Abortion vs. contraception

[kapp19]

I don’t think you got my point. If you’ll notice, the “culture” of teens in the West today consists largely of a vapid, frenetic “social” life that frequently leads to major anxiety, depression, all kinds of substance abuse, that promiscuous behavior you are suggesting is “harmless” and “wonderful” that cuts deep wounds in psyches and can also harm the body (nevermind the soul), and now that teens are trapped inside without a way to keep up their ultimately unsustainable and harmful pace, they are now killing themselves in record numbers. They don’t know what the point of life is. So they end it. If the argument is that, “if only they had touched some more people, maybe they wouldn’t be so sad,” well, I do not agree.

You are misunderstanding teleology… and an appeal to, “some animals do this, so humans should too” sort of proves the point. If you think we are “smart animals,” well, that explains everything. If that were the case, I’d agree with you. But it’s not the case. We are rational animals - an entirely higher order of being.

 

[1ke]

we cant follow the churches rules to just have sex for children.

That is not the teaching of the Church.
M

and stop having sex,because the church says its sinful??

That is not the teaching of the Church.

we are not celibates,married people are sexual beings like God intended us to be…contraception works and keeps people from having 15 kids, and live in poverty .

Periodic continence does the same and is not grave matter against the sixth commandment. Contraception is always wrong.

also think of almost destroying the parents and other kids,in very large families. we have huge families and most are on social welfare and poor…this is where the poor come from…to many kids…

You clearly have some strong prejudices against children. Most of these ramblings of yours are ramblings of long debunked population control fanatics.

Malthus, Erich, and other demographers have been wrong in a big way.

 

[1ke]

but there are ways and means to enjoy the sex without unwanted conception.

All of these are grave matter against the sixth commandment.

 

[TK421]

We all know that the church considers both of them to be grave sins. Which one is considered “graver”? Since it is impossible to eradicate both, one must compromise. Successful contraception eliminates the need for abortion.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. So what is the best (or better) solution? Does the church have some “dogmatic” view on this question?

To live a life that respects oneself and their spouse and any children, a person does not do either. Because contraception leads to abortion and abortion leads to contraception, there is no sense in choosing one or another, and in any case, all grave and venial sins must be avoided at any cost.

If somebody does sin, they can repent and Confess and make a firm resolution not to do it again.

Peace.

 

[kapp19]

Strangely, you are both right and wrong in your first claim… Sexual desire is strong, but it is in fact weaker than the desire to eat. That’s why people who are truly starving do not easily find themselves seeking out sexual activity even when a good opportunity presents itself. The drive to self-preservation is stronger than the drive to preserve the human race. Both are also stronger than the drive to rational common life, yet the two former drives are ordered towards this… and they stop making sense without reference to it.

As for your other claims, well, they are pretty “out there.” I wonder if you know anyone who regrets any of their children - even if they have “a lot” by your standards.

 

[Anesti33]

Abrosz:

but there are ways and means to enjoy the sex without unwanted conception.

All of these are grave matter against the sixth commandment.

NFP is not. I am afraid that Abrosz doesn’t realize that Catholic couples are quite perfectly capable of enjoying sex for the unitive pleasure, by engaging in the marital embrace during infertile times, as great apes are wont to do. I think he rails against things which he does not understand.

 

[Abrosz]

You are misunderstanding teleology… and an appeal to, “some animals do this, so humans should too” sort of proves the point. If you think we are “smart animals,” well, that explains everything. If that were the case, I’d agree with you. But it’s not the case. We are rational animals - an entirely higher order of being.

There is a huge difference between the average members of the fauna, and the humans. Nevertheless, we are part of the great apes. My mentioning of the teenagers was very limited. To sum up: there are totally foolproof sexual activities, which cannot lead to procreation. When some people asked about the details, I declined, because this is a family forum. So I just suggested to ask some teenagers - that is ALL.

 

[Abrosz]

All of these are grave matter against the sixth commandment.

You put your own reading into it. The commandment only talks about having extra-marital affairs, nothing else. The same kind of misinterpretation occurs when talking about “Thou shalt not bear false witness” and it is interpreted as “Thou shalt not lie”. I hope you know the difference.

To live a life that respects oneself and their spouse and any children, a person does not do either.

A person who is not married and has no children is therefore “exempt”.

NFP is not. I am afraid that Abrosz doesn’t realize that Catholic couples are quite perfectly capable of enjoying sex for the unitive pleasure, by engaging in the marital embrace during infertile times, as great apes are wont to do. I think he rails against things which he does not understand.

There is nothing wrong with NFP, except it is totally unnatural. It robs the act of the element of spontaneity. But if a couple wishes to employ it, it is their business.

