Abortion is wrong but not contraceptives?

[ATeutonicKnight]

I know an atheist who says they dont like the Catholic Church because they are against contraceptives. she knows that abortion is wrong but not contraceptives. How can i help explain why contraceptives are wrong. I am working on Evangelizing her but this is a big issue.

God bless

As Abby Johnson (The former Planned Parenthood employee) explained, contraception is abortion. The reason is because the pill waits until the baby is conceived, and then it kills it. The “pill” is an abortion. She explained it in a much better way, giving out way more details, but this is the just of it. This is why contraceptives are wrong. However, there is someone who can explain better with a few degrees on his belt, and his name is Jason Evert. Here is the entire section of Chastity.com when it comes to contraception: chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/birth-control

 

[Newbie2]

As Abby Johnson (The former Planned Parenthood employee) explained, contraception is abortion. The reason is because the pill waits until the baby is conceived, and then it kills it. The “pill” is an abortion. She explained it in a much better way, giving out way more details, but this is the just of it. This is why contraceptives are wrong. However, there is someone who can explain better with a few degrees on his belt, and his name is Jason Evert. Here is the entire section of Chastity.com when it comes to contraception: chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/birth-control

Nope, this is not entirely correct. Some forms of “the pill” prevent ovulation and prevent conception in this manner. Others, as you have mentioned, cause the death of the early embryo, which we believe to be a human person even at this early stage.

So, it is correct to say that some forms of contraception are an abortion, but not all.

 

[Rence]

I’m only trying to point out that doctor’s really don’t make decisions based on what people want usually.

Of course they have to consider their own liability. For legal drugs used correctly in the manner in which they are indicated, patients have the right to be involved in the decision making process, and can do so if they wish.

Birth control seems to lie outside the rules. For a vast majority of people NFP is a very viable option that would allow them to have sex 2/3rds of the month. Using NFP actually has health benefits because it allows a woman to get to know her body and possibly catch abnormal behaviors that can tip her off to problems that she should get addressed. For a vast majority of women they area making a decision based on convenience with lots of side effects, and like I said before the possibility of killing a human life.

Birth control is what the majority of people want, and it’s legal, and used correctly in the manner in which it is indicated. NFP has a poor reputation, is hard for many to learn, and restrict intimacy between married couples. So it’s not surprising that many would rather use ABCs…

That’s great, let them find it illegally then like the people who want steroids. Right now the pill is being handed out like its a lollipop.

ABCs, in all forms, are legal. So people have no need to find them illegally.

I’m basing it on how doctor’s usually practice medicine. Of course as you said anyone can go and weigh the risks for themselves just like the guy who wants steroids. If they think its really worth the risks they can get it off the street like the steroid users do. Doctor’s really don’t care what a patient thinks about the risks, because they have a responsibility to protect us from ourselves to the best of their ability. Using the pill out of convenience does not fit the bill.

I’m not following you: there’s no reason in the world for one to get ABCs illegally, when it’s available legally. It’s not likely to be made illegal because the majority want it available.

Yes there is good reason to suspect this occurs.

It’s stillI worth the risk to the majority of people, otherwise, they woudn’t be taking them. The slim chances are not worth worrying about to them.

Doctors bought into the argument. The entire point of the pill is to attack an egg. Its like in that James Bond movie where Bond is chasing after the bomb maker in the beginning of the movie. He’s chasing and chasing and chasing, but the bomb maker reaches his embassy and diplomatic immunity. Then Bond goes in anyways and shoots the guy despite the fact that he is protected. That is my take on the pill

You certainly have the right to view the pill in any light, and in any way you wish. But the primary action of the pill is to inhibit ovulation, not attack an egg, and most people know that. So, one is better off focusing on the adverse side effects and risks, and realizing that that may not be enough to deter someone who is adamantly against becoming pregnant.

 

[Warrior1979]

As Abby Johnson (The former Planned Parenthood employee) explained, contraception is abortion. The reason is because the pill waits until the baby is conceived, and then it kills it.

The pill doesn’t sit around like a sniper and wait for fertilized eggs to come along and destroy them.

The problem with the pill arguments is that is a replication of a particular part of the reproduction cycle. Any argument that applies to the pill can be applied to the sex without the pill. I don’t think it is wise to choose that path, given that the pill actually reduces the number of non-implanted embryos versus not taking the pill.

The “pill” is an abortion.

Obviously this is objectively false. If it was an abortion, the Church would simply ban it. Double effect would only apply in the case of dire emergency, just like in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

Abortion needs intent. Ask people on the pill if they are on the pill to abort fertilized eggs. Guaranteed they’ll all look at you like you had three heads. It would be the same look you’d get if asked if people practicing NFP do so because the risk of non-implanted eggs are higher when practicing NFP.

 

[Nate13]

You’re attempting to use quantity in lieu of statistical significance, and utterly ignore what happens naturally at the same time. The number of non-implantations that occur naturally is what makes the number of non-implantations that might occur when using the pill (which reproduces a natural part of the cycle) insignificant.

These things occur with no intent. If I take something for no necessary reason, that will clearly have a chance of killing a life that is serious.

Once again, this is the secular, unbiased argument. If you want to convince anyone not of your faith, theological matters must be brought in. Once theological matters must be brought in, the discussion with the other person of a different theological background is moot. One has to convince that person which theological position is “correct” in order to convince them of issues such as is the topic of this thread.

The OP asked for arguments pertaining to how to talk to an atheist about contraception. If no argument worked to convince an atheist, none of them would be against contraception. Do you truly believe no atheists are against contraception? I know this is not the case, therefore there must be arguments that are convincing to an atheist. I don’t really care if they aren’t convincing to you at this point, I was addressing the ops question. I don’t know why you felt it necessary to respond, because I’m sure you realize this is the only tact by which you can argue the case against contraception to an atheist.

More “killing” occurs when one has sex naturally.

More killing possibly occurs. However by your argument you would have no problem if a pregnant women decided to smoke. I mean she’s not trying to hurt her baby by smoking is she? She just wants to have a smoke and maybe a drink as well. No mal intent towards the baby at all…

When it comes to the matter of the pill, I don’t know why people rely on doctors. Fact is, there is almost no circumstance where the pill is absolute necessary to sustain life. If the pill can truly cause abortion, the Church should simply ban it, except in cases where the mother’s death is imminent…similar to the procedures necessary to handle an ectopic pregnancy. The position on this matter is clearly inconsistent, which further causes people not to take the Church’s position serious.

The Church allows for people to weigh medical risks when taking the pill. Someone taking the pill so they have more opportunities to have sex and to avoid the burden of NFP is not at the same level as someone taking it for a serious medical reason. This is why the Church does not completely ban it. If a pregnant woman had to smoke in order to keep her sanity you would allow her to smoke would you not? You would obviously look for another way to fix it, but meanwhile you would have no choice but to let her smoke.

 

[Nate13]

Birth control is what the majority of people want, and it’s legal, and used correctly in the manner in which it is indicated. NFP has a poor reputation, is hard for many to learn, and restrict intimacy between married couples. So it’s not surprising that many would rather use ABCs…

Maybe if doctors stopped bashing NFP, or maybe learned it wasn’t the rhythm method we would get somewhere haha. Imagine if doctor’s put as much effort into teaching NFP as they do the pill?

ABCs, in all forms, are legal. So people have no need to find them illegally.

Correct, but just because something is legal does not mean its handed out haphazardly. You need a prescription for most drugs, and you have to meet certain criteria before that prescription is given out. The only criteria for birth control is that you are a woman haha.

I’m not following you: there’s no reason in the world for one to get ABCs illegally, when it’s available legally. It’s not likely to be made illegal because the majority want it available.

Many steroids are legal, you just can’t get them from a doctor unless its for very specific reasons not related at all to muscle building. The people who don’t really need them get them off the street, because they can’t get them from a doctor.

It’s stillI worth the risk to the majority of people, otherwise, they woudn’t be taking them. The slim chances are not worth worrying about to them.

A majority of people probably don’t even know the pill has the potential to kill. Its hard to make decisions based on risks when you aren’t given all the information. Your doctor isn’t going to tell you the pill could possibly kill, when he doesn’t believe the fertilized egg is a life.

You certainly have the right to view the pill in any light, and in any way you wish. But the primary action of the pill is to inhibit ovulation, not attack an egg, and most people know that. So, one is better off focusing on the adverse side effects and risks, and realizing that that may not be enough to deter someone who is adamantly against becoming pregnant.

Like I said, most people only know the pill works by stopping their period. I’m sure the OP will appreciate your feedback though. Focusing on the adverse side effects is a worthy strategy assuming they will believe the sources by which you data comes from. This website has some good stats though with references.

ditchthepill.org/breastcancer.htm

The best statistic to view in my opinion is where it talks about increased breast cancer risk. We have gone from 1/12 of women getting breast cancer in 1970, to 1/6 of women getting breast cancer today.

 

[Listener]

Amazing. In the very same week, we have:

1. An article I posted where medical doctors in Mississippi were interviewed and gave the formal opinion that if the Mississippi “Personhood at Conception” initiative became law, the pill would be illegal because it at least partially operates by preventing implantation.
2. People attempting to deny that the pill prevents implantation of zygotes and that this is just far out, unproven theory.

Which is it guys? It can’t be both. You can’t have it one way when convenient and the other when not.

What a can of worms all this would open! Have you ever noticed the number of prescription drugs that say “Do not take these if you are pregnant or could possibly become pregnant?” So if a “Personhood at Conception” law is passed, would any young woman who took almost any kind of prescription medication be guilty of “negligent homicide?” People should really think this through before they pass a secular law like that.

I’m really against abortion, but if you grant personhood to someone so tiny, how would that work? You don’t even know whether or not a little person exists until the mother is far enough along to have a pregnancy test. Secular laws need to be based on facts, not possibilities.

 

[Nate13]

What a can of worms all this would open! Have you ever noticed the number of prescription drugs that say “Do not take these if you are pregnant or could possibly become pregnant?” So if a “Personhood at Conception” law is passed, would any young woman who took almost any kind of prescription medication be guilty of “negligent homicide?” People should really think this through before they pass a secular law like that.

I’m really against abortion, but if you grant personhood to someone so tiny, how would that work? You don’t even know whether or not a little person exists until the mother is far enough along to have a pregnancy test. Secular laws need to be based on facts, not possibilities.

Idk would you like the ability to charge a woman who was drinking and smoking while pregnant for negligent homicide? The law would probably not allow even for that though because it would be nearly impossible to get a cause of death in many cases. The purpose of the law would be to stop direct abortions either by surgery or by the day after pill. You would effectively make those completely illegal. You would treat the pill exactly as you treat other medications that could possibly affect a child though. Many other medications have a chance of affecting a pregnancy, and they are only taken when the risks associated with not taking them outweigh the potential harm to the pregnancy. The point of the law would be to garner some control over the legality of some drugs as well as when such drugs are actually prescribed.

The recent Personhood Amendment was poorly written and probably had many potential problems. The point of the Amendment is not to accelerate the life of the child above the life of the woman. Its to bring them to equal standing, so both lives are weighed equally in every decision that is made for both their healths.

 

[Warrior1979]

The OP asked for arguments pertaining to how to talk to an atheist about contraception. If no argument worked to convince an atheist, none of them would be against contraception. Do you truly believe no atheists are against contraception? I know this is not the case, therefore there must be arguments that are convincing to an atheist. I don’t really care if they aren’t convincing to you at this point, I was addressing the ops question. I don’t know why you felt it necessary to respond, because I’m sure you realize this is the only tact by which you can argue the case against contraception to an atheist.

Sure there are atheists against contraception. I’d guess that it’s a slightly smaller percentage than Catholics against contraception.

