A wholly reasonable approach to birth control

[AlNg]

Are you claiming that people not practicing their faith fully never happens with Protestants, Orthodoxy, Muslims, Hindus, etc…?

It is a question of not accepting a particular teaching and believing that the teaching should be changed. What teaching of Islam do Muslims want to be changed?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Are you claiming that people not practicing their faith fully never happens with Protestants, Orthodoxy, Muslims, Hindus, etc…?

It is a question of not accepting a particular teaching and believing that the teaching should be changed. What teaching of Islam do Muslims want to be changed?

Are you saying moral doctrine should be democratized?

 

[Elizabeth3]

And anyway, it is estimated that up to 50 percent of fertilized eggs don’t implant regardless of whether one is on birth control and so at best, hormonal birth control only contributes marginally miscarriages. It probably actually helps reduce miscarriages because it prevents many eggs from being fertilized

There’s a difference between a death occurring naturally and one caused as a result of trying to prevent new life from forming. God is the author of life and death. It’s not up to us to deliberately try to control who should live and who should die. “Oh well, it’s only a small amount of death that might occur from ABC so it’s ok.”

 

[Elizabeth3]

Many people believe so. For example, in the past it was not morally acceptable to talk in church. It was not morally acceptable for a woman to enter church without covering her head. Now, even the women distributing Holy Communion do not cover their heads.

Absurd argument to compare disciplines to doctrine about something as fundamental as new life.

 

[o_mlly]

Contraception is intrinsically evil.

Not to nit-pic but only artificial contraception is intrinsically evil.

NFP can also be an evil act.

That an act is in its object contraceptive is insufficient to judge the act moral or immoral.

The intention of the actor must be examined. If the intention to avoid procreation is serious (not necessarily grave) then the intention is good. If a serious reason is lacking then the intention is selfishness and, even NFP, then becomes an evil act.

 

[rosejmj]

You could just say that birth control increases the risk of miscarriage slightly. So do a lot of things

 

[vsedriver]

Just because something wasn’t morally acceptable in the past doesn’t mean it can’t be morally acceptable today. Times change

isn’t that the same as saying:

Just because murder wasn’t morally acceptable in the past doesn’t mean that it can’t be morally acceptable today, times change

if it was morally sinful yesterday it is still morally sinful today and will continue to be morally sinful in the future.

 

[1ke]

Not to nit-pic but only artificial contraception is intrinsically evil.

Contraception is contraception, there are no qualifiers such as “artificial” or “natural”. Contraception is intrinsically evil. That is the teaching of the Church.

NFP can also be an evil act.

1. NFP isn’t an act at all.
2. NFP isn’t contraception.

That an act is in its object contraceptive is insufficient to judge the act moral or immoral.

Not correct. Contraception is intrinsically evil. That is what the Church teaches.

The intention of the actor must be examined. If the intention to avoid procreation is serious (not necessarily grave) then the intention is good. If a serious reason is lacking then the intention is selfishness and, even NFP, then becomes an evil act.

NFP isn’t an act.

NFP is information.

Engaging in intercourse or abstaining from intercourse is an act. That is not contraception.

Whether a couple may be committing some other sin could be discussed, but they aren’t committing the sin of contraception.

 

[Toledo]

A wholly reasonable approach to birth control Moral Theology

The main function of most hormonal birth control is to prevent ovulation so no fertilization can occur and then to make it more difficult for sperm to reach the egg. Because chances of fertilization is already low I doubt that an egg is fertilized often and fails to implant due to birth control. And anyway, it is estimated that up to 50 percent of fertilized eggs don’t implant regardless of whether one is on birth control and so at best, hormonal birth control only contributes marginally miscar…

Take the “pill” for example; there are three effects of the pill, and at least one has effects on the fertilized egg. In one case, the lining of the uterus is affected so that newly fertilized eggs can’t be implanted in the wall as efficiently. It truly is an efficient killer…and there are many variations of the pill which act differently, and when they act. I am not an expert by any means and only have read some on the different types of pill, but they act differently as to the how/what/when. The primary answer is the “why”…to make sure all human life is guaranteed to be extinguished.

Truly one of Satan’s most evil deeds.

Only God knows how many children are killed.

Can Contraception Cause Abortions?

When pro-life people claim that contraception causes abortions, contraception advocates reply with one or more of three objections.

www.catholic.com

 

[1ke]

Just because something wasn’t morally acceptable in the past doesn’t mean it can’t be morally acceptable today.

Uh, that’s exactly what it means: doctrine does not change. Morality is objective and unchanging.

