Contraception And Abortion

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1696540' date='Nov 7 2008, 12:33 AM']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.




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



Again, you are asking for moral relativism to be okay. So your real issue here is why moral relativism is not okay.[/quote]
I'm admitting they are evil. That's not relativism. If i was saying that they were all the same difference, that would be relativism. I'm saying that one is much more gravely evil, and it is better, when there are no other options, to choose the less evil one than the more evil one - i.e. personal sin of birth control over killing of a baby.

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1696556' date='Nov 7 2008, 01:51 AM']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.[/quote]
I didn't say I agree, I said I understood your viewpoint.

[quote name='rkwright' post='1696635' date='Nov 7 2008, 08:01 AM']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.[/quote]
Realistic to whom? Catholics? Of course. But Catholics aren't the ones having the abortions. It's not a realistic solution for the rest of the country. What is more important to you? A man and woman sinning by using a condom, or a man and woman sinning by having an abortion and killing the baby?

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1696638' date='Nov 7 2008, 08:10 AM']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. [/quote]
It's true, and that's the major problem with what I'm saying. However, I'd liken birth control to crashing at 35 mph and abortion as crashing at 100 mph. One is less evil than the other, even though they are both evil.

Edited November 7, 2008 by fidei defensor

[icelandic_iceskater]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696696' date='Nov 7 2008, 11:34 AM']I'm admitting they are evil. That's not relativism. If i was saying that they were all the same difference, that would be relativism. I'm saying that one is much more gravely evil, and it is better, when there are no other options, to choose the less evil one than the more evil one - i.e. personal sin of birth control over killing of a baby.[/quote]So what exactly is moral relativism, then?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1696719' date='Nov 7 2008, 10:13 AM']So what exactly is moral relativism, then?[/quote]
From Wikipedia:

"In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."

I'm not saying that there is no standard, I'm not saying that both are equal. I can see what you're suggesting about social circumstances and the like, but I'm asking, what is more important? The lives of unborn children or someone using a condom?

[icelandic_iceskater]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696746' date='Nov 7 2008, 12:44 PM']I'm not saying that there is no standard, I'm not saying that both are equal. I can see what you're suggesting about social circumstances and the like, but I'm asking, what is more important? The lives of unborn children or someone using a condom?[/quote]
[i]"In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths"[/i]

So saying that contraception is permissible because it prevents abortion still keeps in mind that contraception is inherently wrong? Or does it deny the Truth...?

You're basically saying that yes you see that contraception is wrong, but [i]compared[/i] to abortion its the lesser of two evils. Relatively speaking.

Fact: They are both inherent evils. The importance is irrelevant. There is a third option.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1696757' date='Nov 7 2008, 10:58 AM'][i]"In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths"[/i]

So saying that contraception is permissible because it prevents abortion still keeps in mind that contraception is inherently wrong? Or does it deny the Truth...?

You're basically saying that yes you see that contraception is wrong, but [i]compared[/i] to abortion its the lesser of two evils. Relatively speaking.

Fact: They are both inherent evils. The importance is irrelevant. There is a third option.[/quote]
When have I said that they aren't objectively wrong? I haven't.

However, I already pointed out that I'm trying to reconcile two ideas here. The desire to avoid "murdering" babies at any cost, and the immorality of contraception.

[icelandic_iceskater]

a) until you understand why contraception is wrong in and of itself, you will not be able to understand why it is wrong to use as a means to prevent abortion.

b) If you want to avoid murdering babies at any cost- why can't you try NFP or abstain?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1696765' date='Nov 7 2008, 11:08 AM']a) until you understand why contraception is wrong in and of itself, you will not be able to understand why it is wrong to use as a means to prevent abortion.

b) If you want to avoid murdering babies at any cost- why can't you try NFP or abstain?[/quote]
a) I do understand the reasoning. I was Catholic for a long time. And not just a cafeteria Catholic, either.

b) I'm talking about ending abortions in general, not just Catholics. As I said, Catholics aren't the ones having the abortions. You need to think in terms of the rest of society and their likely habits. You can't be wishfully thinking and say "they shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and they shouldn't use birth control" and mean that these things won't happen. They will and do happen.

