Should Pro-abortion People Use Contraception?

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Are quoted posts showing up wierd for others? Or is it just my screen?

[GeorgiiMichael]

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.

 

You're preaching to the choir here. Everyone knows that abortion and contraceptives are bad here. Or at least knows the Catholic position. That's not the question that dUST asked. He didn't even ask if it would be moral for pro-abortion advocates to use contraceptives. He asked if it were better for them to use contraceptives if they'd just get an abortion if they got pregnant anyway.

 

Nihil made a good point about it being a moral awakening, not a moral choice in and of itself. 

 

The problem with the way Catholics argue this issue is that they just argue against both Abortion and Contraceptives without attempting to meet the people we're arguing with at their level. That's not now Christ did it, and that's not how we, as Christians should do it. We have to know their struggles and we have to share their struggles with them and then we have to help them to make the moral choices.

 

It's okay to be passionate about these issues, but those passions should be directed at helping people in tough situations where they feel they must use Contraceptives or obtain Abortions instead of just yelling from our soapboxes and telling people that they choices they've made are wrong and that they must repent.

[DiscerningCatholic]

Are quoted posts showing up wierd for others? Or is it just my screen?

 

Nope. They don't have the box thingy around them anymore. 

 

ETA: Never mind... :| 

 

 

 

 

:huh:

Edited November 28, 2012 by DiscerningCatholic

[DiscerningCatholic]

You're preaching to the choir here. Everyone knows that abortion and contraceptives are bad here. Or at least knows the Catholic position. That's not the question that dUST asked. He didn't even ask if it would be moral for pro-abortion advocates to use contraceptives. He asked if it were better for them to use contraceptives if they'd just get an abortion if they got pregnant anyway.

 

Nihil made a good point about it being a moral awakening, not a moral choice in and of itself. 

 

The problem with the way Catholics argue this issue is that they just argue against both Abortion and Contraceptives without attempting to meet the people we're arguing with at their level. That's not now Christ did it, and that's not how we, as Christians should do it. We have to know their struggles and we have to share their struggles with them and then we have to help them to make the moral choices.

 

 

I was not talking about morality in that post. I was asking if, with all of the side effects, taking birth control is really worth it. It comes with almost all the same side effects as abortion, so even if birth control wasn't immoral, why, with all of the negative side effects, would you want to take it? From a purely scientific aspect (that is usually where pro-aborts come from, since they usually want to argue relative morality before they ask you for your opinion on a moral question), is taking birth control really worth it? 

 

The way I'm addressing the question is this: "Is it better for you to use a pill that can give you horrible side effects if you'd just go through a procedure that gives you those same side effects and MORE if those dangerous pills failed?" It's essentially like choosing one danger over another danger so you can prevent the second danger by using the first danger. 

[Slappo]

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.

 

This is of course assuming someome doesn't know contraceptives are wrong but does know abortion is wrong...

 

I would argue that both contraceptives and abortion go against the natural law engrained in the human soul upon conception, therefore, regardless of how much someone understands contraception or abortion to be wrong, they are to some extent culpable. "This sin of grave matter is less damaging to the soul than that sin of grave matter" is pretty much a non argument as both can cause eternal damnation.

 

I've heard others argue that contraception and abortion are so far against the natural law that the requirement of one to have full knowledge of the sinfulness of an action is always met when determining if the sin is mortal or not. I don't know how legitimate that argument is, and I'm no moral theologian... I would think there have to be at least some mitigating circumstances such as mental health and capacity for reason.

[PhuturePriest]

Where I foresee this thread going:

 

[Slappo]

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.

 

I think the difference is condom use between two homosexuals is not an act of contraception. The use of a condom between two homosexuals is at worst a morally neutral act (the sexual acts they engage in would have their own moral weight). The use of a condom between a hetrosexual couple is an act of contraception which is an intrinsically evil act.

 

Edit: Assuming the heterosexual couple is engaging in a sexual act which could result in pregnancy... a condom used during a sexual act which cannot result in pregnancy (non-coital) is morally neutral.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Slappo

[Nihil Obstat]

Where I foresee this thread going:

 

 

Too soon. :sad:

 

 

I think the difference is condom use between two homosexuals is not an act of contraception. The use of a condom between two homosexuals is at worst a morally neutral act (the sexual acts they engage in would have their own moral weight). The use of a condom between a hetrosexual couple is an act of contraception which is an intrinsically evil act.

I thought about that. It has been a while since I read that passage, but from what I remember it sounded like his remarks could be applied to heterosexual couples as well, to a certain extent. I think that the main point, the 'moral awakening' thesis, applies in both cases. Perhaps in different degrees, but the point remains.

