Should Pro-abortion People Use Contraception?

[kujo]

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.

 

 

YESSSS!

[Freedom]

First, this is just a question. Contraception is immoral, and should not be used.

 

There are actually a couple reasons why a woman could use the pill other than contraception.  You're such a guy!

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

There are actually a couple reasons why a woman could use the pill other than contraception. You're such a guy!

In which case Contraception happens to be the side effect. You are correct that if no other alternative is available to treat a disease then a drug may be used as a last resort which also has the side effect of being a contraceptive.

[Freedom]

Engaging in sex purposely for the sex act but intentionally to avoid pregnancy = contraception.

 

 

But the Catholic church approves NFP.

[Freedom]

In which case Contraception happens to be the side effect. You are correct that if no other alternative is available to treat a disease then a drug may be used as a last resort which also has the side effect of being a contraceptive.

 

 

And you're a guy too.

[Mark of the Cross]

But the Catholic church approves NFP.

 

Yes I know. That was part of my point. I have a number of questions where the Church appears to try to fix things with band-aides that keep falling off. I'm not expecting those questions to be answered any time soon. But I do share with Anomaly the fact that I cannot lie to myself and say I believe all that the Church teaches is correct. One of the pains we must face I suppose.   

[Freedom]

I too don't agree with everything the Catholic church teaches but I see nothing wrong with NFP when they say to be careful while watching your menstrual cycle.  That is prolly the best way in prevention besides abstinence.  Even non Catholics can do that, it's actually rather simple.

 

Phatmass site is not doing what I want in a timely manner so I'm going to sign off.  Peace!

[Mark of the Cross]

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

 

Sorry I don't get what you are saying. In the hypothetical I would lie like the proverbial pig. Is my action objectively right or wrong? Am I culpable of the sin of lying ie will God frown on my choice? Will I spend time in Purgatory standing up so I can unlie? What about law enforcers or soldiers who kill in the course of their duty. I thought they were excused? Is it valid to quote catechisms here when we are uncertain as to what catechisms are valid to certain participating posters. I'm a little confused on that one. Not you, wink, wink! 

[Mark of the Cross]

 

Phatmass site is not doing what I want in a timely manner so I'm going to sign off.  Peace!

 

Me too. Peace and blessings be also with you!

[MissScripture]

But the Catholic church approves NFP.

 

 

Yes I know. That was part of my point. I have a number of questions where the Church appears to try to fix things with band-aides that keep falling off. I'm not expecting those questions to be answered any time soon. But I do share with Anomaly the fact that I cannot lie to myself and say I believe all that the Church teaches is correct. One of the pains we must face I suppose.   

 

First of all, NFP is more than just avoiding pregnancy. NFP is a way for a woman and her husband to be in touch with what is going on in her body. That information can be used in several different ways, including diagnosing illnesses, achieving pregnancy or avoiding pregnancy.  The church allows for the avoidance of pregnancy when there is a grave reason. In Her wisdom, the Church does not enumerate these reasons, because they will be different for different couples. However, NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and that is not okay with the Church, either. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Sorry I don't get what you are saying. In the hypothetical I would lie like the proverbial pig. Is my action objectively right or wrong? Am I culpable of the sin of lying ie will God frown on my choice? Will I spend time in Purgatory standing up so I can unlie? What about law enforcers or soldiers who kill in the course of their duty. I thought they were excused? Is it valid to quote catechisms here when we are uncertain as to what catechisms are valid to certain participating posters. I'm a little confused on that one. Not you, wink, wink!

We debated that in the past. Some say the lie is fine. Some say it is venial, but recommend it anyway. In my opinion it is venial and should not be recommended. I think a third way is preferable.
Anyway, this is not the time for that debate.

[Freedom]

First of all, NFP is more than just avoiding pregnancy. NFP is a way for a woman and her husband to be in touch with what is going on in her body. That information can be used in several different ways, including diagnosing illnesses, achieving pregnancy or avoiding pregnancy.  The church allows for the avoidance of pregnancy when there is a grave reason. In Her wisdom, the Church does not enumerate these reasons, because they will be different for different couples. However, NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and that is not okay with the Church, either. 

 

I agree completely with your post, you're awesome.  Someone suggested NFP to answer dUSt's OP.  From a moral standpoint the suggestions of NFP are the best and you so stated above.  As you can see below, this was to answer someone who is either not Catholic or a non-practicing one.

 

IF a woman was set on having an abortion if she were to become pregnant, from a moral standpoint, should she use contraception to avoid that?

 

I guess what brought this question up in my mind was the "contraception decreases abortions argument".

 

It is never moral for a Catholic to do this, obviously, but this question is addressing non-Catholics, or non-practicing Catholics, or anyone who doesn't have the same moral standards.

 

I'm not making any statements, just starting a discussion.

[Mark of the Cross]

First of all, NFP is more than just avoiding pregnancy. NFP is a way for a woman and her husband to be in touch with what is going on in her body. That information can be used in several different ways, including diagnosing illnesses, achieving pregnancy or avoiding pregnancy.  The church allows for the avoidance of pregnancy when there is a grave reason. In Her wisdom, the Church does not enumerate these reasons, because they will be different for different couples. However, NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and that is not okay with the Church, either. 