The arguments used to convince an atheist, however, would be mainly medical in nature. The Church does not use arguments in determining whether or not contraception is right/wrong. So in order to convince an atheist of the issues pertaining to contraception, the Catholic has to use non-Catholic reason, since theological reasoning will not be factored in by the atheist.

The Church allows for people to weigh medical risks when taking the pill. Someone taking the pill so they have more opportunities to have sex and to avoid the burden of NFP is not at the same level as someone taking it for a serious medical reason. This is why the Church does not completely ban it. If a pregnant woman had to smoke in order to keep her sanity you would allow her to smoke would you not? You would obviously look for another way to fix it, but meanwhile you would have no choice but to let her smoke.

In the context of the OP’s question, none of the above matters because the atheist isn’t interested in the Church’s position.

 

[Nate13]

The arguments used to convince an atheist, however, would be mainly medical in nature. The Church does not use arguments in determining whether or not contraception is right/wrong. So in order to convince an atheist of the issues pertaining to contraception, the Catholic has to use non-Catholic reason, since theological reasoning will not be factored in by the atheist.

I did not recommend theological arguments. I argued to appeal to the fact that contraception can deny the dignity of the human person, as well as the medical issues pertaining to contraception. Condoms cannot be argued against from a medial stance though. Explain to me the medical reasons why an atheist would be against using condoms? They are against it because they can see how contraception is an attack on the dignity of the human person, as well as how it has affected society. Not all women experience the feeling of “use” while using contraception, but this could also be another way by which atheist would come to be against contraception. If using contraception makes you feel like your being used as an object for someone to gain pleasure from, it might cause you to turn against it.

I did speak towards arguments relating to how contraception goes against natural law, but this is the same line of reasoning as explaining how contraception denies the dignity of the human person. I know you believe this line of reasoning is worthless, but try telling that to all the women who have felt used during sex because of contraception.

In the context of the OP’s question, none of the above matters because the atheist isn’t interested in the Church’s position.

I was responding to your post where you brought up the Church’s position and accused it of inconsistency…

When it comes to the matter of the pill, I don’t know why people rely on doctors. Fact is, there is almost no circumstance where the pill is absolute necessary to sustain life. If the pill can truly cause abortion, the Church should simply ban it, except in cases where the mother’s death is imminent…similar to the procedures necessary to handle an ectopic pregnancy. The position on this matter is clearly inconsistent, which further causes people not to take the Church’s position serious.

In my opinion your own stance is inconsistent since you seem to be arguing to continue treating the pill differently than other drugs that have a chance of increasing the risk of miscarriage. I believe if anything the pill should be treated even more strictly because the whole function of the pill is to prevent pregnancy. When a miscarriage occurs that means the pill has succeeded in its broad goal to prevent pregnancy. You might argue that the true goal of the pill is to prevent ovulation, but we both know that is just a means to end of the true goal of the pill which is to prevent pregnancy. You can’t really argue that a possible death to a new life is a “side effect” while taking the pill since in its essence that fulfills the whole purpose of taking the pill for someone who is taking it to prevent pregnancy. If a woman is taking it for another reason and not to prevent pregnancy then this argument no longer stands. Then its just a matter of weighing that other reason against potential side effects including an increased risk of miscarriage.

This can not be said for a pain medication taken while a woman is pregnant. The goal of the medication is to reduce pain. If it causes a miscarriage that in no way aligns itself with the true goal of taking the medication. If anything it might cause more pain physically or mentally. An increased chance of miscarriage could truly be considered a “side effect” while taking this medication.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

What a can of worms all this would open! Have you ever noticed the number of prescription drugs that say “Do not take these if you are pregnant or could possibly become pregnant?” So if a “Personhood at Conception” law is passed, would any young woman who took almost any kind of prescription medication be guilty of “negligent homicide?” People should really think this through before they pass a secular law like that.

I’m really against abortion, but if you grant personhood to someone so tiny, how would that work? You don’t even know whether or not a little person exists until the mother is far enough along to have a pregnancy test. Secular laws need to be based on facts, not possibilities.

THe Catholic Church, the truth handed down by the apostles who saw and loved Jesus Christ in the flesh, says life begins at conception. Life beginning at conception is a fact. There is no need for secular laws. {Hate crime laws are usually based on possibilities of intentions.} You have to be pro-life all the way, if you want to follow the CAtholic Church

 

[Warrior1979]

THe Catholic Church, the truth handed down by the apostles who saw and loved Jesus Christ in the flesh, says life begins at conception. Life beginning at conception is a fact. There is no need for secular laws. {Hate crime laws are usually based on possibilities of intentions.} You have to be pro-life all the way, if you want to follow the CAtholic Church

In the context of the OP, do you think this line of reasoning will a convince an atheist of anything?

 

[StevenFrancis]

I know an atheist who says they dont like the Catholic Church because they are against contraceptives. she knows that abortion is wrong but not contraceptives. How can i help explain why contraceptives are wrong. I am working on Evangelizing her but this is a big issue.

God bless

If they are an atheist, wouldn’t the beginning work be on an understanding and belief in God, and then the divinity of Jesus, the Christ? But okay, if you’re already beyond all that, and the person is essentially no longer an atheist, and already a Christian in their heart by movement of the Holy Ghost, and ready to begin the next steps of understanding the Church, and her teaching authority, and an apologetic defense of Christian moral and ethical positions, then I would go to the essential written teachings available from the Church, (i.e. Humanae Vitae), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2331 - 2391. Also, please pray for your friends conversion. It is the most important part of the entire process. It is, after all, the Spirit of God who facilitates actual conversion.

Peace be with you,

Steven

 

[Jonatello]

Contraception gravely immoral; NFP praiseworthy for serious reasons
Clear cut:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN):
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

Sorry, I can’t help it but this strikes me as the type of argument/reasoning someone formulates after a challenge.

It’s not just the results that are the same, the spirit toward life is the same: both are deliberate attempts to avoid new life.

With this closed spirit toward new life being virtually identical, we see the sexual act being the real central issue.

It’s not about openness to life, that’s a phony decoy, its about the act of having sex. And then the reasoning behind that comes across as very arbitrary and made-up.

Its the same thing when people promote abstinence as an answer to abortion: if avoiding the existence of a life would have been preferable to improper conception of it, then we’re really not REALLY believing all that stuff we say about that life being so precious and sacred. We’re upset about the sex part.

btw, just so its clear: i believe in promoting abstinence, skeptical of sex education, i’m not some liberal who believes in passing out condoms in school, don’t ever plan on using a condom once i’m married and having sex, and struggle with the morality of NFP, but also realize i’ve been practicing NFP my entire reproductive adulthood to this point.

i just don’t buy a lot of the arguments i hear from fellow Christians on these matters, they don’t smell right at all

 

[LittleDavid]

What is the cause of your struggle with the morality of NFP??

 

[Abu]

Jonatello
It’s not just the results that are the same, the spirit toward life is the same: both are deliberate attempts to avoid new life.
i’m married and having sex, and struggle with the morality of NFP
i just don’t buy a lot of the arguments i hear from fellow Christians on these matters.

1. Contraception is using the God-given faculty intended to produce life while at the same time deliberately placing a made-up barrier – latex, chemical, IUD, withdrawal.
2. God has provided human nature with fertile and infertile periods – don’t you wonder why? It is precisely so that using our God-given intellects, for serious reasons we can intelligently and faithfully decide to abstain from marital relations for a time.
3. Christ is not a “fellow Christian” – He is God the Son who gave us His Church with a Supreme Vicar to teach us infallibly what is right and what is wrong on morals and on belief.
4. His Church then infallibly teaches that Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) is a worthy action when there are serious reasons.

So we know that contraception and NBR are definitively not the same as the reasons and the actions are totally different. Faithful Catholics expect to be taught truthfully by Christ through His Church and so listen to Her. We know that opinions, wishes, desires, prejudices have no place against truth.