[Mark of the Cross]

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

 

  

 

That really doesn't fly though.There are situations where apparently sinful acts are unavoidable. Confession includes actions we neglected to take. If we refrain from a sinful act and it results in a greater sin, we are still culpable of sin by our neglect to counter that sin (catch 22). Imo better to choose the lesser. In fact the countering of sin by sin may not even be a sin. A soldier killing an enemy is apparently not a sin??? Maybe we just need to make a choice and leave it to God. It's possibly not an act but the motive that makes an act sinful or not. It's very easy to say to people "Don't have sex if you don't want baby!" It's a pity that some of the saints like Augustus or St.Paul aren't still around to tell of their struggles with their sexuality. If an alcoholic or a drug user doesn't want the issues of their habit then stop abusing. Very easy to say for a non alcoholic or non drug addicted user!!! My wife hemorrhaged badly and it was touch and go when my son was born. Then after an emergency Cesarian nearly losing both mother and daughter we decided that was it for the babies. My wife even though tiny had developed Hypertension and diabetes. At mid 30's we weren't about to consider celibacy . With her health I never considered having her corrupted in any way so I opted for vasectomy. When I was considering becoming a Catholic, knowing what the Church teaching was, I asked the RCIA leader if I was still able to become a Catholic. Her comment was "We'll put in a good word for you Mark!" So here I am. Mortal sinner? Probably the least of my worries, but then I'm not alone.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

Why is the Phorum trolling me? Half my post is missing!

Fixed

It's the emo's. Evil emo's are trolling me. Text between two emo's gets deleted.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Nihil Obstat]

   That really doesn't fly though. :hehe2: . With her health I never considered having her corrupted in any way so I opted for vasectomy. When I was considering becoming a Catholic, knowing what the Church teaching was, I asked the RCIA leader if I was still able to become a Catholic. Her comment was "We'll put in a good word for you Mark!" So here I am. Mortal sinner? Probably the least of my worries, but then I'm not alone.

 

It is not our place to judge your intention or culpability, or anything of the sort, but what Kolbe says is basically self-evidently true. We cannot do evil so that good may come of it. That is simply a foundation of Catholic morality.

[Nihil Obstat]

We have to judge an act according to the three fonts of morality: Intention, Object, Circumstances.

If the object is evil, the entire action is objectively evil.

[Mark of the Cross]

It is not our place to judge your intention or culpability, or anything of the sort, but what Kolbe says is basically self-evidently true. We cannot do evil so that good may come of it. That is simply a foundation of Catholic morality.

 

The full post is there now. The text between two emo's was missing. What I'm saying is that if the motive of an act is to prevent sin then it may not be a sin.

[Nihil Obstat]

The full post is there now. The text between two emo's was missing. What I'm saying is that if the motive of an act is to prevent sin then it may not be a sin.

 

Culpability for the action may be mitigated through intention, perhaps even entirely, but objectively speaking the action remains evil if the object is evil.

[Aloysius]

Where I foresee this thread going:

 

ahhh young padawan, you shall learn to be a phatmass master yet!  the degree of morality on all issues is of course always measured on a scale of 1 to Hiroshima on Phatmass :smokey:  let me see what I can do to survey the field of morality here to its wildest connections...

 

it is not moral to contracept, it is never moral to abort.  contraception is a sexual sin, abortion is the sin of murder; the murder of innocents is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance (and yes, the blood of the innocents that was spilled at Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly cried to Heaven for vengeance).  the only sexual sin that cries to heaven for vengeance is "sodomy", the reason for that is that it perverts sexuality against life-giving procreation, which is bad, but it mostly cries to heaven for vengeance when it is tied to rape/coercion as was the case in Sodom, so I think it'd be a stretch to say contraception cries to heaven for vengeance, with the lack of a victimized party (I said mostly earlier but sodomy has a victimized party even in consensual sodomy, because someone's human dignity is being violated even if it's being done willingly)... but no, I don't see contracepting as crying to heaven for vengeance.

 

But does that mean that a person who would otherwise get an abortion should instead be advised to contracept instead?  I don't think we can tenably hold that position.  I don't think engaging in one sinful act to avoid being placed in a situation wherein you might commit another sinful act has any moral basis in Catholic moral thought.  it'd be like if someone said "when I'm bored, I kill people, so I should steal this video game so I don't get bored, because stealing isn't as bad as killing"... it is true that stealing isn't as bad as killing, but there is no moral argument to be made that could advise someone that we'd rather they steal than kill.  On the grand demographic level if we saw an increase in stealing and a decrease in murder, we'd likely be relatively happy about those demographics to some degree, but I don't think I'd ever be able to advise anyone that they should steal rather than murder, or that they should contracept rather than murder.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Aloysius