Reply to I guess you only get to "choose" when you agree with this administration

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "I guess you only get to "choose" when you agree with this administration"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=TheManWithAUsername][quote=Anonymous][quote=TheManWithAUsername][quote=Anonymous]TMWAUN, It is the biological imperative for our RACE to procreate.  Nature does not intend every 70 year old man to procreate.  That's why he can't get it up.
[/quote]
True, but by that token nature intends many of us to die of diseases, and all of us to lose our teeth, mobility, bowel control, minds, etc. in some order. Medical professionals try to delay the inevitable. Cost aside, The decision of whether to treat something is usually a balancing of risk, reward, and chance of success, and not a question of whether the patient is too old to expect the organ or system to work properly. In the case of Viagra, the balancing is a no-brainer.

Another response to your point would be: [b]At what age exactly are we going to say that it's not normal to be able to have sex[/b]?[/quote]

When one can no longer sustain an erection.

Look, I am not really against you on this argument.  I am fine with free Viagra for everyone!  I just don't think that one can reasonably argue for Viagra and against BC.  Both are really about an individual overriding mother nature with regard to procreation.  The church is saying we cannot interfere with procreation.  Saying it's OK to enable procreation with one drug, but not Ok to interfere with procreation on the other, is inconsistent logic.  Either GOD is in charge of procreation or he's not. [/quote]
You seem to have ignored my first argument. By your reasoning, no medical intervention would ever be justified for any disease. You obviously don't think that, so why are sexual organs in a separate class? Why is the treatment of dysfunction in a penis - from age or any other cause - different than the treatment of dysfunction of, say, your left pinky?

We seem to be in agreement on the big points, as you say. But while I don't subscribe to it, I don't think it's illegitimate (or necessarily theistic) to support  enabling normal functioning but not interference with it (or improvement on it, which would be a more charitable view of BC). That pretty much sums up medicine's approach. At the moment, the only other common medical intervention I can think of that gives one superior function, in a sense, is plastic surgery.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics