Allowing Contraception?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='thedude' date='Oct 8 2004, 04:07 PM'] Hmm... THis rubs me the wrong way. I would like to see Cardinal Ratzinger's take on this. [/quote]
The article or what I said? (Please don't report me to the Grand Inqusitor!!)

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The article.

And isn't there a high percentage of women who enter therapy years after an abortion?

[Adam S]

Ok,

If those of you out there have sisters, imagine if she got pregnant due to some crazy fling she had. You'd be sympathetic, but say "Look, you have to bear the reponsibilities of your actions and have the child. You live with the consequences of your actions." And id agree with you.

Imagine if your sister was raped by a scumbag heroin addict. She is battered and bruised, and has all sorts of internal bleeding. Shes suffering severe trauma, and will have mental scars for the rest of her life. She wakes up everynight screaming from recalling that horrific event.

Then she finds out she is pregnant. Before you even imagine how shed feel (im not sure if any of us can unless it had happened to us - again God forbid) imagine how youd feel.

Something that monster had created, a part of that monsters body was inside your sister, would you yourself not want to get rid of it?? Then your sister says she wants to get rid of it. The thought of anything like that inside her makes her feel sick. She tells you that there is no way shed ever love the baby, as everytime shed look into its eyes, she see the rape all over again.

Then you tell her that she cant get rid of it, as its not allowed, its banned by church teaching. You tell her she has to go through the agony of pregnancy and birth, have her life completely altered (even more) with all her ambitions gone with it. I've asked 2 of my female friends close at hand (not that their opinions represent the female population, i dont do that UNLIKE some people on this board) and theyve assured me that they probably would be so traumatised (think about it rape + pregnancy + child birth + its rapists child) that they wouldnt make it to the birth.

Oh and popestpiusx, dont call me ignorant, as that just shows you cant have a logical debate without name calling and being patronising. I am a very staunch Catholic, and agree with every other issue in the church, including all the pro-life stuff, EXCEPT this! So dont start name calling, because it shows you up.

And please in response to this post (and im sure there will be many) dont hide behind some random church document. Lets talk about REAL LIFE, after all thats what Christ was all about. I hate abortion, i think its being belittled to same standard as an old fashion condom, but your high risk factor of the Mum killing herself and/or rejecting the baby (remember post-natal depression also) is about a million times higher than normal.

Before you sit and judge - remember what you are asking of people before you want to ban something

God Bless

Adam

[Guest Aluigi]

if it were my sister: i would not want to put her through the ADDED TRAUMA of having an abortion. look it up, it will only add to the pain she feels. Statistics show, that when the woman actually has the child (either puts it up for adoption or keeps it) it is better for the woman mentally. your argument is based on the assumption that abortion would help her.

from the point of conception: it is a baby. period. that life is sacred and cannot be killed for any means.

generally, women who end up having and keeping the child of the baby love the child anyway. the moment they look into those innocent little eyes, the connection of the baby and that horrible sin committed against them melts away. the speculation of your friends doesn't mean diddly squat, the reflections of people who have gone through that mean a whole lot more.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Absolutely nothing you have said is enough reason to justify the MURDER of and innocent child. Yes, rape is traumatic, but that doesn't make murder an option.

To be a staunch and orthodox Catholic you have to accept ALL of the Church's teachings. Including this one.

[Adam S]

I accept your argument that it may be more traumatic to have an abortion. It all depends on the circumstances, and in line with Catholic teaching, i understand that abortion is wrong, as i have said already.

However, in certain circumstances you can pull into account the double effect theory. Hence (and perhaps i drifted from my original point in previous posts) although you can say it is wrong, it can be (in certain circumstances) the lesser of two evils (death of mother + additional trauma to family) and you cannot BAN all abortion....even though if it was up to me id make it a lot harder in England (i dont know what the American laws are) than it currently is now - they really do give them out for fun over here!!

Hope you understand my point a bit clearer, i think i was a bit vague in my last post. Is wrong, abortion can be more traumatic but possibility of double effect means you cant ban rape abortions/contraceptives.

all IMHO

God Bless

Adam

[IcePrincessKRS]

Adam, abortion is intrinsically evil and therefore the Principal of Double Effect cannot be applied.

