tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31022667.post2896194683454145646..comments2023-08-03T02:14:15.865-07:00Comments on Alien Nation: Dignitas Personaedarinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14967318206246981795noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31022667.post-68543357889336090422008-12-20T02:00:00.000-08:002008-12-20T02:00:00.000-08:00Darin, I'm assuming that you are agreeing with ...Darin,<BR/> I'm assuming that you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the main purpose of sex and of marriage is to have children. This is the end towards which the acts point. Just want to be clear on that point. If that is the case then you should read Humanae Vitae, which explains why one should not use contraceptives because they get in the way of the natural end of sex and marriage. Not just get in the way, but obstruct God's desire - thus is sinful. Just want to make sure you are clear on this when getting in bed with the Catholics.<BR/><BR/>On another point, and this is where I struggle, ideally the community should come together and help the single mom (or dad) to raise the child. Somone once said, "it takes a village..." but as Ian remarked above, the reality is that churches do not have their sh-- together enough to provide that community and some people are left in a no-win choice. Remember the debate between the Niebuhr brothers about going to war. One was an idealist (H. Richard) saying that we must stay out of war, while the other (Reinhold) claimed that the reality of the situtation calls for us to be involved recognizing that the greater sin would be to stay out if the war.<BR/> You can take the idealist approach and say that all abortions are wrong in every case, but how does that minister to the mother in the impossible situtation? The danger with such an idealism is that it leads to a critical legalism of categorical oughts and shoulds. I don't think you want to head down that ecclesiological road. On the other hand, you don't want to ascribe to a pansy postion of saying that all we need is love and to work off of a "love ethic" (a'la' Fletcher). This puts a good Christian like yourself in a tough situtation. Fun, fun!Jonathan Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07132219491553703685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31022667.post-55143838124254042912008-12-14T14:21:00.000-08:002008-12-14T14:21:00.000-08:00Your last paragraph I think is particularly signfi...Your last paragraph I think is particularly signficiant, and there's another angle to it: that of adoption. <BR/><BR/>I've heard it said several times by churchfolk that unwanted babies should be put up for adoption because plenty of parents out there can't have children, so it would bless them and the child would be loved.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately this isn't true here in the UK, and statistics seem to suggest it isn't true there either. Actually there are thousands of children who never find an adoption place, who are passed between foster care and institutional care for years. <BR/><BR/>While it is true that there is a general desire among adopting couples for young children, there is a huge disparity between the number of adopters and the number of children needing adoption.<BR/><BR/>So I think the church needs to be honest with itself. If that argument is going to wash then, en masse, good Christian families need to be willing to enter adoption programs and make sure that every child in the country who needs a loving home, right now, has one. Then, I think, and only then, can the 'put them up for adoption' line be anything but hollow hypocracy.<BR/><BR/>PS: Thanks for facebooking me, btw, I've subscribed to the blog.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054171196833894625noreply@blogger.com