Abortion law - should man partner be made accountable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter arvo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really don’t understand how not wanting biological children=not welcoming to life. Like I may not want a baby or a baby right now, but if I got pregnant I would keep the baby and raise it with love. Someone in that situation might just try to use nfp to avoid any pregnancy while also accepting any pregnancy that may occur. Also, sanctification if spouses does not need to require biological children. Also, this idea that marriage is for raising children in the faith sounds a lot like Muslims and Mormons that want to “build up their kingdom” with more members of their religion
 
rosejmj said:
I really don’t understand how not wanting biological children=not welcoming to life. Like I may not want a baby or a baby right now, but if I got pregnant I would keep the baby and raise it with love. Someone in that situation might just try to use nfp to avoid any pregnancy while also accepting any pregnancy that may occur. Also, sanctification if spouses does not need to require biological children. Also, this idea that marriage is for raising children in the faith sounds a lot like Muslims and Mormons that want to “build up their kingdom” with more members of their religion
Click to expand...
Strawman, I never said anything like this.
 
Why are they evil? There doesn’t seem to be a good reason… one can still be open to life if pregnancy occurs, the chance is just much lower for it to occur. Woman can choose to have sex when they are less fertile so why can men not choose to reduce their potential fertility? It honestly sounds like people just say it’s bad because the Church says so without any truly logical explanations only a couple vague ones about “not being open to life”
 
You are actively and intentionally defying the will of God. I will pray for you and your soul.
 
Natural Family Planning is likewise highly effective, can optionally be used to achieve pregnancy, is 100% natural, and is morally acceptable.
 
Or better yet celibacy. Much better than what he and his wife are doing currently.
 
I hope we’re clear here: a vasectomy is grave matter, but it’s a single sin. If a man has a vasectomy and confesses it in true contrition, he does not need to worry about his state of grace, going forward. It is not a moral necessity to reverse a vasectomy.
 
It really depends on the couple! For some women it certainly doesn’t work due to gynecological issues or weird cycles. Especially as one gets older and has undergone pregnancies it is harder to accurately predict ovulation due to many more changes and factors

I have heard of many couples for whom it does not work
 
Last edited:
rosejmj said:
It really depends on the couple! For some women it certainly doesn’t work due to gynecological issues or weird cycles. Especially as one gets older and has undergone pregnancies it is harder to accurately predict ovulation due to many more changes and factors

I have heard of many couples for whom it does not work
Click to expand...
It takes some education to use properly. It can be used very conservatively by women with irregular periods. NaPro Technology-trained doctors can often help with the medical details.

It’s the moral option for married couples. Artificial contraception is off the table; it’s gravely immoral; it’s a non-starter. The alternative is perpetual continence.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
atjar1:
Vasectomy is 100% reliable. I have a daughter. We don’t want any more children. My and my wife’s choice. Choice made by married people, not by the church
Click to expand...
If a man and woman walked into a priest’s office to declare that they were engaged, and that they did not want children, the priest would bid them good-day and close the door behind them.

A couple cannot be married unless they will welcome children into their family. The number of children is not prescribed, the manner of welcoming is not necessarily through procreation, but there must be a place for children in a marriage, because marriage is for (1) the sanctification of the spouses and (2) the raising of children in the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Would he?

I’ve heard yea and nay on this, and we have had some readers here on CAF speak up to the effect that, as long as the couple uses NFP and is willing to accept any children who might come in spite of their best efforts to the contrary, supposedly their decision to avoid having children for the entire duration of the marriage, is not to be second-guessed.

I had to question this, as I have always “just understood” that couples may not deliberately exclude children for the entire duration of the marriage without grave/serious/just cause, not even by using NFP. But “just understood” doesn’t mean a hill of beans, so earlier this year, I finally wrote to the CDF in Rome seeking a clarification. I posted the letter here (with my personal information redacted), and sent it right before the CV crisis took off. I haven’t heard anything, and I may never hear anything, but if I do, I will post the reply here, so we’ll all know.
rosejmj said:
Why are they evil? There doesn’t seem to be a good reason… one can still be open to life if pregnancy occurs, the chance is just much lower for it to occur. Woman can choose to have sex when they are less fertile so why can men not choose to reduce their potential fertility? It honestly sounds like people just say it’s bad because the Church says so without any truly logical explanations only a couple vague ones about “not being open to life”
Click to expand...
The means are evil because we may never deliberately do anything of a medical or surgical nature to frustrate potential conception. Men do not have a “naturally fertile” or “naturally infertile” time — they can always father children. To use a medical or surgical means to “even the score” as regards fertility is against nature, and against God’s plan.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
I hope we’re clear here: a vasectomy is grave matter, but it’s a single sin. If a man has a vasectomy and confesses it in true contrition, he does not need to worry about his state of grace, going forward. It is not a moral necessity to reverse a vasectomy.
Click to expand...
Does the Catechism say that it is not a moral necessity?

