Should Pro-abortion People Use Contraception?

[dUSt]

First, this is just a question. Contraception is immoral, and should not be used.

 

But, from a "greater evil" point of view... IF a woman was set on having an abortion if she were to become pregnant, from a moral standpoint, should she use contraception to avoid that?

 

I guess what brought this question up in my mind was the "contraception decreases abortions argument".

 

It is never moral for a Catholic to do this, obviously, but this question is addressing non-Catholics, or non-practicing Catholics, or anyone who doesn't have the same moral standards.

 

I'm not making any statements, just starting a discussion.

[kujo]

Everyone should use contraception if they're having sex and are not in a position to have and raise a(nother) child.

 

Oh, and before someone says "oh, well the best way to make sure you don't have a baby is not to have sex in the first place," let me preemptively explode that argument. The best way to make sure I don't break my leg while skiing is to not go skiing in the first place, but that's not a realistic argument.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Kujo the argument that the bests is not to have sex in the first place is a valid argument. We KNOW through studies that pregnancies and abortions increased once widespread contraceptives were introduced and pushed on society, divorce rates increased as well as a host of many other social issues became worse. Teaching the respect and value of human dignity is the solution, a difficult one to achieve and one which time to work at, but is not unrealistic to seek after the ideal rather than a band-aid solution that contraceptives and abortion offer.

On that note, I personally do not see the moral difference between a greater evil in the situation provided. We know that abortion kills life, we know that many contraceptives can have a secondary function as an abortifacient, and even spericidal lubricant found on condoms, CAN alter the embryo enough to either kill it or cause major birth defects which would not have been present otherwise. Condoms as a solution are just as wrong as birth control, which six just as wrong as a direct abortion. It's just my humble opinion thought through by the proponderance of evidence and use of logic combined with the teaching of the Church as I have been taught.

PAX

[BigJon16]

Everyone should use contraception if they're having sex and are not in a position to have and raise a(nother) child.

 

Oh, and before someone says "oh, well the best way to make sure you don't have a baby is not to have sex in the first place," let me preemptively explode that argument.

 

The best way to make sure I don't break my leg while skiing is to not go skiing in the first place.

 

/EndQuote

 

 

 

 

 

Did you just argue your own point?

 

Taking PM dabates to a new level! Way to be a leader, Kujo! 

 

:P

 

 

I would totally give you a Prop, but it seems you are stil too cool for them. TC4Ps. 

[Archaeology cat]

The thing is, hormonal contraceptives may cause an early abortion, so do they decrease abortions? Then there's the point about actual effectiveness rates vs "perfect-use" rates. There's also a question about whether using contraceptives increases risk-taking behaviour. I don't know the answer to that. It didn't seem like free contraceptives helped abortion rates in England, though. Just my musing, though.

[MIKolbe]

But, from a "greater evil" point of view... IF a woman was set on having an abortion if she were to become pregnant, from a moral standpoint, should she use contraception to avoid that?

 

I would say no.  You may not do evil so good may come from it.

[DiscerningCatholic]

Here's the thing: If you REALLY DON'T WANT KIDS, you shouldn't have sex. Whether you're pro-abortion or not. Either way, birth control or induced abortion, you're messing up your hormones and in the case of the pill, you're still having an abortion. 

 

As a response to the skiing thing [I'm even gonna use the example given, because I can work with it]: I don't go skiing, though I've had the opportunity to do so. Aside from the fact that I had a cold when my uncle offered to take me, I also knew that people have serious accidents while skiing, break bones, get concussions and sometimes die. While I know that I probably wouldn't, I didn't, because I wasn't in the mood to have my life thrown out of whack just because I wanted to go skiing. I was fully aware that you wear a helmet and a ski suit and you don't start on mountains when you learn, but I knew that there were still risks, and I didn't want to endanger my safety when I didn't feel ready to do it. So I passed up the opportunity to do something fun because I knew that I wasn't in a good place to have broken bones. 

 

In the same way, couples shouldn't have sex - even if there is a low chance of pregnancy - if they are not in a position to/don't want to have more kids. Yes, there are "preventative measures", but none of them - aside from abstinence - are failproof.

 

As for the birth control with pro-aborts question, I don't think so. With birth control, the result is often the same - a baby is conceived and then aborted, though the mother might be unaware of it - and is no better than abortion. And so what if "contraception decreases abortions"? They decrease clinical abortions, sure, but I highly doubt that the number of self-induced abortions via the pill is much less than the "abortions that aren't performed." Plus, the birth control pill screws up your hormones, messes up your health, can cause infertility, cancer, mood swings, bleeding, and a host of other problems. 

Edited November 28, 2012 by DiscerningCatholic

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

The other point I failed to mention in my previous comment was that TRUTH is not relative weather or not you want to accept that the sky is blue does not change that fact ( unless there are time specific issues such as sunset, sunrise, clouds storms ect) ok bad example...) weather or not you want accept that wood comes from trees the FACT is that wood does comes from trees. To imply that the moral implications are diminished because someone does not recognize the supporting platform is not good. Contraceptives change how we view each other as humans reducing the value of the Individual from someone to love to someone to use for my pleasure.

On the side note, dUSt you are obviously more than able to start a thread wherever you want and how ever you want I mean you are the phorum czar, but why this one in Open Mic instead of debate? Just curious is all ;)

[Papist]

Fertility is not a disease. There is an easier way to prevent/postpone pregnancy. And MUCH MORE healthier for the woman than contraception. 

Edited November 28, 2012 by Papist

[GeorgiiMichael]

The idea that unknown abortions due to contraceptive use are just as bad as clinical abortions that are pre-meditated does not mesh with the Church's teachings on sin.

 

For these "unknown" abortions, the person who is carrying the child and due to her contraceptive use unknowingly aborts the child is not as culpable for the death of that child as the woman who actively seeks an abortion.

 

You all are also assuming that everyone KNOWS that contraceptives are wrong. Which just isn't the case. Being told by a random Catholic that it's wrong, without it being explained does not allow that person full knowledge of their actions. This being the case, if someone were dead set on obtaining an abortion if they were to get pregnant, I would rather that person use contraceptives. The state of their soul would be better if they were to use contraceptives without knowing of their inherent sinfulness than if they were to get an abortion later. 

 

Obviously the best solution would be to educate people as to the sinfulness of both contraceptives and abortion, but as that is not always a possibility the less damaged soul is better than the more damaged one.

[Basilisa Marie]

If a woman knows she would have an abortion should she get pregnant, and still wants to have sex, she's definitely going to be using contraception. I've never heard of an actual woman who used abortion as her primary form of contraception, ever.  It's always after contraception fails, including "emergency contraception" (aka "Plan B" and stuff).  "Should" has no part in the issue - the fact is she "does."  

 

The "contraception decreases abortions" argument is a bad argument to begin with. Using contraception gives people a sense of security and gives people more "peace of mind" about having sex.  So it doesn't decrease abortions - it increases the number of people having sex who normally wouldn't have sex because of fear of pregnancy...and then if some of them DO get pregnant, they'll likely have an abortion.  Contraception doesn't decrease abortions, because those people wouldn't be having sex anyway if they didn't have contraception.

 

It seems to me like this is a similar question to "If two teens (or adults) are in a sexual relationship, and resolve to continue having sex, do you encourage them to use contraception to "be safe"?"  You don't encourage them to use contraception to avoid the "greater evil" of abortion.  That's not the real problem.  The real problem is why they're having sex in the first place.  

 

Non-Catholics and non-catechized Catholics aren't held to the same level of culpability as practicing Catholics are.  But that doesn't mean they get a complete free pass, either.  

[DiscerningCatholic]

But even if the pill DIDN'T cause an abortion by changing the lining of the uterus so that the fertilized egg couldn't implant, wouldn't it just be prudent to forego the pill anyway? I mean, all of the side effects make the pill almost not worth it.  Pro-aborts know, even if they don't admit it, that the pill (and almost all other unnatural forms of birth control) does cause severe health issues in women. Is having sex with your boyfriend/husband worth risking cancer, depression, divorce (divorce rate is higher in couples who use the pill), infertility, and tumors? This isn't a Catholic/religious question; it's a question of common sense. Does an hour in the bed with your significant other mean more to you than your lifelong health, even if the side effects don't show up right away? Because if not, wait.

Edited November 28, 2012 by DiscerningCatholic

[BigJon16]

/EndQuote

 

 

 

 

 

Did you just argue against your own point?

 

Taking PM dabates to a new level! Way to be a leader, Kujo! 

 

:P

 

 

I would totally give you a Prop, but it seems you are stil too cool for them. TC4Ps. 

 

 

 

My bad. That came out wrong. There should have been an "against" in there... Didn't mean to sound like a jerk.

[Nihil Obstat]

We might refer to Pope Benedict's speculation in that interview book of his, where he said that the use of condoms by AIDS-infected men might be... what are the words he used? A first step of moral awakening? It does not mean, obviously, that the use of condoms is moral. It does mean that the person is at least making a preliminary effort to understand the moral dimension of their choices. A recognition that their agency does not exist in a vacuum, and that in fact they have a responsibility for others as well as themselves.

To re-iterate, it does not mean that the condom use, or in our case use of hormonal birth control, becomes moral because it mitigates harm. It means that the person is coming to understand that their poor choices have serious consequences.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

The idea that unknown abortions due to contraceptive use are just as bad as clinical abortions that are pre-meditated does not mesh with the Church's teachings on sin.

For these "unknown" abortions, the person who is carrying the child and due to her contraceptive use unknowingly aborts the child is not as culpable for the death of that child as the woman who actively seeks an abortion.

You all are also assuming that everyone KNOWS that contraceptives are wrong. Which just isn't the case. Being told by a random Catholic that it's wrong, without it being explained does not allow that person full knowledge of their actions. This being the case, if someone were dead set on obtaining an abortion if they were to get pregnant, I would rather that person use contraceptives. The state of their soul would be better if they were to use contraceptives without knowing of their inherent sinfulness than if they were to get an abortion later.

Obviously the best solution would be to educate people as to the sinfulness of both contraceptives and abortion, but as that is not always a possibility the less damaged soul is better than the more damaged one.

You make a valid point; I have been looking at the question from a point of graveness of the situation, not the culpability of the action itself. As with all sin, the wheather or not the action is of grave matter does not change, as is the case from my understanding of contraception vs abortion. The point of premeditated abortion vs unknown ignorant causing of abortion through Contraceptives, this also would mean that the person taking it has no knowledge of the abortifacient qualities of most contraceptives. Also if one was to use contraceptives in full knowledge of the abortifacient and increased birth defect rates then the pre-meditated willingness to abort or cause harm to another is there.