We know that the definitions against every form of contraception, and the support for NBR, are infallible in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930), and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968).
We know the state of dissenters: Christ, Himself, warned “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)

 

[Warrior1979]

That would definitely convince and atheist…don’t you think?

 

[manualman]

1. Attempts to avoid children have been around for all time. It’s just become more commonplace simply because contraceptives are more reliable and easier to get than 80 years ago.
2. Having no contact with the father is nothing new. When families had 15 children, the father was working three jobs to support the family. There is one family that shows up at one of the adoption parties we go to that has a dozen children. I never met the father, and never will…all he does is work, seven days a week.
3. Replacement rate is simply an artificial goal that some people have set up. Populations will increase and decrease due to various events.
4. I believe it is easy to predict such things. People focus on things like contraception, abortion, etc. If people focus on the nature of man instead, it is fairly easy to predict, at least in a general sense, what will happen given a particular set of circumstances.

Sorry, I missed this early response.

1. Assertion incompatible with the facts. People had more kids in earlier eras largely because they were more rural cultures and valued having more kids. But second generation and later wealthy urbanites have always had far fewer kids for as long as there have been urban areas, far longer ago than 80 years. In all eras, people have known how to generally avoid pregnancy, but they generally did it through awareness of fertility. Childlessness is more common today because the technological contraception methods create a mindset where sex is unrelated to babies. This mindset cheapens sex, turns people inward on themselves and results in dramatically fewer kids. That’s what’s different today.
2. Straw man. Outliers aside, families with large numbers of kids generally were families that employed those kids to contribute to the family income (farms, family business, etc). Yes, a fair number of Irish immigrant stories don’t conform to that norm, which doesn’t change the fact that it’s been the norm. I find it shocking that I need to say this, but spending all day making hay with your dad counts as being with your dad.
3. What? I’m not talking about goals, I’m talking about observations. It is a fact of nature that there are about 1.07 boys born per girl born. Thus if each girl doesn’t grow up and have at least 2.07 kids, the long term population will decrease. Short of cloning, population can not increase long term if women have fewer than 2.07 kids. New math only works in bad schools.
4. Yes, from the armchair, quarterbacking always looks easy. If it were obvious, half the world, the catholic world even, wouldn’t not have mocked and dismissed Humanae Vitae when it made such predictions. Yet here we are, with every warning come true.

The ultimate proof of catholic teaching on contraception will be history. Contraception has put us on a course of civilizational collapse. It has undermined the meaning of marriage, it is rapidly depopulating the portions of Earth that have historically been the productive and stable ones and it has alienated human beings from one another and encouraged the already unhealthy American emphasis on individualism/narciccissm.

The Church will survive and when civilization rebounds, she’ll remind the faithful not to repeat past stupid mistakes.

 

[LittleDavid]

Well, civilization seems to be “rebounding” just fine…(and who has said the CC won’t “survive”??)
World Population:
1 Billion in 1804
2 Billion in 1927
3 Billion in 1959
4 Billion in 1974
5 Billion in 1987
6 Billion in 1999
7 Billion in Oct. of 2011

(source= U.N.)

 

[manualman]

Uh, the collapse hasn’t come yet! Look forward a bit in those UN population projections (hint the low range UN future population estimates have historically been the accurate ones.) Even the UN predicts a rapid drop in population within the next century. What they haven’t yet started to comprehend is the social and economic upheavals that will be associated with that drop.

The rapid runup in population came due to the sudden improvements in medicine and agriculture now globally available that offset traditional early mortality. Demographic history shows that populations in first generation urban areas (those who moved in from the farms) have always been huge, but the next generation of urbanites, especially those that economically thrive have much fewer kids (2-3 usually). Earth is simply going through that transition from rural poverty (with high fertility rates and high mortality rates) to urban prosperity (low fertility and low mortality).

But because many have panicked over the growth during the transition period, significant cultural forces have been employed focusing most effectively on reducing urban fertility, resulting in a pending over-reaction and long term sub-replacement fertility. Houston, we have a problem. And its not the one we expected.