Contraception And Abortion

[Fidei Defensor]

Alright, so I understand your morals surrounding both contraception and abortion. However, here is my question:

Why is contraception a bad thing in relation to abortion? I understand the whole argument about taking sex out of context, etc, and leading to a disrespect for life. However, wouldn't it be more acceptable for two persons to put a sin on their souls using birth control, but avoiding a conception which would end in abortion? Rather than an "innocent life," in your terms, being killed, they would only be sinning personally.

Why is this not an acceptable solution to the problem of abortion? It is a lesser of two evils. And you've been perfectly clear that abortion is the most important issue. Why not compromise a bit and promote birth control to those who would otherwise not use it and potentially get pregnant and then potentially have an abortion?

I'm just asking out of curiosity as well as to get my thoughts out. No offense meant anywhere.

[CatherineM]

Some contraceptives actually work as abortives, such as the pill. As to condoms, I agree with you. They are the lesser of two evils. When my boys were teenagers, I showed them how to use condoms. I went to too many young men's funerals in the 80's. I also went to confession after instructing them. I allowed my love for them to cause me to sin. I knew that I could potentially be leading them to sin as well, but I didn't want them to die because of a mistake that many young people make. Those are my personal beliefs, but I would never publicly teach about condoms in my role as catechist. I have also never used a contraceptive myself.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1696314' date='Nov 6 2008, 10:14 PM']Some contraceptives actually work as abortives, such as the pill. As to condoms, I agree with you. They are the lesser of two evils. When my boys were teenagers, I showed them how to use condoms. I went to too many young men's funerals in the 80's. I also went to confession after instructing them. I allowed my love for them to cause me to sin. I knew that I could potentially be leading them to sin as well, but I didn't want them to die because of a mistake that many young people make. Those are my personal beliefs, but I would never publicly teach about condoms in my role as catechist. I have also never used a contraceptive myself.[/quote]
I forgot to mention that I am, for the sake of argument, not including abortive types of contraception.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696291' date='Nov 6 2008, 11:01 PM']Alright, so I understand your morals surrounding both contraception and abortion. However, here is my question:

Why is contraception a bad thing in relation to abortion? I understand the whole argument about taking sex out of context, etc, and leading to a disrespect for life. However, wouldn't it be more acceptable for two persons to put a sin on their souls using birth control, but avoiding a conception which would end in abortion? Rather than an "innocent life," in your terms, being killed, they would only be sinning personally.

Why is this not an acceptable solution to the problem of abortion? It is a lesser of two evils. And you've been perfectly clear that abortion is the most important issue. Why not compromise a bit and promote birth control to those who would otherwise not use it and potentially get pregnant and then potentially have an abortion?

I'm just asking out of curiosity as well as to get my thoughts out. No offense meant anywhere.[/quote]

Basically you are asking for the okay of moral relativism in regards to Church teaching.

You can sum of the Catholic teaching on moral matters by thinking of the phrase [i]means do not justify the result.[/i]

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1696393' date='Nov 6 2008, 10:51 PM']Basically you are asking for the okay of moral relativism in regards to Church teaching.

You can sum of the Catholic teaching on moral matters by thinking of the phrase [i]means do not justify the result.[/i][/quote]
No. I'm asking, is it morally permissible to promote birth control as a means to prevent the death of an unborn baby.

If the means don't justify the end, then why was it okay to vote for McCain as a "lesser evil" than Obama? If what you say is true, then you are not morally permitted to vote for any candidate that promotes any kind of evil. McCain supported stem cell research, abortion for cases of rape, etc.

[Slappo]

Sad to read that Catherine...

Fidei, it comes from the ends don't justify the means principle. One cannot use one intrinsic evil to prevent another and both contraception and abortion are intrinsic evils.

In politics a Catholic can vote for the lesser of two evils, even if the lesser evil supports an intrinsic evil such as stem cell research (See Obama vs. McCain). A Catholic cannot cast that vote as a vote in support of stem cell research though.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1696412' date='Nov 6 2008, 11:03 PM']Sad to read that Catherine...

Fidei, it comes from the ends don't justify the means principle. One cannot use one intrinsic evil to prevent another and both contraception and abortion are intrinsic evils.