This would vary with each individual circumstance. There is such a thing as having an obligation to right something that has been wronged through sin. Vasectomy reversals are painful (but not as painful as eternity in hell, and keep in mind the vasectomy itself was no day at the beach, and I’d bet nobody complained too much about that! — “ouch! - maybe I should have kept myself fertile”, said few if any men ever, bearing in mind a future of sex on demand without consequences), more difficult to do than the vasectomy itself, are not cheap, and might not be covered by insurance. In the end, this would be between the man and his confessor. Some confessors prescribe a period of penance, and I have heard of couples being asked/invited/told to practice the same kind of abstinence they would practice if they were using NFP. Or perhaps living with the knowledge that the man has ruined his fertility would be penance enough. There is no “one size fits all”. Again, at that point, it’s between penitent and confessor.

The same would hold true for a woman who has her tubes tied, though reversal would be a more serious operation, in that it involves going into the body cavity, whereas a vasectomy doesn’t.

Keep in mind, too, that aside from any penance imposed or not imposed, any obligation to have a reversal or not, the person who has had a vasectomy or tubal ligation has created their very own, ongoing, personal occasion of sin, by having to resist the temptation to say to themselves “boy, I sure am glad I can perform this sex act without having to fear pregnancy, that sterilization has made my life so much easier!”. Yet one more temptation to resist, that wouldn’t have existed if they hadn’t done it. Sin has so many “downstream consequences” that people don’t always consider.

 
Last edited:
I think it’s a problem when people basically blame a couple for not using it correctly when it truly doesn’t work for them. I have known of people who tried so many different methods and ended up feeling like they had to just abstain entirely for years because they could not deal with a possible pregnancy. It does not seem healthy for a couple to have to do that.

Here is an example. Several women share their stories through this blog of how it didn’t work for them. You Are Not Alone: Catholic Women’s Real Life Experiences of NFP, Part III | Guest Contributor
 
HomeschoolDad said:
The means are evil because we may never deliberately do anything of a medical or surgical nature to frustrate potential conception. Men do not have a “naturally fertile” or “naturally infertile” time — they can always father children. To use a medical or surgical means to “even the score” as regards fertility is against nature, and against God’s plan
Click to expand...
And where does the reasoning behind that come from other than just that the Catholic Church said so? So many things we do go against “nature”. It’s just part of the development of humans and the world we live in. We don’t live in primitive cultures anymore where nature wins. Why can we not use medicine to help avoid a pregnancy when we use it to achieve pregnancy or to prolong someone’s life when naturally they should die or naturally they should not be able to conceive?
 
rosejmj said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
The means are evil because we may never deliberately do anything of a medical or surgical nature to frustrate potential conception. Men do not have a “naturally fertile” or “naturally infertile” time — they can always father children. To use a medical or surgical means to “even the score” as regards fertility is against nature, and against God’s plan
Click to expand...
And where does the reasoning behind that come from other than just that the Catholic Church said so? So many things we do go against “nature”. It’s just part of the development of humans and the world we live in. We don’t live in primitive cultures anymore where nature wins. Why can we not use medicine to help avoid a pregnancy when we use it to achieve pregnancy or to prolong someone’s life when naturally they should die or naturally they should not be able to conceive?
Click to expand...
The short answer is that “the fact that the Catholic Church ‘says so’ is enough”. St Ignatius Loyola told us that if the Church says “black” when we say “white”, we assent to the Church’s “black” without question. Add to this, the Church has always taught this. Did the Church perpetuate error for 2000 years? Did Protestants go along with this error until the mid-20th century?

I’m sure you have already read Humanae vitae in its entirety, but if not, I will provide the link:

http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-...ments/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

Did the world just “catch wise” in the past 75-100 years?
 
rosejmj said:
I think it’s a problem when people basically blame a couple for not using it correctly when it truly doesn’t work for them. I have known of people who tried so many different methods and ended up feeling like they had to just abstain entirely for years because they could not deal with a possible pregnancy. It does not seem healthy for a couple to have to do that.

Here is an example. Several women share their stories through this blog of how it didn’t work for them. You Are Not Alone: Catholic Women’s Real Life Experiences of NFP, Part III | Guest Contributor
Click to expand...
And? If one or other spouse becomes ill, disabled, imprisoned, the spouse travels for long periods for work etc the couple may have to temporarily or permanently abstain. anyway.

That is part of the “for better or worse” that you commit to when you marry. How is the situation you describe any different?
 
Last edited:
If a man knows he is a father then he has a moral duty to provide for the well-being of his child. If a man tells the mother “you’re on your own” then he is sinning.

As for if the child is aborted, the father is only morally responsible if he aided or encouraged this decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top