Should Pro-abortion People Use Contraception?

[Basilisa Marie]

Why doesn't she just use NFP? It's healthier for her than contraceptives anyway. And if she uses it right, there won't be any innocent children to abort.

 

(Please God don't let mentioning NFP blow up in my face...)

 

Contraception: Go to doctor, get prescription (covered by insurance), pop a pill every day, have all the sex you want. 

 

NFP: Go to class (most likely pay money for it), read the book, chart for months, take temperature and observe bodily signs every day, without fail, and if there's any doubt in your mind that something isn't right, don't have sex with your monogamous long-term partner. 

 

It's hard to sell NFP to people who want to have sex when they want with whom they want. 

[Ash Wednesday]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

A-cat, there are some studies that do support your "musings" and you do raise some points that have been discussed on the pro-life side. Studies not only suggest that that contraception doesn't reduce abortions, but there's also the possibility that it reduces them in the short term, but increases them in the longer term.

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/09/false-study-claiming-obamacares-free-birth-control-cuts-abortions/

 

I guess people can throw studies back and forth and point out flaws in each, but I'm personally of the belief that artificial contraception fosters an environment of ready convenience, something that may be a novelty in the short term -- but I don't believe convenience and the necessary discipline or responsibility that should involve sex really goes hand in hand in the longer term. So in that sense I don't think contraception really solves the problem of abortion. One act (contraception) may or may not be regarded as being as grave as another (abortion) -- but I still think the two often share a common underlying theme with regards to the approach to sex and fertility, and separating the two. 

 

One other thing as far as Catholics addressing this are concerned -- Jesus knows we are human and meets us where we are, but at the same time, he didn't always ask "realistic" or "reasonable" things of his disciples. They were not awarded convenient, pleasure-filled, tidy, planned out lives, and he did not concern himself with telling people what they wanted to hear. So... what am I getting at? Nobody's perfect, but that doesn't mean we should lower the bar. And on some things, the Church never will, no matter how "intolerant" or "unrealistic" or "unfashionable" that is to just about everyone else at a given point in time.

 

Sorry. I'm not even sure if I have even made any sense. I have had a very, very, very bad day. Possibly my worst day all year (so far) and in a long, long time. I just have a lot of feelings, man.

 

 

[Archaeology cat]

Made perfect sense to me, Ash, for what it's worth. :)

[MIKolbe]

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.

 

 

1) That sounds like the textbook definition of relativism.

 

2) how are sinful acts unavoidable?  If they are, then God wills us to sin?  And explain the "apparently" adverb. Why did you add it?  Are apparently sinful acts sinful or not? Are they sinful? Or do they only look/feel/smell/taste sinful but are not?  Perhaps some examples would help me.  I am not understanding what you are saying.

[Papist]

Intention is key factor in sinning. If I do not want to contracept, yet my wife insist on doing so. I exhausted all efforts to sway her and failed and she still contracepts. Would I be sinning if we engaged in sex? My intention is not to contracept. Would I be sinning if I denied my wife as long as she is contracepting?

[Mark of the Cross]

1) That sounds like the textbook definition of relativism.

 

2) how are sinful acts unavoidable?  If they are, then God wills us to sin?  And explain the "apparently" adverb. Why did you add it?  Are apparently sinful acts sinful or not? Are they sinful? Or do they only look/feel/smell/taste sinful but are not?  Perhaps some examples would help me.  I am not understanding what you are saying.

 

:unsure:  I thought Nihil and Mr Godwin sorted that one in subsequent posts! If I steal teddy bears from K-Mart to give to Vinnies for poor kids, then you are correct in that case. What I was alluding too was for example the previous hypothetical of Mr Godwin knocking on your door and asking if there are Jews or for that matter any other aliens hiding in your attic. You have three options. You can go north, south, east, or west. Except that there are four of Mr Godwin's gestapo mates with SMG's pointed at you from each of these directions. Suicide probably would indicate that you were hiding something. If you affirmed Mr Godwin's suspicions that there are Jews in your attic, but no aliens, then you have committed a sin by aiding his evil intent. But on the other hand if you deny their presence then you have lied. Lying is a sin but by the use of 'apparently' I'm suggesting that in this circumstance that the lies were not a sin. And thus I have avoided your condition as stated. Nihil confirmed my suspicions that sins are often based on the motive which can negate an act. Well I think he did??  So what you wrote is true but there are escape clauses for which I'm sure the Jews are thankful.     

