Dr Janet Smith | Humanae Vitae, 50 Years Later: Progress or Regress?

[@barbaralewis6766]

Dr. Janet Smith rocks! ❤️

[@willbranson3216]

I love reading and listening to Dr. Janet Smith.

[@onaleemcgraw4048]

Janet Smith does a great job - giving insight into how we got where we are today,

[@JohanHerrenberg]

Onalee McGraw Bl. Paul VI is a martyr who fully deserves his canonization. He was a prophet.

[@seuratguy]

I loved it when she asked for a glass for her water. I always cringe when I see grown, professional adults forced to drink out of a bottle when giving a speech.

[@veddermn8]

Catholic teaching demands a couple practice abstinence after they've had the amount of kids they want/can afford. That can happen within a few years of being married. Kind of kills the romantic mood if you're then supposed to be abstinent until your 50.

[@esthelaruiz9742]

Dios como me encantaría escuchar la traducción en Spanish 🥰🙏🙏🙏

[@phillipkapler8319]

Excellent instruction on the Church's teaching on Human Life and the antitheses of contraception and abortion. I may have missed it, but I did not hear the good doctor note that the "pill" is not a simple contraceptive. It is designed to have two effects. The first target is prevention of conception, or the mating of the sperm and egg cells. The "pill" also has a secondary effect, which is to render the uterine membranes inhospitable to a fertilized ovum, preventing implantation of the already conceived person. I have seen estimates that the relative frequency between the former and latter effects to be about 80/20, which implies that 1/5th of the "success" of the estrogen\progesterone pill in preventing pregnancy is owing to its chemical abortion effect. Ergo, the pill must be must be classified as an abortifacient. One of its designed effects, as a back-up to the interference with conception, is to force the purging of the fertilized ovum. There is no clean moral line that can be drawn between the primary tool of "contraception" and abortion itself. Not only are they both counter to God's moral precepts, and the natural law that has been woven into our identities as procreative beings. Both are anti-life, and destructive of existing persons. People who think that taking the pill is a moral alternative to abortion are ever shocked to find out that the "pill" is, in fact, an abortifacient. It is illogical to claim to be opposed to abortion but in favor of liberalizing use of the "pill." They are, aapproximately 1/5th of the time (in a Russian roulette fashion) the same abhorrant thing; theologically AND scientifically.

[@veddermn8]

Natural family planning is also contraception. And an argument can be made to include abstinence too. It is weird that moral distinctions are drawn among forms of contraception. The arguments to their differences are flimsy.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@veddermn8 One is not obligated to sex so abstaining from it is morally neutral. It is not perverting sexes' ends since it is not occurring. The first case is more an issue of intention than the act since the act itself is not stopping the achievement of the end. It is still open to life strictly speaking.

[@veddermn8]

@@johnnotrealname8168 It is not being "open to life" and it very much is "perverting sexes' ends" as the gamete and hormone processes can still be functioning. To be open to life you need to be open to the act if you are physically able and have a partner. I don't agree with it, but that is the Church's stance. As far as "open to life" goes, there is no difference between NFP, artificial birth control or abstinence in a fertile couple.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@veddermn8 What? The processes can occur all they want, we are referring to the act. If one disengages from sexual activity then one is not perverting sexes' end. There is, one changes the hormones to prevent any birth.

[@veddermn8]

@@johnnotrealname8168 huh? not doing the act is an act itself. Its keeping the gametes separate. And that's before getting into some of the "marriage debt" interpretations. The seeds are created and Church teaching encourages planting them and not throwing them away.

[@josephhechema1983]

NFP is not always realistic and easy to apply... if a husband stays for a week without ejaculation, he will suffer from testiculaire congestion....what will he do ? Masturbation? A sin ... Contraception? A sin ... so please dear catholic church, what's your solution to that ?

[@thesmallchocolateguy9331]

Those who commit sins like that lack self control and therefore, they should ask the holy spirit for his gifts which includes self control. Naturally our body regulates the activities in our testicles incase there is no ejaculation for example a process called semen absorption takes place. So if you don't expose your self to porngraphy that will tempt you into masturbation, there will be no testicular congestion that's a lie and driven by satanic spirits on some scientists. Take heed and live according to Jesus' teachings for you will be judged according to your deeds. God bless you in Jesus' name

[@phillipkapler8319]

Testiculare congestion ??? The scientific name is "epididymitis". Causes listed by the Mayo Clinic Medical Research Institute include: - STD's. - Other bacterial infection - Viral infections, such as the mumps - Reversed urine flow due to heavy lifting or straining. - Trauma, or groin injury - Tuberculosis Frequency of intercourse or ejaculation is not included. Successful application of NFP usually only requires abstaining for about 6 or 7 days in a month. If one cannot enjoy their wife's company for a week doing other romantic things that do not involve intercourse, one must seriously examine how they view and relate to their spouse. I suggest that "testicular congestion" is the least of your concerns. Worry instead about whether or not you are objectifying your Better Half; the consequences for which will pollute your relationship in many areas quite removed from the bedroom.