The only sort of circumstances in which PDE can be applied to the death of the child to "save" the mother is something like an ectopic pregnancy where the child is in the fallopian tube and the tube must be removed. The death of the child is an unintended secondary effect.

[Guest Aluigi]

you cannot apply double effect for direct abortion. if the mother's life is in danger, procedures can be done to correct the mother's problem. sometimes that results in the death of the baby, but that's basically a miscarriage death because no one directly killed the baby. DIRECT abortion is never ever necessary nor is it permitable.

to deliberately kill a baby in the womb can never be justified. everything possible must be done to save BOTH the mother and the baby, but in the VERY VERY RARE case, it comes down to having to have a procedure done which indirectly might cause the death of the baby.

double effect cannot apply.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The child is the good God brings from an evil event. She could give the baby up for adoption if she chose not to keep it. There are no loopholes in God's law.

[qfnol31]

Double effect can't apply in abortion for one reason, it's a direct act on the child. Double effect really only takes place when you're not acting directly on the child's life. We talked about this idea in my Philosophy of Man class and will be doing it in my Moral Theology class in the next week or two.

[Adam S]

Does no-one else see a massive massive problem in forcing a raped, vulnerable woman to have a baby she has done nothing to be burdened with????

Ive spoken to a few Catholics on this and they acknowledge this (as i do) as a very difficult issue. But everyone seems to have it clear cut here. Is it because you hide behind Church documents and bits of rules, is it pure ideology and judgement, or is it some great truth that i am somehow missing out on, because i dont get how it can be so clear cut to so many people.

It seems positively heartless - i know its also heartless to kill the child, but can no-one see the immense difficulties and minefields this creates?????

[Guest Aluigi]

i see the difficulty, but i also see how ABORTION would be WORSE for the woman than giving bith to the baby and either keeping him or giving him away in adoption

[Adam S]

Yeah, i agree, for certain women. So for those women, they need the counselling e.t.c to show that its better to have the kid

HOWEVER i have a real problem, although i can acknowledge its wrong e.t..c, saying to a rape victim, who it might be better FOR HER not to have the kid in the long term, "sorry but abortion is banned [color=red][edited by Ice Princess: inappropriate, vulgar phrase][/color]

You see where im coming from, its not the morality, its the idea of banning it....

Edited October 9, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[Guest Aluigi]

the problem is that it is NEVER better for the woman to not have the kid in the long run. why? the BODY has already been convinced there is a baby there, the hormonal levels are up and the brain knows there is a baby in it, the body moves into a sort of "marternal mode" so to speak. when the baby disappears, the hormonal levels are not naturaly lowed (in a birth, the hormonal levels go through a natural process to lower), and in miscarriages, the pregnancy ALWAYS has a low hormonal level. but in a normal pregnancy, the hormonal level is up, and if the baby is killed the body recognizes the death of a baby. it is psychologically devestating. maybe not today or tomarrow, but it ALWAYS comes back to haunt them. why? very solid psychology. not to mention the increased danger of breast cancer that comes from the unnatural ending of a pregnancy (hormone levels left over unable to naturally lower)

[IcePrincessKRS]

No one has denied the fact that rape is a difficult issue. You seem to have a problem with the fact that ABORTION is not a difficult issue. It IS morally clear cut. Apparently you are missing out on the great truth about the value of EVERY human life, born and unborn.

There are thousands upon thousands of couples out there on waiting lists to adopt. No one is forced to keep a child once they give birth, or even when they find out they are pregnant. My aunt and uncle have adopted 2 boys--one of whom they paid for all the prenatal care for (the other boy was a little older when he was adopted). Many couples pay for the doctor bills for the pregnant woman who's child they are adopting. As soon as someone discovers she is pregnant she can seek adoptive parents for her baby.

I don't see how you have such a big problem with the fact that abortion is never admissable. If its never admissable it SHOULD BE banned. The banning and morality issue are intricately connected. If abortion were morally neutral there would be no reason to ban it. Abortion is [b]morally evil[/b] so there is every reason for banning.