[Jesus_lol]

If someone asked you "i am definitely going to have sex now, should i use a condom now, or get an abortion later should I become pregnant?" what would your answer be?

 

 

 

For you who say "what about the third option of 'dont have sex'?", since I figure there may be significant overlap with a previous conversation here on PM, think of it this way.

 

Your third option is basically advocating a third party with little chance of winning. You are telling them to vote for Ron Paul or Vermin Supreme, when they ask you "which is the better choice, Obama or Romney?"

 

Sure, go ahead and support the third party. But we all know that given its extremely low chance of winning, you also have a preference as to which of the two main options is better.

 

So dUSt, your answer is to vote for Romney/Condoms.

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

I've always wondered why I was so bad at skiing.

 

rotfl

 

I thought you were hilarious. Can I make statuses now? Please?

[Mark of the Cross]

Intention is key factor in sinning. If I do not want to contracept, yet my wife insist on doing so. I exhausted all efforts to sway her and failed and she still contracepts. Would I be sinning if we engaged in sex? My intention is not to contracept. Would I be sinning if I denied my wife as long as she is contracepting?

 

It appears that the only way of practically avoiding sin is for one person to be infertile. To expect people, especially the poor and illiterate to have sex solely for the purpose of giving birth and to refrain at all other times seems impossible. It goes on the list of others that really need a host of escape clauses. Is it really practical to turn the other cheek in all cases? Should you really hand over your wallet to anyone who asks for it? Become someones slave if they ask for it?

 

And if your right eye offend you, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell. Isn't it my mind that is responsible? Shouldn't I commit suicide so that my entire being cannot offend and result in being cast into hell? And if I cut it off I would probably bleed to death anyway!

[Jesus_lol]

I've always wondered why I was so bad at skiing.

 

 

Hey man, getting to the bottom of the mountain in 30 seconds makes you a pretty dang good skier

[Apotheoun]

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

 

 

 

I agree with Mikolbe, because he has stated the Biblical principle found in Romans 3, which is often rephrased as, "The ends do not justify the means."

[jazzytakara]

I think maybe if the 'greater evil' argument is applied, than yes. I think people should have available birth control and abstinence based education. I don't agree that birth control is moral, but if it prevents abortion in some respect maybe it shouldn't be completely disbanded. Its impossible to believe that the world would stop practicing immoral sexual acts right away, but I think abstinence based education should be promoted as a priority. Educate and change individuals on a local level could lead to it becoming a national need to stop abortion. 

 

At the end of the day I wish society was more moral and that people just would be intimate in a God honoring way, but right now we need to choose our battles. We can't abolish birth control and abortions over night, but we can work to change the opinion of as many individuals as we can, and always promote abstinence and social insurance programs that help new parents with their baby/adoption agencies, so that everyone knows what options are available to them. Its heartbreaking to hear of stories form women and couples who had an abortion because no other option was made available to them. 

 

I don't think this should be treated as a 'greater evil' argument though. One bad, even if less bad than the other option, does not make something good. Sadly we live in a world where birth control is socially acceptable. 

Edited November 29, 2012 by jazzytakara

[Nihil Obstat]

Nihil confirmed my suspicions that sins are often based on the motive which can negate an act. Well I think he did??  So what you wrote is true but there are escape clauses for which I'm sure the Jews are thankful.     

Not really. I said that intention can lessen culpability. The action remains objectively right or wrong.

[Apotheoun]

Not really. I said that intention can lessen culpability. The action remains objectively right or wrong.

 

 

A point of clarification:  a man's intention can make an act that is good in itself evil, but it can never make an act that is evil per se good.  For example, if a man gives alms, but he do so in order to be seen by others it follows that the goodness of the act has been vitiated by his evil intention (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1753).

[Nihil Obstat]

A point of clarification: a man's intention can make an act that is good in itself evil, but it can never make an act that is evil per se good. For example, if a man gives alms, but he do so in order to be seen by others it follows that the goodness of the act has been vitiated by his evil intention (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1753).

Good clarification. Thank you.