In politics a Catholic can vote for the lesser of two evils, even if the lesser evil supports an intrinsic evil such as stem cell research (See Obama vs. McCain). A Catholic cannot cast that vote as a vote in support of stem cell research though.[/quote]
I disagree. I don't think that contraception which prevents a true "union" is on the same level as what you claim happens to an unborn child during abortion.

Edited November 7, 2008 by fidei defensor

[icelandic_iceskater]

Contraception = consequentialism. An ethical system that determines good and evil form the consequences that follow the act.

-Objectively contraception is wrong.
-There is never any circumstance that demands the use of contraception.
-It doesn't matter what your intention is- the act itself is inherently evil.

If you don't want to get pregnant try NFP or abstain. It won't kill you.

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1696393' date='Nov 7 2008, 12:51 AM']You can sum of the Catholic teaching on moral matters by thinking of the phrase [i]means do not justify the result.[/i][/quote]

Edited November 7, 2008 by icelandic_iceskater

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1696437' date='Nov 6 2008, 11:16 PM']that would be consequentialism. An ethical system that determines good and evil form the consequences that follow the act.

-Objectively contraception is wrong.
-There is never any circumstance that demands the use of contraception.
-It doesn't matter what your intention is- the act itself is inherently evil.[/quote]
All of this I understand. However, I'm trying to reconcile beliefs, here. All throughout the election, I heard many things about what people would do to end abortion. Many of the things were less than charitable or good by any standard. That leads me to ask why something like birth control, fairly harmless relative to abortion, is not an acceptable way to deal with it? I understand that to you, it's wrong and immoral. But, birth control is the sin of the users, but with abortion, you say that a baby is murdered. Which would you rather have, if you had to choose between the two? You have to be realistic. This is America. You'll most likely always have both around. Why not choose the lesser of two evils in order to protect the lives you claim you care so much about?

Edited November 7, 2008 by fidei defensor

[jkaands]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696291' date='Nov 6 2008, 10:01 PM']Alright, so I understand your morals surrounding both contraception and abortion. However, here is my question:

Why is contraception a bad thing in relation to abortion? I understand the whole argument about taking sex out of context, etc, and leading to a disrespect for life. However, wouldn't it be more acceptable for two persons to put a sin on their souls using birth control, but avoiding a conception which would end in abortion? Rather than an "innocent life," in your terms, being killed, they would only be sinning personally.

Why is this not an acceptable solution to the problem of abortion? It is a lesser of two evils. And you've been perfectly clear that abortion is the most important issue. Why not compromise a bit and promote birth control to those who would otherwise not use it and potentially get pregnant and then potentially have an abortion?

I'm just asking out of curiosity as well as to get my thoughts out. No offense meant anywhere.[/quote]

Birth control pills don't act as abortifacients when they are used to suppress ovulation. The so-called "Plan B' usage potentially is an abortifacient if there is an embryo. otherwise it is not.

Contraception is neither a sin nor an evil.

[icelandic_iceskater]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696447' date='Nov 7 2008, 01:20 AM']...But, birth control is the sin of the users, but with abortion, you say that a baby is murdered. Which would you rather have, if you had to choose between the two? You have to be realistic. This is America. You'll most likely always have both around. Why not choose the lesser of two evils in order to protect the lives you claim you care so much about?[/quote]
eagleeye already explained that- its moral relativism.

moral relativism denies absolute truth

which in and of itself is an objective statement.

it contradicts.

There is never an excuse for an inherently evil act.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1696477' date='Nov 6 2008, 11:32 PM']eagleeye already explained that- its moral relativism.

moral relativism denies absolute truth

which in and of itself is an objective statement.

it contradicts.

There is never an excuse for an inherently evil act.[/quote]
I don't believe that it's moral relativism. I believe that it's tolerating one evil to prevent another. Believe me, i understand that consequences to that logic. However, I'm just frustrated with the inaction of the pro-life movement. If you wait around forever for the "perfect" solution, millions of babies still die. If you accept a less than perfect solution, millions less could die in the process of working towards complete illegality. I know that the best solution is to not cooperate with any evil in the process. But, i don't see any other suggestions right now. And I believe that, though no abortion at all is best, fewer babies dying is better than more.