Unless you are arguing from a non-Catholic framework such as utilitarian ethics? Catholic teaching rejects these as heretical.

 

[vsedriver]

According to what I read it appears that there are many Catholics who think that the teaching on artificial birth control needs to be changed as it has been changed in other religions.

Catholicism isn’t a democracy. You don’t get to change moral dogma by vote.

 

[1ke]

According to what I read it appears that there are many Catholics who think that the teaching on artificial birth control needs to be changed

It cannot be changed. It is part of divine revelation.

as it has been changed in other religions.

That cannot happen. And, as I stated at the very beginning of this thread, those that have decoupled themselves from the Pope and Magisterium eventually find themselves in error. This is merely an example of being in error, not a refutation of the Catholic position.

 

[1ke]

For example, in the past it was not morally acceptable to talk in church. It was not morally acceptable for a woman to enter church without covering her head. Now, even the women distributing Holy Communion do not cover their heads.

I see you aren’t well informed on the difference between a doctrine and a discipline.

What you wear in church and how you comport yourself are disciplines, not doctrines.

Contraception is part of the deposit of faith. A matter of faith and morals, not discipline.

 

[Toledo]

A wholly reasonable approach to birth control Moral Theology

Uh, that’s exactly what it means: doctrine does not change. Morality is objective and unchanging. Unless you are arguing from a non-Catholic framework such as utilitarian ethics? Catholic teaching rejects these as heretical.

Exactly; either an act is evil or it isn’t, same for all time and space. As we know God is unchanging over time. Why would His defined morality change over time?

It can’t.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Those estimations are VERY flawed since they are based on the outcome of IVF embryos. It is harder to conduct studies on naturally concieved embryos, but current research suggest a 15-20 % miscarriage rate.
For comparison, infant mortality rate in societies without healthcare etc. is about 20 %.

 

[Elizabeth3]

You could just say that birth control increases the risk of miscarriage slightly. So do a lot of things

Saying it doesn’t make it true. It’s not a natural miscarriage. It was caused by the deliberate use of a synthetic hormone attempting to either prevent fertilization or implantation.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

If I say, we are only going to have sex if there is a barrier between us or something preventing a conception then that is using Artificial Birth Control. If I say, we are only going to have sex on the days that I am sure we wont concieve, while that might be “natural” The intent is the same. To divorce the unitive and procreative so that one may enjoy one without the consequence of the other. To do so with intent and on purpose is the same intent and purpose as ABC. The problem with some aspects of NFP has nothing to do with “natural” or artificial, no moral issue really involves that or we would not believe in modern medicine. What does matter is the intent. And the circumstances. The main problem with the intent and circumstances is that it is arbitrary and subjective to every single person and the other problem is that TWO people have to be in complete moral agreement in unison to apply NFP in a Godly way.
The idea that NFP should be mandatory is a false idea that puts NFP on the level of “Catholic Birth Control” If a couple is having trouble concieving then they can be directed to NFP and the methods. Same with the idea of for a serious/grave/just, reason they need to avoid conception then they can be pointed to NFP. To Mandate it in a dioces to get married is normalizing it and communicating that NFP is the way we SHOULD conduct sexual relations in a Marriage. That just isnt healthy and isnt the case. Mandatory NFP should come with Madatory Retrouvaille enrolement!

 

[kapp19]

Contraception is contraception, there are no qualifiers such as “artificial” or “natural”.

Onanism is a good candidate for “natural contraception,” I would think.

 

[mary77]

i think birth control pills are very dangerous . Im one of the RNS in a harvard study going on over 25 yrs already following those us who did not take the pill versus those who did. You can probably search and find updates.

 

[1ke]

If I say, we are only going to have sex on the days that I am sure we wont concieve, while that might be “natural” The intent is the same.

No one is arguing otherwise.

It isn’t immoral.

Contraception is an immoral means of spacing children while periodically abstaining is not.

To divorce the unitive and procreative so that one may enjoy one without the consequence of the other.

Periodic abstinence does not do this. Every time the couple engages in intercourse it is a fully completed act properly ordered to both unity and procreation.

What does matter is the intent. And the circumstances

Actually all three fonts of morality matter. The means are not equivalent when speaking of contraception vs periodic abstinence.

The idea that NFP should be mandatory

No one has asserted that NFP is mandatory. Not the Church and not anyone on this thread.

To Mandate it in a dioces to get married is normalizing it and communicating that NFP is the way we SHOULD conduct sexual relations in a Marriage.

The premarital requirement in some diocese, totally within the discretion of the bishop, is to learn about it. There is no mandate to use it in your marriage at any specific time, either to achieve or to avoid.