Edited October 9, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Does no-one else see a massive massive problem in forcing a raped, vulnerable woman to have a baby she has done nothing to be burdened with????[/quote]

Adam, I believe you are attempting to write heartlessness into our responses that simply does not exist. We ALL acknowledge the horrors of rape, and we all take it seriously.

What you are suggesting, however, is that on top of the horror of the poor, raped, vulnerable woman we should tack on the horror of a poor, innocent, slaughtered child. To murder the innocent is always evil.

Ultimately, the "massive massive problem" is the idea that a child should be killed in order to prevent another person from more trouble or hardship. Yes, the woman has undegone terrible hardship, but as followers of Christ, cold murder is never an option.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Adam S]

I am no longer continuing this debate.

While most answers have been reasonable, well thought out and educational, Ice princess has decided to warn me out of sheer ignorance.

Ice Princess - the phrase i used is an English term (I would like to post it again so other Brits could support me, but i dont want to get another warning hit.) and is more of a nursery rhyme type phrase as opposed to the breast attachment you put on it.

Another example which has a similar meaning is "So there with knobs on" This relates to a simple childs term once again, and so should not be banned just because knob can be another word for an area of the male anatomy.

I suspect in fact you are well aware of this, simply do not like my point of view and have decided to get a petty 1-0. It is a shame that you would resort to an immature and childish thing, and make this an unpleasant place for me to post on.

Thank you to all who have posted sensibly, you have made me rethink various issues, but according to Ice princess, you can only get into a debate if you agree with her, or change your mind soon after.

God Bless

Adam

[Guest Aluigi]

I am sure Iceprincess was unaware. I had a conversation with her via PM, she was asking if she came accross too "snooty" in that last post especially after having to edit/warn you. She told me the phrase she edited, and I thought she was right. We're just ignorant Americans sometimes when it comes to that stuff. Please understand that it was a complete misunderstanding.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 8 2004, 10:59 AM'] This point is irrelevant.  There is no way that we can be the judge of what kind of life someone may have, nor can we justify any act of preventing that life based on our speculation.  I know a girl who is the product of a rape.  I think she have serious issues with anyone who attempted to justify contraception on this basis.

Furthermore, this is the same sort of argument the pro-aborts use to justify aborting the Children concieved during a rape, or anyone else that they deem may "have a rough life ahead of them."  I'm not accusing you of those same sympathies. That would be rediculous as you are obviously a good Catholic.  I am simply making the point that this is a dangerous argument to use and could easily be used against us.

Your other points are good and I will think about it more before I post a reply to them. 

One last thing though, even if in theory you are correct, I still do not know of any drug contraceptive drug that does also act as an abortifacient. [/quote]
The first point is indeed only relevant because it requires honest though on the subject, but does not really affect the conclusion of my thoughts, at least in the terms I stated them in.

The Church always does the does loving thing.

Also to become a little graphic but not inappropriate, physically removing the sperm from inside the women is possible and would severely less the chance for pregnancy.

But you do make a good point about not knowing of a drug that could do this, because neither do I.

However I wonder about some external means pf destroying the egg in tube through ultra sound, similar to the way they break up scar tissue?

Also, the immediacy of the action would also help prevent the destruction of life.

Anyhow, thank you for your humility and Charity.

[quote]Double effect can't apply in abortion for one reason, it's a direct act on the child.  Double effect really only takes place when you're not acting directly on the child's life. [/quote]

Thanks qfnol31 for the quote and the a principle which always must be kept in mind.

[Adam S]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 9 2004, 08:29 AM']I am sure Iceprincess was unaware.  I had a conversation with her via PM, she was asking if she came accross too "snooty" in that last post especially after having to edit/warn you.  She told me the phrase she edited, and I thought she was right.  We're just ignorant Americans sometimes when it comes to that stuff.  Please understand that it was a complete misunderstanding.[/quote]
Fair dues. I apologise then for my rant

God Bless

Adam