[CatherineM]

I went to 37 funerals for young men under the age of 30. That can change your perspective pretty fast. I do believe that the church is right, that contraception is a sin. That's what I believe, that's what I teach, that is how I have lived my life. My faith just became weak when it came to my kids. I didn't want them to die for making a mistake that priests hear everyday in confession.

[Barbarus]

Contraception leads to abortion in the following ways:

1) When people contracept, even though they know (or should know) that no contraceptive prevents pregnancy 100 percent of the time, the assume that it will prevent pregnancy in their specific case. When contraceptives do fail, this is seen as an "unintended consequence" or an "accident" and is therefore "unwanted." We all know what the recommended course of action for unwanted pregnancies is in our culture.

2) The contraceptive mentality also affects people's views of children subtly. An unintended pregnancy is not a "surprise" but an "accident." Children are a harm to be prevented, not a blessing to be welcomed. Contraception is the only medical practice that circumvents a naturally occurring, normal bodily function, serving to sever the tie between sex and babies.

3) Speaking of severing that tie between sex and procreation, contraception puts pleasure as the primary purpose of sex, rather than procreation. Because of contraception, there is no rational argument against homosexual behavior. Look, for example, at Lawrence v. Texas (gay sex acts are OK between consenting adults) and see that it is based in part on Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptive use in marriage is OK).

4) Oral contraceptives were actually developed by aborting children. The doctor who was instrumental in developing the pill (who was, sadly, Catholic) needed to figure out how women's hormone's work in gestation in order to develop the pill. So, he impregnated women who were scheduled to have hysterectomies for various reasons, then performed the hysterectomies at various stages of gestation so he could observe the correlation between hormone levels and gestational development. Sick.

That enough? I got more.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1696516' date='Nov 7 2008, 12:03 AM']Contraception leads to abortion in the following ways:

1) When people contracept, even though they know (or should know) that no contraceptive prevents pregnancy 100 percent of the time, the assume that it will prevent pregnancy in their specific case. When contraceptives do fail, this is seen as an "unintended consequence" or an "accident" and is therefore "unwanted." We all know what the recommended course of action for unwanted pregnancies is in our culture.

2) The contraceptive mentality also affects people's views of children subtly. An unintended pregnancy is not a "surprise" but an "accident." Children are a harm to be prevented, not a blessing to be welcomed. Contraception is the only medical practice that circumvents a naturally occurring, normal bodily function, serving to sever the tie between sex and babies.

3) Speaking of severing that tie between sex and procreation, contraception puts pleasure as the primary purpose of sex, rather than procreation. Because of contraception, there is no rational argument against homosexual behavior. Look, for example, at Lawrence v. Texas (gay sex acts are OK between consenting adults) and see that it is based in part on Griswold v. Connecticut (contraceptive use in marriage is OK).

4) Oral contraceptives were actually developed by aborting children. The doctor who was instrumental in developing the pill (who was, sadly, Catholic) needed to figure out how women's hormone's work in gestation in order to develop the pill. So, he impregnated women who were scheduled to have hysterectomies for various reasons, then performed the hysterectomies at various stages of gestation so he could observe the correlation between hormone levels and gestational development. Sick.

That enough? I got more.[/quote]
As I pointed out, I'm quite aware of all of this. It's been hashed out before.

What I am concerned about are ways of reducing abortion while also working to completely end it. Catholics seems to have one part right, wanting to end it, but no way to work towards it except moping around and mourning the losses.

[icelandic_iceskater]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696490' date='Nov 7 2008, 01:38 AM']I don't believe that it's moral relativism. I believe that it's tolerating one evil to prevent another.[/quote]Either contraception is wrong or it isn't. It can't be wrong except when using it to prevent an abortion. THAT is moral relativism. Believing that its ok to tolerate one evil to prevent another ignores the fact that contraception is inherently wrong. You're allowing one inherently evil act to prevent another. The end does not justify the means. Both are inherently wrong and both should be avoided. Did you catch the word [i]inherently[/i]?