 

Firstly the health benefits of NFP are really irrelevant to the discussion. There are allegedly some health benefits or cases where the pill can be employed in certain treatments with or without the intention of contraception. NFP is natural and other methods are not, but heart transplants and antidepressants are not natural either. Yet as far as I know the Church does not frown on such things. Mind you I am of the opinion that artificial methods (oral) are dangerous and never would consider the use of the pill nor would I advise someone to use it unless a very positive health benefit could be demonstrated. And I'm not aware of any method that I could really endorse. So NFP could well be the best option. You have stated that NFP as a prevention to pregnancy is not okay with the Church. But they certainly don't advertise that fact or impart that impression to the laity. If I recall rightly a Priest I questioned gave the green light to NFP for the purpose of birth control. Maybe we need better education or the priests

 

Here's some of the grey stuff where the Church does give reasons for acceptance

 

 

WHAT METHODS OF BIRTH REGULATION ARE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

"If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier" (Humanae Vitae, 16). Thus, the same teaching of the Church which condemns the use of the unnatural methods of birth control explicitly approves of the use of Natural Family Planning when there is a sufficient reason to avoid or postpone pregnancy. With its emphasis on the necessity of a serious reason to use even the natural methods, the Church is warning against selfishness in family planning.

 

 

What are external considerations? Your wife has health issues that make successful birth improbable and highly dangerous in which case what is wrong with employing surgical means when the Church does not frown on surgery for other health conditions which are entirely unnatural? 

We seem to be in a bit of a dilemma here. Mkolbe says that there cannot be a situation where you need to sin to avoid a sin. Nihil says that lying is always a sin no matter what the reason. In the hypothetical case if we tell the truth to avoid the sin of lying we are then in a position of we are allowing people to die that we may be free of venal sin. This is a selfish act and is therefore sinful. I don't accept a third possibility. Anything less than doing everything possible to protect the Jews including lying is a neglect of duty. The Church says that there are conditions where sex without the intent of procreation is not a sinful act. This does not seem to satisfy either Mkolbes or Nihils statements. There really are only two possibilities. 1/ Sex within marriage as an expression of love with or without the intention of pregnancy, but not selfishly, is not a sin. (literal family planning) 2/ Sex is only permitted for the intention of procreation. That would be very hard for people to accept coming from an organisation that has demonstrated its own inability to deal effectively with grave sexual sin within its own ranks.

[Mark of the Cross]

First of all, NFP is more than just avoiding pregnancy. NFP is a way for a woman and her husband to be in touch with what is going on in her body. That information can be used in several different ways, including diagnosing illnesses, achieving pregnancy or avoiding pregnancy.  The church allows for the avoidance of pregnancy when there is a grave reason. In Her wisdom, the Church does not enumerate these reasons, because they will be different for different couples. However, NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and that is not okay with the Church, either. 

 

Firstly the health benefits of NFP are really irrelevant to the discussion. There are allegedly some health benefits or cases where the pill can be employed in certain treatments with or without the intention of contraception. NFP is natural and other methods are not, but heart transplants and antidepressants are not natural either. Yet as far as I know the Church does not frown on such things. Mind you I am of the opinion that artificial methods (oral) are dangerous and never would consider the use of the pill nor would I advise someone to use it unless a very positive health benefit could be demonstrated. And I'm not aware of any method that I could really endorse. So NFP could well be the best option. You have stated that NFP as a prevention to pregnancy is not okay with the Church. But they certainly don't advertise that fact or impart that impression to the laity. If I recall rightly a Priest I questioned gave the green light to NFP for the purpose of birth control. Maybe we need better education or the priests

 

Here's some of the grey stuff where the Church does give reasons for acceptance

 

 

WHAT METHODS OF BIRTH REGULATION ARE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

"If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier" (Humanae Vitae, 16). Thus, the same teaching of the Church which condemns the use of the unnatural methods of birth control explicitly approves of the use of Natural Family Planning when there is a sufficient reason to avoid or postpone pregnancy. With its emphasis on the necessity of a serious reason to use even the natural methods, the Church is warning against selfishness in family planning.

 

 

What are external considerations? Your wife has health issues that make successful birth improbable and highly dangerous in which case what is wrong with employing surgical means when the Church does not frown on surgery for other health conditions which are entirely unnatural? 

We seem to be in a bit of a dilemma here. Mkolbe says that there cannot be a situation where you need to sin to avoid a sin. Nihil says that lying is always a sin no matter what the reason. In the hypothetical case if we tell the truth to avoid the sin of lying we are then in a position of we are allowing people to die that we may be free of venal sin. This is a selfish act and is therefore sinful. I don't accept a third possibility. Anything less than doing everything possible to protect the Jews including lying is a neglect of duty. The Church says that there are conditions where sex without the intent of procreation is not a sinful act. This does not seem to satisfy either Mkolbes or Nihils statements. There really are only two possibilities. 1/ Sex within marriage as an expression of love with or without the intention of pregnancy, but not selfishly, is not a sin. (literal family planning) 2/ Sex is only permitted for the intention of procreation. That would be very hard for people to accept coming from an organisation that has demonstrated its own inability to deal effectively with grave sexual sin within its own ranks.

[Papist]

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!

 

You talk as though pregnancy is an unfortunate consequence of sex. I say it is a beautiful possibility. The reality and truth of the meaning and purpose of sex transcends all, including social economic status. Just b/c a couple determine they 'can't afford a child' does not give them an allowance to engage in an immoral act of contraception. However, there is a way to eliminate the possibility of pregnancy, and a way to significantly reduce the chance that is morally acceptable. Catholic teaching is that when a married couple has sex they must be open to life.  This truth applies to all.