Edited November 7, 2008 by fidei defensor

[icelandic_iceskater]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696778' date='Nov 7 2008, 01:25 PM']a) I do understand the reasoning. I was Catholic for a long time. And not just a cafeteria Catholic, either.

b) I'm talking about ending abortions in general, not just Catholics. As I said, Catholics aren't the ones having the abortions. You need to think in terms of the rest of society and their likely habits. You can't be wishfully thinking and say "they shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and they shouldn't use birth control" and mean that these things won't happen. They will and do happen.[/quote]
a) So you understand then that contraception is an inherent evil?

b) go back and read [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=87098&view=findpost&p=1696516"]Barbarus's post[/url]. S/he explained it better than I could. If you're working to end abortion- start at the root. That is, with the mentality that sex is merely for pleasure.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696778' date='Nov 7 2008, 12:25 PM']a) I do understand the reasoning. I was Catholic for a long time. And not just a cafeteria Catholic, either.

b) I'm talking about ending abortions in general, not just Catholics. As I said, Catholics aren't the ones having the abortions. You need to think in terms of the rest of society and their likely habits. You can't be wishfully thinking and say "they shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and they shouldn't use birth control" and mean that these things won't happen. They will and do happen.[/quote]


Contraception has merely increased the need for abortion. Surely you can see that. Couples don't associate sex with love and marriage anymore in large part due to Contraception. Then when they get pregnant and are not married they "have" to do something that is even more irrespoinsible. Abort the child. Contraception has also increased promiscuty, i.e. increasing greatly the frequency of sex among the unmarried. People are addicted to sex. When you increase the freequency due to the addiction that changes of a "failure" of the contraception or just plain being careless in using it greatly increases. Your throwing fuel on the fire that needs to be put out.

[jkaands]

All of these arguments are a waste of time.

Fidei, why do you bother?

Fornication was been around since the beginning of time, long before contraception. Illegitimacy rates are what led to the development of contraception, along with uncontrolled birth rates and high maternal deaths from illegal abortion.

Opposition to contraception is like pouring gasoline on the fire of abortion. Most Catholics in the US and Europe realize this. The vast majority of Catholics in this country and Europe practice contraception. 54% of Catholics in the US voted for Obama, despite his moderate stand on abortion.

Y'all can yell and scream all you want to; virtually no one is listening to you.

[thessalonian]

"Opposition to contraception is like pouring gasoline on the fire of abortion. "

Are you really this blind. You state that contraception was developed to combat illegitamecy and abortion. Hello McFly .... Both have gone up DRAMATICALLY since contraception became prominent in our culture. Talk about throwing fuel on the fire.

[thessalonian]

Oh, and should we talk about STD's and the DRAMATIC increase in teen promiscuty and pregnancy in all of this also? Heaping sin upon sin is what comes to mind in all of this.

[HisChildForever]

There is a thread floating around titled "What Reduces Abortions?" and I posted about contraception. I am just going to copy and past what I said.

1. That's why, while trying to reduce abortion, we have to simultaneously reduce the use of contraception. And the only way to do that is to clarify what marriage truly is, and what sex truly is. If we teach that sex is more than just pleasure, and elaborate that sex is only truly meaningful when within marriage (in answer to those practicing pre-marital sex who protest "but we're in love"), then sex will only be shared within a marriage, for the right reasons and in the right ways, which will help eliminate our problem of abortion and our problem of contraception. (Another thing that would greatly help is putting the truths about abortion out there.)

Our society is very self-centered where everyone is encouraged to seek pleasure - be this through money or power, and of course sex for the physical aspect of pleasure. Contraception - or the idea of it - has only made abortions more prominent because abortion is seen as contraception.

2. What I meant was that as contraceptions become popular and accepted by society, sex becomes degraded into nothing more but an act of pleasure; therefore sex happens outside of marriage, and when contraceptions fail, abortion can happen.

3. In 1968, Pope Paul VI predicted that abortion would be a result of contraception and that contraception would lead to promiscuity which, in turn, would lead to divorce.

Obviously this has all come true, just look at our society! Therefore, there is a relationship between contraception and abortion.

(I quoted Wikipedia, which some may not accept - understandable - and I also quoted from this:

Source: [url="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262"]http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262[/url] )

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1696803' date='Nov 7 2008, 02:08 PM']All of these arguments are a waste of time.

Fidei, why do you bother?

