Contraception And Abortion

[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.

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm"]http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm[/url]

[kenrockthefirst]

Let me quote HL Mencken and ask what everyone thinks:

[i]It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.[/i]

The question is, why is it OK to "plan" to not cause impregnation by use of NFP, which speaks to me about attitude and intent, but not to "plan" to not cause impregnation by actively preventing it through contraceptives? Does it all come down to "taking one's chances" and surrendering to God? Ultimately, if a couple really wasn't open to "getting pregnant," couldn't they simply abstain? Again, is it about surrender?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1698965' date='Nov 10 2008, 01:46 PM']Let me quote HL Mencken and ask what everyone thinks:

[i]It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.[/i]

The question is, why is it OK to "plan" to not cause impregnation by use of NFP, which speaks to me about attitude and intent, but not to "plan" to not cause impregnation by actively preventing it through contraceptives? Does it all come down to "taking one's chances" and surrendering to God? Ultimately, if a couple really wasn't open to "getting pregnant," couldn't they simply abstain? Again, is it about surrender?[/quote]

I've often thought the same thing. What is the difference between preventing pregnancy the natural way as opposed to the chemical/unnatural way? If the same purpose is to prevent pregnancy while enjoying the marital act...? I'm not saying spouses shouldn't enjoy one another...I"m just confused about the whole prevention of birth...

Catholics raised during my parents generation never planned anything. They just let God do whatever He wanted. I'm glad, too, because I'm the baby in the family, the last child of 7 children. I probably would have never been born had my folks practiced any type of prevention...

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1698986' date='Nov 10 2008, 07:45 PM']I've often thought the same thing. What is the difference between preventing pregnancy the natural way as opposed to the chemical/unnatural way? If the same purpose is to prevent pregnancy while enjoying the marital act...? I'm not saying spouses shouldn't enjoy one another...I"m just confused about the whole prevention of birth...

Catholics raised during my parents generation never planned anything. They just let God do whatever He wanted. I'm glad, too, because I'm the baby in the family, the last child of 7 children. I probably would have never been born had my folks practiced any type of prevention...[/quote]
Well, it isn't really about preventing anything. I mean, it's using the knowledge of your own cycle to make a determination of when you are more likely to conceive. Then that knowledge can be used either to achieve a pregnancy or to postpone a pregnancy (for serious reasons), or that knowledge can be ignored altogether when it comes to making love with your spouse. The knowledge is good to have regardless because it gives insight into a woman's health.

And believe me, it's a real sacrifice when using NFP to postpone. When my back was still bad after Kieran's birth I would have loved to have gotten pregnant again, but couldn't responsibly do that because of how bad the back pain was (wasn't able to get out of bed sometimes as it was). It was very difficult during that time, but it was a sacrifice we made knowing it was necessary. Now the back pain is pretty much gone, and I'd love to get pregnant, but my fertility hasn't returned yet. With NFP, I'll know when it does (saves my sanity that way, too, because I'd be thinking wishfully a lot more otherwise). And of course, this mutual sacrifice has strengthened our love and our marriage.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Archaeology cat

[dominicansoul]

Thanks! I have often wondered what some of those serious reasons could be...

And I have heard how NFP "strengthens love and marriage"

perhaps that's the greatest advantage over contraception...spouses aren't used as objects, and instead, a great deal of virtues are exercised in the practice of NFP...