» GC Stats |
Members: 331,176
Threads: 115,703
Posts: 2,207,382
|
Welcome to our newest member, znathantexxd251 |
|
 |
|

11-18-2008, 09:13 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the midst of a 90s playlist
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dekeguy
As I understand it (and remember I am not a Theologian) the key is the intention. If the intention is to save life [the mother] and incidentally the child is lost, even if the loss is inevitable, but the intention is not to destroy life then this would be morally acceptable. So, if governed by the proper intention both situations would be tragic but morally sound.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverRoses
To give a real-life example- If a woman has an ectopic pregancy (where the fertilized egg has implanted in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus), then this is a life threatening condition. The way to save the woman's life is to remove the fallopian tube- however to remove it will kill the developing baby. But since the objective is to save the life NOT kill the baby, it is acceptable.
|
Thanks, I think I get it now.  I always wondered about that scenario (if the pregnancy must be "sacrificed" [in a way] for the life of the mother). Focusing on intention puts everything into much clearer perspective. I don't mean as far as "which is morally right," but as far as a basis for personal choices.
__________________
"We have letters. You have dreams." ~Senusret I
"My dreams have become letters." ~christiangirl
|

11-18-2008, 09:46 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Land of Chaos
Posts: 9,297
|
|
Intentions
I thought I had read that condom use is a no-no, even if the intention is to prevent disease and not pregnancy. Any one have insight into this?
__________________
Gamma Phi Beta
Courtesy is owed, respect is earned, love is given.
Proud daughter AND mother of a Gamma Phi. 3 generations of love, labor, learning and loyalty.
|

11-18-2008, 10:09 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,845
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWTXBelle
I thought I had read that condom use is a no-no, even if the intention is to prevent disease and not pregnancy. Any one have insight into this?
|
Well, if you were both virgins when you got married and neither of you strayed, what diseases would you be preventing? I believe that's the logic. The only form of birth control allowed is the rhythm method. I suppose if you contracted something like hepatitis or HIV in some other manner and needed to protect your spouse from that, a priest would okay that. Or, if you had a medical condition that a pregnancy would exacerbate, birth control would be ok. But, I liked the way my first priest said it with "You need to pray and discern with God if you feel that you shouldn't bring a child into the world" (basically, it's between you and God)
|

11-19-2008, 09:50 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: right here
Posts: 2,057
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWTXBelle
I thought I had read that condom use is a no-no, even if the intention is to prevent disease and not pregnancy. Any one have insight into this?
|
Using a condom is a no-no. However in NFP if sperm needs to be collected, Then a condom can be used. HOWEVER (I am not making this up), the condom actually has holes in it so some amount can reach the intended target (therefore not preventing a pregnancy)
__________________
So I enter that I may grow in knowledge, wisdom and love.
So I depart that I may now better serve my fellow man, my country & God.
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|