Everything you’ve written about biology, history, women, and culture is either factually wrong or irrelevant to the question I asked. You are not presenting facts; you are presenting misogynistic assertions dressed up as science and history. Differences in average physical strength do not establish inferiority, and fertility is not the measure of a woman’s worth or health. Your claims about women being “weak,” “frail,” or “unfit” are personal prejudices, not scientific truths, and no reputable historian claims that Greek civilization fell because women gained influence.
None of this answers the question I asked: If pornography is a weapon of temptation, how does consuming it harm Satan rather than cooperate with him?
You have avoided that question repeatedly by shifting into sexual comments, pseudo‑biology, misogyny, and fabricated history. Until you can explain how indulging in a temptation defeats the tempter, your argument remains self‑contradictory.
Resorting to racist and misogynistic insults is not an argument. It is simply another attempt to avoid the question you still have not answered. Everything you’ve said about biology, history, women, and culture has been factually wrong or irrelevant, and now you’ve added racial slurs because you cannot defend your position.
The question remains the same: If pornography is a weapon of temptation, how does consuming it harm Satan rather than cooperate with him?
Until you can explain how indulging in a temptation defeats the tempter, your argument is self‑contradictory. Insults, racism, and misogyny do not change that.
If it wasn’t for porn or MTV rap music you woman wouldn’t even know how to dress sexy which is in other words called beautiful. Because you have no concept of beauty. You will just dress convinient and then look like a failed hippie to the point where men can’t get aroused or an erection no matter how hard they tried.
You are now making violent threats, sexualized comments, racist insults, and invoking a mass murderer as justification for your behavior. Nothing you’ve said answers the original question (If pornography is a weapon of temptation, how does consuming it harm Satan rather than cooperate with him?), and your escalation into violence and dehumanization only shows you cannot defend your position.
Unbelievable. Are you german? If you are then I understand that it is futile and you will ofc go to the front while pregnant while your man is probably a closet homosexual pacifist softie sitting at home doing nothing.
I bet you look like Claudia Roth or Angela Merkel and your husband has secretly been going to the brothel or to the underground sex dungeon and you don’t mind because you are a marxist satanist.
Since you cannot defend your own position — namely, the claim that indulging in a temptation somehow defeats the tempter — I recommend reevaluating it.
No wonder Islam forbidds you to speak without permission and gives permission to beat you up and kill you when you are too stupid. Maybe I should listen to the left for once and learn from other cultures.
You’re still collapsing intention and moral object into the same thing. “Why I act” and “what I choose to do” are not identical.
Your intention was to avoid pregnancy.
But your moral object was not “avoid pregnancy.”
Your moral object was: “deliberately sterilize the sexual act so that it cannot be procreative.”
That is a different kind of act than: “abstain during fertile periods” or “abstain entirely.”
Three different behaviors.
Same intention.
Different moral objects.
Different moral species.
If you want to argue that vasectomy and abstinence are the same act, then make that argument.
But simply repeating your intention does not change the nature of the behavior you chose.
And the reason you keep repeating your intention is because you’re leaving out the actual behavior you chose — sterilizing the act so intercourse could continue without procreation. That is the part that actually matters.
Was saving your wife part of the reason? Yes. Was it the whole reason? No. Was it the decisive reason? No — because abstinence would have achieved that. So what was decisive? The desire to continue sexual intercourse while eliminating its procreative meaning. That is the moral object you keep leaving unnamed.
Calling Catholic teaching “incompatible with the modern world” isn’t an argument. It’s a sociological opinion. The actual claim on the table is whether direct sterilization and periodic abstinence are morally identical acts. If you want to critique Catholic moral theology, critique the principle — that the moral species of an act is determined by its object, not merely its intention. But simply declaring it “nonsense” or “not modern” doesn’t engage the argument.
My moral intention; that my wife not get pregnant again.
My moral object : vasectomy in order to insure that my wife not get pregnant again because no normal healthy married couple would choose to not have sexual relations anymore.
Apparently you’re not intelligent to understand my situation because you keep repeating the same irrelevant nonsense. And your assertions that I’m not addressing your argument are false. I have addressed your argument logically and rationally. You just refuse to acknowledge the truth and instead continue to repeat the same absurd nonsense. Over 90% of catholic women have practiced ABC at some point in their lives. Your irrelevant argument about “moral object” doesn’t mean anything. We’re talking about actual reality here. Not some laughable catholic “teaching” about birth control.
You’re still treating intention and moral object as interchangeable, which is why your replies keep circling.
Your intention was either: “avoid pregnancy,” or “avoid pregnancy to prevent my wife from possibly dying.”
But neither of those was your moral object.
Your moral object was: “directly sterilize the sexual act so intercourse can continue without procreation.”
That is a different kind of act than:
– periodic abstinence
– total abstinence
Same intention.
Different chosen behavior.
Different moral species.
You said: “no normal healthy married couple would choose to not have sexual relations anymore.”
That doesn’t describe impossibility; it describes unwillingness. Abstinence is physically possible, morally licit, and achieves the same intention — avoiding pregnancy.
So when you say no normal couple would choose it, you’re admitting it was a real option, just one you rejected because you didn’t want to give up intercourse.
And whether something is “normal” has no bearing on whether it is morally available.
“Normal” is both subjective and statistical — not moral.
What most people prefer has no bearing on what the act is.
If “most people do it” made something morally acceptable, then anything would become moral as long as enough people chose it — which is absurd.
And that’s exactly why the decisive factor in getting a vasectomy wasn’t “saving your wife” — abstinence would have done that — but preserving intercourse while eliminating its procreative meaning.
That is the moral object.
And repeating “my intention was X” doesn’t change the nature of the act you chose.
As for statistics: moral truth isn’t determined by how many people violate it.
If you reject Catholic moral reasoning, just say that.
But rejecting the framework is not the same as refuting the distinction.
You may be joking, but you sound like a predophile. Seriously though, I Pray a Prayer of protection for any woman whom you pursue. That they may know that there is a better man for them out there. One who has self-control, does not call evil goo and good evil. One who loves the Lord with all of his heart, mind, and soul. One who protects children and does not desire to abuse them.
I know this post is about 1 year old, but I would suggest you firstly consult with the Bishop’s office in your local Diocese before making a final decision. Why? …
A vasectomy is a form of direct sterilization (a surgical procedure intended to render a man incapable of procreation). The Catholic Church teaches that direct sterilization is morally unacceptable as a method of regulating births. – (Pope Paul VI. Humanae Vitae. 14) (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2399).
I pray you reconsider and be open to other alternatives that are possibly available.