 

[Patri]

NFP is the most natural way a couple can space their children with no side effects. Being rational beings, we are not led by impulses, but by logic and choices we make. It actually helps a couple work and plan together, not putting the burden on only the man or the woman. That there is no spontaneity, well that is only your opinion. I think that well understood, it creates a very special bond between the couple that understand the importance of the covenant they entered and the salvation of their souls. It is a pity that we sometimes put God aside when it is convenient for us or when it is too hard, as opposed to surrounding our all to Him. The church is wise and has not chosen the easy way out when teaching about contraception. Kudos to couples that are giving testimonies with their way of life, not caring what society is selling and what teenagers are doing.

 

[Anicette]

Anicette:

And why you are refusing to answer what to do when the contraception fails?

Because it is NOT THE TOPIC!!!

The problem is that you take the subject the wrong way.
It is NEVER abortion versus contraception.
They come together.
The majority of women who choose to have abortion do it because their contraception fails.
And what is the first thing an abortionist prescribes after an abortion? a contraception.

 

[Anicette]

There is nothing wrong with NFP, except it is totally unnatural . It robs the act of the element of spontaneity.

Your definition of unatural is really strange…

 

[1ke]

You put your own reading into it.

No, it is not “my own reading”. I have already given you the reference: see Catechism of the Catholic Church, sixth commandment.

The commandment only talks about having extra-marital affairs, nothing else

This is not correct. See again, Church teaching. The sixth commandment addresses all sins against chastity and marriage.

The same kind of misinterpretation occurs when talking about “Thou shalt not bear false witness” and it is interpreted as “Thou shalt not lie”. I hope you know the difference.

See Catechism re: the 8th commandment. It encompasses all sins against truth.

It is not productive to discuss this topic on a Catholic moral theology board when it is clear you dismiss Church teaching out of hand.

If you would like to learn about Church teaching or discuss what the Church teaches, great, let us know. Putting forward your own version of morality is pointless.

 

[runningdude]

It is not a zero sum “either-or”; we live in an open system with unlimited grace. If people choose evil over grace, that does not logistically mean the lesser of two evils is morally acceptable.

Obviously, sinning against oneself is less evil than murdering another. Putting on a condom is less evil than poisoning a child. But if the condom fails, the users are are already closed to life and more apt to choose abortion.

Contraception doesn’t eliminate abortion - it primes one to seek abortion if contraception fails.

 

[goout]

So what is your practical solution? Eliminating abortion is a common goal. How do you suggest we can get there?

It’s called “virtue”. Virtue is practical, by definition.
Do you know what virtue is?
Chastity is just one of the virtues.
Do you know what chastity is?

 

[Abrosz]

The problem is that you take the subject the wrong way.

It is my thread.

 

[Abrosz]

It’s called “virtue”. Virtue is practical, by definition.
Do you know what virtue is?
Chastity is just one of the virtues.
Do you know what chastity is?

Your concept of virtue is not universal. Love would be a much higher virtue.

 

[Anesti33]

There is a premise here and elsewhere that is distasteful to me, and that premise is that humans are essentially animals, and to be a “natural” human means to give into whatever base urges may be observed in animals, without regard to human propriety or virtue. This is a false perspective.

Humans have been differentiated by our Creator from the animals in numerous ways. We use tools, we create art, we dance, we form symphony orchestras, we build edifices and undertake engineering projects, we have massive wars, we murder our young, we hate one another based on appearance, we cry, we laugh. Most of all, we believe in a personal God. Animals do not have or need the moral compass that has been granted to us. Animals do not need to practice virtue because they are part of the landscape, and they lack that particular spark, the rational soul. So it is fundamentally wrong to compare animal behavior to ours and to wish that we could be more like them. We aren’t, and we won’t.

“Virtue” comes from the root Latin “vir” - a man. So virtue is manliness. It is uniquely human. It is a concept not entirely lost on unbelievers, but twisted somewhat because of the lack of morality. Virtues come in many forms: seven cardinal ones can be identified that are complementary to the seven cardinal sins. Virtuous human beings do not need to practice abortion and contraception, because the virtuous mother welcomes children lovingly, nurtures them, feeds them, educates them, and readies them for the world outside. Virtuous fathers likewise welcome children, defend them, provide for them, teach them to be strong, and love them even unto death.

So you see, the simple antidote to the evils of the Sixth Commandment is virtue. It’s easier said than done, I suppose, but it’s not impossible–we are not animals, we have free will and agency to practice virtues, and we have been given all the grace we need to persevere.

 

[Anesti33]

Your concept of virtue is not universal. Love would be a much higher virtue.

How do you define “love”?

 

[Abrosz]

How do you define “love”?

This is not the topic, but love has several “levels”. One of them is “eros”, the physical attraction, and acting upon it.

 

[Anesti33]

Merriam-Webster:

1 : the Greek god of erotic love— compare CUPID

2 : the sum of life-preserving instincts that are manifested as impulses to gratify basic needs, as sublimated impulses, and as impulses to protect and preserve the body and mind— compare DEATH INSTINCT

3a : love conceived by Plato as a fundamental creative impulse having a sensual element

often not capitalized : erotic love or desire

Okay, how else would you define “love”?