Fornication was been around since the beginning of time, long before contraception. Illegitimacy rates are what led to the development of contraception, along with uncontrolled birth rates and high maternal deaths from illegal abortion.

Opposition to contraception is like pouring gasoline on the fire of abortion. Most Catholics in the US and Europe realize this. The vast majority of Catholics in this country and Europe practice contraception. 54% of Catholics in the US voted for Obama, despite his moderate stand on abortion.

Y'all can yell and scream all you want to; virtually no one is listening to you.[/quote]

Perhaps if you were more respectful and charitable, people would listen to you and give you positive feedback.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1696696' date='Nov 7 2008, 10:34 AM']I'm admitting they are evil. That's not relativism. If i was saying that they were all the same difference, that would be relativism. I'm saying that one is much more gravely evil, and it is better, when there are no other options, to choose the less evil one than the more evil one - i.e. personal sin of birth control over killing of a baby.

---------

From Wikipedia:

"In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."[/quote]

1. So you take both abortion and contraception to be evil. Alright we agree here.

2. You say it is okay to do one of these in the eye that you are preventing possible human death.

Therefore, then it is okay to do an evil to stop another evil thing of "more" magnitude such as death. Right?



So basically you say that one evil should be overlooked because it stops death, right?

So you are trying to claim that this would not be moral relativism since you declare both to be evil YET you advocate doing an evil in the eyes of that you are avoiding the possible higher evil?

What do you do with Church teaching that says you cannot justify evil to avoid evil or actually I guess you are claiming this is incorrect teaching. By your claim, the Church should teach that evil is permissible under the eyes of being a lesser evil. So you have taken an intrinsic evil, contraception, and made it okay by saying it is in your words "better" thereby meeting the definition of moral relativism as there is no objective truth, and make the claim relative to a social situation where a babies death could result.

I see what you are trying to say, but you actually meet the definition of moral relativism. You say contraception is "better" which is a relative position when comparing to possible result.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1696314' date='Nov 6 2008, 11:14 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]

As a public school science teacher, here is what I would do if required to teach contraceptives:

Go ahead and teach how to use contraceptives (of all forms, including NFP, and abstinence, though not technically contraceptives). Instruct on how to use them. Also instruct on the benefits of each one. And then have kids critically analyze the risks associated with each. And then perform activities like the virus lab (see below) to see how their risk increases with multiple partners, etc.

The rationale for doing so is that I want kids to see that while contraceptives may reduce risk, they do not get rid of risk altogether. All it takes is one condom rip. I think that this method is honest; it teaches proper use of contraceptives should my kids decide to use them; but it strongly cautions against their use in the first place. In short, it informs students well-enough that they are able to make a decision whether or not they want to engage in risky behavior. I fear that too many sex ed courses present contraceptives as the "silver bullet" that will guarantee health. Some contraceptives are downright dangerous in themselves!

---------------

The virus lab.

Each student is given a test tube filled with a clear liquid, as well as a beaker to mix the contents of their test tubes with a partner (or -gasp- multiple partners if they so choose). One test tube has sodium hydroxide solution in it (the "virus"), the others: plain water. The two solutions are indistinguishable from one another. The students merrily go around the room, mixing their test tubes with one another in their beakers, and then pouring the beakers back into their test tubes.

At the end of the experiment, all students add a few drops of phenolphthalien to their test tubes. Any test tube that was exposed to sodium hydroxide will turn bright pink.

From just one infected person, the infection spreads exponentially:

0 rounds: 1 person
1 rounds: 2 persons
2 rounds: 4 persons
3 rounds: 8 persons

...

Assuming, of course, that someone who is infected doesn't "sleep" with someone else who is already infected.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1696809' date='Nov 7 2008, 01:19 PM']"Opposition to contraception is like pouring gasoline on the fire of abortion. "

Are you really this blind. You state that contraception was developed to combat illegitamecy and abortion. Hello McFly .... Both have gone up DRAMATICALLY since contraception became prominent in our culture. Talk about throwing fuel on the fire.[/quote]

Janet Smith, [i]Contraception: Why Not[/i]:

[indent]
Now, I'll give you the highest authority of our land, the Supreme Court says so. There's an article out there, which I wrote on the table you can have for free. It's called, "The Connection between Contraception and Abortion" and I cite Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that decision (this is not quite verbatim but it's close) it says that "in several important respects, the decision to use contraceptives is the same as the decision to abort." Or the decision to have an abortion is the same as the decision to contracept. And it goes on to explain. It says that, [b]"For two decades, couples have based their intimate relationships on the availability of abortion should contraceptives fail."[/b] For two decades, couples have based their intimate relationships on the availability of abortion should contraceptives fail. Now in this whole Supreme Court decision, which is on abortion, there is not one mention of the humanity of the unborn child, not one mention of whether the fetus was a person or not. It's not even dismissed as a question. It's not even considered. But it does say we must have abortions because we have contraceptives. It's a necessity. For two decades, couples have counted on it should their contraceptives fail. The Supreme Court says so.
[/indent]

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1696844' date='Nov 7 2008, 01:40 PM']1. So you take both abortion and contraception to be evil. Alright we agree here.

2. You say it is okay to do one of these in the eye that you are preventing possible human death.

Therefore, then it is okay to do an evil to stop another evil thing of "more" magnitude such as death. Right?



So basically you say that one evil should be overlooked because it stops death, right?

So you are trying to claim that this would not be moral relativism since you declare both to be evil YET you advocate doing an evil in the eyes of that you are avoiding the possible higher evil?

What do you do with Church teaching that says you cannot justify evil to avoid evil or actually I guess you are claiming this is incorrect teaching. By your claim, the Church should teach that evil is permissible under the eyes of being a lesser evil. So you have taken an intrinsic evil, contraception, and made it okay by saying it is in your words "better" thereby meeting the definition of moral relativism as there is no objective truth, and make the claim relative to a social situation where a babies death could result.

I see what you are trying to say, but you actually meet the definition of moral relativism. You say contraception is "better" which is a relative position when comparing to possible result.[/quote]
I understand that my position is weak when paired with Catholic beliefs.

I am satisfied with the explanations given. I disagree, but I understand your opposition.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1696971' date='Nov 7 2008, 02:46 PM']As a public school science teacher, here is what I would do if required to teach contraceptives:

Go ahead and teach how to use contraceptives (of all forms, including NFP, and abstinence, though not technically contraceptives). Instruct on how to use them. Also instruct on the benefits of each one. And then have kids critically analyze the risks associated with each. And then perform activities like the virus lab (see below) to see how their risk increases with multiple partners, etc.

The rationale for doing so is that I want kids to see that while contraceptives may reduce risk, they do not get rid of risk altogether. All it takes is one condom rip. I think that this method is honest; it teaches proper use of contraceptives should my kids decide to use them; but it strongly cautions against their use in the first place. In short, it informs students well-enough that they are able to make a decision whether or not they want to engage in risky behavior. I fear that too many sex ed courses present contraceptives as the "silver bullet" that will guarantee health. Some contraceptives are downright dangerous in themselves![/quote]

That's almost exactly the way I handled it with my boys. I just tried to explain everything. I knew they were getting half-truths from their friends and at school. I wanted them to be abstinent, but I also wanted them to be safe. When I went to confession about it, my priest told me that it isn't a sin to love your children so much that you are afraid for them. That didn't mean I didn't get a nice big penance to do. As far as I know, both boys left my home virgins.

[jkaands]

Abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work. The US spent 176 million in tax dollars last year on a failed program and has spent a total of ONE BILLION DOLLARS overall on this failed program. To date 26 states have[i] opted out [/i]of abstinence-only funding because of these failures of a [i]federally[/i] funded program which creates problems which the [i]states[/i] have to then deal with.
[i]
[url="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112816.php"]http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112816.php[/url][/i]

Abstinence-only sex education may delay slightly but does not prevent unintended teen-age pregnancy or STD’s. It does not prevent vaginal or oral sex, which can transmit HIV, HPV, syphilis and gonorrhea. Many students, ignorant about STD's, have oral sex, wanting to avoid vaginal sex, and expose themselves to STD's they know nothing about. Abstinence-only education does not prevent any of this from happening.

People may argue that there is nothing wrong with unplanned adolescent pregnancies. There is plenty wrong. There is an increased incidence of low-birth weight babies, prematurity, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, and long-range developmental disabilities. The mothers often drop out of school, go on welfare and stay there.

Contraceptives can reduce unintended teen-age pregnancy by 86%.

It’s all here:

[i]http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/18/1869[/i]

From the New England Journal of Medicine, the leading medical journal in the USA.