A wholly reasonable approach to birth control

[choose_to_love]

??? “1ke” is your correspondent on this thread, no?

 

[tuffsmurf]

I don’t think that modern science supports the idea that contraception causes miscarriages or prevents the blastocyst from implanting in the uterus. The pill and its derivates stops ovulation and copper IUDs makes the uterus hostile to sperm (if pregnancy occurs despite the IUD, ectopic pregnancy is a known risk though). But that doesn’t really determine the morality of the contraception, since condoms are also unacceptable according the Church’s teaching, and that clearly doesn’t prevent implantation.

 

[vsedriver]

Capital punishment is fundamental to life and previously it was taught that it was acceptable.

you misunderstand the new teaching. Under the old concept capital punishment is still not sinful. It is only sinful for a society that has a means to defend itself without the need for capital punishment. Modern society can separate people who are a threat without taking their lives.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Capital punishment is fundamental to life and previously it was taught that it was acceptable.

It still teaches that the State has the right to enforce the death penalty. The question in our modern day is whether the State in various circumstances ought to enforce it. The doctrine hasn’t changed but the prudence of it’s application has due to changes in society. If you want an in-depth explanation, see the link below but this quote summarizes the position.

" Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. "

Catholicism and Capital Punishment

 

[choose_to_love]

All right, I’ll try again.

1ke asserts that periodic abstinence through fertility awareness is a licit means of birth control. Agree so far?
You quoted her post wherein she stated: “um, no, abstaining is a means. A moral one.”

You then stated “that is not what the context is in the Encyclical.” I understood you to mean Humanae Vitae by ‘the encyclical’, and in particular the sections quoted by o_mlly in the post to which 1ke was responding. Those sections quoted by o_mlly state that responsible parenthood is exercised by those who for serious reasons decide to postpone pregnancy. That is the context, as I understood it, of the Encyclical, and if serious reasons are presumed, then periodic abstinence is a moral means of postponing pregnancy.

 

[tuffsmurf]

There are also methods of NFP that doesn’t involve periodic abstinence, such as ecological breastfeeding.

 

[kapp19]

All fine - not what I was going after… I was p(name removed by moderator)ointing the semantic issue involved, about “means,” in the context of the paragraph quoted from HV.

-K

 

[Mrchatsworth]

I’m not so sure. Lots of things are hostile to Sperm in varying degrees. Hot tubs, saliva, the natural ph of a woman’s body, hormonal treatments type of underwear, chemotherapy, lubes, water, the outside temperature, if the woman or man is sick with a fever. And yet many babies are conceived by couples who are in a hot tub, lake, pool, engage in oral stimulation, are in birth control or other treatments wear briefs, use lube, etc… the point is that if the mechanism in some artificial birth control was sufficient for it to be hostile to sperm enough to not allow sperm to survive then there would be no need for any other mechanism or form of birth control.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Copper IUDs seem to work only by making the uterus hostile towards sperm.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

No it also makes the uterus hostile to eggs as well as an extremely thin lining of the uterus. (It’s actual main advertised mechanism) Which is why mensuration May be lighter or disappear all together. It’s impossible to know which mechanism prevented a baby from being born. And extremely likely that one in millions of sperm could reach it’s goal.

 

[tuffsmurf]

The copper IUD doesn’t stop periods or make them lighter. If anything, you bleed more and have more cramps. I think you are confusing it with the hormonal IUD.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

Fair enough for Paraguard

 

[tuffsmurf]

What do you mean?

 

[Mrchatsworth]

I submitted to your point.

 

[AlNg]

I said nothing about it.

I thought that you said:

the RCC doesn’t really change these kinds of things.

I was trying to give you an example of where the teaching has changed.

 

[AlNg]

A) the Church didn’t burn people at the stake. The state administered capital punishment.

I thought that the Pope was the head of the papal states. And whether or not the Church administered the punishment, it remains true that the Church excommunicated those who disagreed with this punishment, No? I am talking about the teaching, not the administration of the penalty itself.

 

[AlNg]

It still teaches that the State has the right to enforce the death penalty.

Is there any objection to burning people alive at the stake?

 

[Elizabeth3]

What point could you possibly be trying to make with this question that relates to ABC?

 

[Mrchatsworth]

I have no idea why one has to argue about the church changing the teaching on the death penalty. It was changed in the catechism and it was changed at the pope’s direction to say it is inadmissible and though one reason given is the states ability to use other penal means (certainly this is not the case worldwide) its main point is that it violates the dignity of the person. This is a HUGE change that though perhaps happened incrementally. Literally happened. To say the church doesn’t change teaching is crazy. And cannot be backed.

 

[kapp19]

We are now having tea with the Mad Hatter - how deep does the CP rabbit hole go? Can popes snap their fingers and make things disappear… because… “dignity”?

@AINg - if you want to talk about CP, we can do that. Trust me - I absolutely am interested in the topic - but trying to play “gotcha” on auto da fe’s is pretty silly. What if someone says “yes, it’s fine”? Then it’s a “gotcha - you’re a monster!” What if someone says, “no, its bad”? “Gotcha - teaching changed!” I’m happy to talk about both (it’s a favorite topic of mine actually… and I’ll just throw it out there that both are, well, oversimplifying things quite a bit. My point about not changing “these kinds of things” was not about how to execute individuals but the actual principle of the liceity of capital punishment period… no matter what fresh ink goes into the most current Catechism.

I will now depart the thread… I think the Cheshire Cat will soon make an appearance! Happy to talk about CP on another.

Ciao…
-K