When voting for a presidential candidate in support of embryonic stem cell research who is running against a candidate who is pro-choice- the principle of double effect comes into play.
-The action (voting for a candidate who supports ESCR) in and of itself is at least indifferent
*we can judge this by looking at the circumstances and the intention.
-You have the right intention (keeping a pro-choicer out of office)
-you are not doing evil so that good may result.
*we can judge this by looking at the level of cooperation. Proximate mediate. Your object or intention is not that of the person committing the evil act, but you are aware of the act. Your culpability here would depend on your intentions and circumstances.
-And the good effect (keeping a pro-choicer out of office) balances the evil effect (voting for someone who supports ESCR)

The situation is morally permissible.

Contraceptives are always used to prevent human life. Even if it is a life that will later be terminated, it is still inherently wrong.

If you aren't open to a child- try NFP or abstain. Its do-able. I promise.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696490' date='Nov 7 2008, 12:38 AM']I don't believe that it's moral relativism. I believe that it's tolerating one evil to prevent another.[/quote]

Same difference. Moral relativism is where an act may be bad, but it is okay in the view it is the lesser of two evils. We can change the language, but at the end of the day, you are asking for an evil to be okay or better in the view that another evil is being avoided.


[quote]Believe me, i understand that consequences to that logic. However, I'm just frustrated with the inaction of the pro-life movement. If you wait around forever for the "perfect" solution, millions of babies still die.[/quote]

Best solution is abstinence, and if you are married NFP as far as I know.

[quote]If you accept a less than perfect solution, millions less could die in the process of working towards complete illegality. I know that the best solution is to not cooperate with any evil in the process. But, i don't see any other suggestions right now. And I believe that, though no abortion at all is best, fewer babies dying is better than more.[/quote]

Again, you are asking for moral relativism to be okay. So your real issue here is why moral relativism is not okay.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696524' date='Nov 7 2008, 01:09 AM']As I pointed out, I'm quite aware of all of this. It's been hashed out before.

What I am concerned about are ways of reducing abortion while also working to completely end it. Catholics seems to have one part right, wanting to end it, but no way to work towards it except moping around and mourning the losses.[/quote]
See, I don't think you are aware of it. You think of contraception as being the "lesser of two evils" when in fact it is directly correlated to abortion. More and more social data is supporting the correlation between contraception and the social morays that lead to abortion, as well as the more direct links I point out above. For a really marvelous survey of this issue, there was an article in a recent First Things about the secular studies that are proving out the predictions Pope Paul VI made in Humanae Vitae.

Abortion is the awful effect of contraception. Until contraception is socially unacceptable, abortion will be socially acceptable.

I think the big problem with Catholics today is that there are too many people who think like you, that contraception is "not that bad" and that if kids are going to be having sex anyway, we might as well protect them from the temporal consequences of their sin. No offense to anyone who has already posted in this thread with that view, but I think that is an absolutely horrible parenting philosophy. I think too often we forget that the end goal here is holiness that leads to salvation, not preventing suffering. But I digress.

As I said, the fact that more people do not see the clear connection between abortion and contraception is one of the main reasons there is not a clearer plan in place to end abortion. Catholics contracept at a rate similar to the general population. I think we purposefully blind ourselves to the connection between abortion and contraception, because embracing that connection means taking a hard look at our own behavior, and having very hard conversations with people we love about their sexual habits. Our culture has adopted the view that people's sexual behaviors are private and not open to the review of the larger community -- that whole "right to privacy" thing. In order to kill the culture of death, it is this very "right to privacy" that we have to attack.

People's sexual behaviors matter to the entire community. Whether or not they contracept matters. Who they sleep with matters. It is our business, and there are behaviors that are simply not conducive to true health and human flourishing. Addressing this stuff means we have to start in our own marriages and in our own bedrooms, and that is why truly addressing abortion is so hard to do. It's far, far easier to talk about all those other people who are making poor life choices than looking at the stock of contraceptives in our own medicine cabinets.

[rkwright]

What makes this different from say the lessor of two evils in an election is that there is a viable third choice; abstinence.

Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, and its sin-free.

Thats why contraception isn't an option. There is a very realistic third choice.

I know the response is 'abstinence doesn't work'. Abstinence works just fine. Its people that don't work. Just because people can't control themselves, doesn't mean we should tolerate another sin.

[thessalonian]

Contraception is not the grave moral evil that abortion is. No question about that. But it's kinda like do you want to run in to a brick wall at 100 miles per hour or at 75. Either way you've made shipwreck of your soul.

Edited November 7, 2008 by thessalonian