed deposited within the vagina is acceptable per 24 hour period? Should the woman stand on her head to keep the seed from running out? Cross her legs? If the seed comes out, should she try to stick it back in? What if the man has premature ejaculation and the show's over before it starts? Is that a sin? Should they scoop up the "seed" and try to plant it in the woman's vagina?

:uhh:


I understand the "no birth control" position. I just don't get the "church" trying to dictate how married couples make love. The Bible says that the marriage bed is undefiled. That means we are free to make love with our spouses as we desire, not as some "church" dictates.

Yeah, it really seems all just so arbitrary.

[Rhino]

I agree with all that. My point was for a transfer/in vitro without any reduction. On most occasions they will put in the number the parents request.I believe the premise is, once fertilized the egg becomes a fetus, and thus life, whether or not it has been implanted in the womb. Based on that, any fertilized egg that is not implanted, is murdered.

[Trevelyan]

I believe the premise is, once fertilized the egg becomes a fetus, and thus life, whether or not it has been implanted in the womb. Based on that, any fertilized egg that is not implanted, is murdered.

It cannot grow into a fetus unless implanted. Technically it is an embryo (and actually possibly only a blastocyst). I know what you were trying to say though.

[Rhino]

That's the difference in beliefs. At least that's what I think the difference is. Others here will correct me if I'm mistaken.

[JOEVIKING]

What about when the woman is pregnant? Menopausal? On her period? What if the man just "seeded" his wife and still wants some oral sex? How much seed deposited within the vagina is acceptable per 24 hour period? Should the woman stand on her head to keep the seed from running out? Cross her legs? If the seed comes out, should she try to stick it back in? What if the man has premature ejaculation and the show's over before it starts? Is that a sin? Should they scoop up the "seed" and try to plant it in the woman's vagina?

:uhh:


I understand the "no birth control" position. I just don't get the "church" trying to dictate how married couples make love. The Bible says that the marriage bed is undefiled. That means we are free to make love with our spouses as we desire, not as some "church" dictates.

Jesus wants me to have faith and trust in Him as my Lord and Saviour. He wants me to pattern my life after His life when He was on this earth. He wants me to worship Him. He wants me to pray, study Scripture, fellowship with believers, and live a life of obedience and submisison to Him. And as one who does these things, I am part of His church.

I promise I'll answer these tomorrow, I'm leaving work and don't get online much at home. Have a good evening.

[Trevelyan]

That's the difference in beliefs. At least that's what I think the difference is. Others here will correct me if I'm mistaken.

I'm not sure what you mean. All I was saying is that it is not considered a fetus until after the eighth week, and that it cannot reach this stage of development unless it has been implanted in the uterus.

[JOEVIKING]

I promise I'll answer these tomorrow, I'm leaving work and don't get online much at home. Have a good evening.

I am putting out some fires(Work), I did not forget.

[Incident_command]

I'm not sure what you mean. All I was saying is that it is not considered a fetus until after the eighth week, and that it cannot reach this stage of development unless it has been implanted in the uterus.

The eight week part is opinion,not fact. It needing to be trasnfered "implanted" is correct.

[Rhino]

I'm not sure what you mean. All I was saying is that it is not considered a fetus until after the eighth week, and that it cannot reach this stage of development unless it has been implanted in the uterus.I wasn't attempting to relate what you consider to be a fetus. I was attempting to relate what others believe. Put simplistically, and those others can correct me if I'm misrepresenting them, their premise is that once the egg is fertilized, it is life. Implantation is immaterial to them.

[S-T]

She forgot to provide the disclaimer:

No embryos were harmed in the making of this pregnancy.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But many embryos are destroyed by in vitro fertilization. How many embryos are "discarded" (killed) each year? Life either begins at fertilization or it doesn't, and the Catholic Church clearly believes it does.

[Trevelyan]

I wasn't attempting to relate what you consider to be a fetus. I was attempting to relate what others believe. Put simplistically, and those others can correct me if I'm misrepresenting them, their premise is that once the egg is fertilized, it is life. Implantation is immaterial to them.

No, what I have been saying is not opinion, it is fact. My personal opinion is that there is life once an egg is fertilized, yes, but it is still not considered a fetus until later. I believe you are taking it as me saying it is not life until it is a fetus, but all I was trying to say was that it is technically not considered a fetus until later on. So I still consider an early embryo life.

[Rhino]

But many embryos are destroyed by in vitro fertilization. How many embryos are "discarded" (killed) each year? Life either begins at fertilization or it doesn't, and the Catholic Church clearly believes it does.That was a joke.

[Rhino]

No, what I have been saying is not opinion, it is fact. My personal opinion is that there is life once an egg is fertilized, yes, but it is still not considered a fetus until later. I believe you are taking it as me saying it is not life until it is a fetus, but all I was trying to say was that it is technically not considered a fetus until later on. So I still consider an early embryo life.I said life in my last post. I didn't know you were going to nitpick like Borgia does. I have no intention of debating semantics. They believe that life begins at fertilization, simple as that. Nuff said. You can debate with someone else when it is proper to apply the term "fetus", "baby", "curtain climber" or "rolly polly". I could really care less. The name you attach doesn't make it life or not.

[Trevelyan]

I said life in my last post. I didn't know you were going to nitpick like Borgia does. I have no intention of debating semantics. They believe that life begins at fertilization, simple as that. Nuff said. You can debate with someone else when it is proper to apply the term "fetus", "baby", "curtain climber" or "rolly polly". I could really care less. The name you attach doesn't make it life or not.

I just felt compelled to correct you, just as you do when it comes to spelling and grammar. :grin:

But anyway, I knew what you meant form the start; and that is why I said, "It cannot grow into a fetus unless implanted. Technically it is an embryo (and actually possibly only a blastocyst). I know what you were trying to say though," in response to , "
I believe the premise is, once fertilized the egg becomes a fetus, and thus life, whether or not it has been implanted in the womb. Based on that, any fertilized egg that is not implanted, is murdered."

[Rhino]

Compulsion, huh? LOL! I was only trying to relate, as best I could, why some people oppose it.