Abortion vs. contraception

[goout]

goout:

You asked for practical solutions. I gave you the most practical solution.

Personally it would be a practical solution. But how can you convince others to follow it? The aim is still to minimize / eliminate abortions. Use that as a “filter” in your replies.

As for “virtue”, your concept of virtue is not universal. And there are many meta-ethical systems. A few are: divine command, deontological, virtue ethics, consequentialist, utilitarian… and a truckload more.

this is correct. But you can’t separate these three aspects. All 3 must be present for the sexual act to not be sinful.

The concept of sin is meaningless for non-believers.

there are only two forms of successful contraception: abstinence and sterilization

If that is what you wish to practice, it will be your business. I will not try to convince otherwise.

You are not making any sense.
You are concerned about decreasing abortions and the methods to do it. You asked for practical advice. Virtue is the most practical advice available.

and you go on parsing what virtue is, and doubting whether it is universal etc…
And saying you don’t want to convince people of various practices, all the while advocating for your own version of the the best way. A lot of relativist mish mash.

What are you doing here, other than arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

[Abrosz]

You are not making any sense.
You are concerned about decreasing abortions and the methods to do it. You asked for practical advice. Virtue is the most practical advice available.

An advice that practically NO ONE is interested in following is not a solution.

 

[1ke]

So if we practice nfp not to have children and it works all the time and hence no children, is that an ivalid marriage?

Maybe. Maybe not.

It depends on more than whether you actually have children or not. It depends on whether you have a permanent intention against children, which is a defect of consent and an impediment to valid marriage.

This is something to take up with your pastor through spiritual counseling.

 

[1ke]

Is practicing successful nfp a “true permanent intention,against children”"?

A permanent intention against children is an act of the will.

It goes to the act of proper consent during the exchange of consent in the marriage rite.

Speak to your pastor.

 

[goout]

goout:

You are not making any sense.
You are concerned about decreasing abortions and the methods to do it. You asked for practical advice. Virtue is the most practical advice available.

An advice that practically NO ONE is interested in following is not a solution.

Again, you’re not making any sense. People practice virtue all the time.
You yourself are advocating for particular behaviors.
And yet “NO ONE”, in your words, practices virtue.
?

You are not making any sense and begs the question: what are you attempting to accomplish here?

 

[1ke]

Nfp is natural birth control

It’s to avoid having children if a husband and wife deem so

NFP is information about the woman’s cycle of fertility through observation.

Based on that information, couples decide to engage in intercourse or abstain depending on whether they are trying to achieve or avoid pregnancy. Couples use the information for both purposes.

So,is having a vasecromy

NFP and sterilization are two different things. I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[Anesti33]

The concept of sin is meaningless for non-believers.

But it exists by other names. Any moral-ethical system has a concept of transgression of that system and Christians call it “sin” but others might call it “transphobia” or “cultural appropriation” or “treason” or “a bug”.

 

[fredystairs]

The concept of sin is meaningless for non-believers.

Then you can do whatever you want and there will be no consequences whatsoever to you.

 

[QContinuum]

Then you can do whatever you want and there will be no consequences whatsoever to you

Oh, I wouldn’t say that. There are frequently real world consequences to these types of decisions. I don’t understand, though, why someone who disagrees with a religion’s standards for marriage would insist on being married according to its tradition. As an unbeliever, that seems rather unproductive and disrespectful to those who do believe and practice.

 

[fredystairs]

Oh, I wouldn’t say that. There are frequently real world consequences to these types of decisions. I don’t understand, though, why someone who disagrees with a religion’s standards for marriage would insist on being married according to its tradition. As an unbeliever, that seems rather unproductive and disrespectful to those who do believe and practice.

What I meant was that there would be no otherworldly consequences. For an unbeliever (atheist) once you’re dead you’re dead and there are no consequences. If that is true (and I don’t believe it for an instant) then there is no need for, say, law and order.

I agree with your statement concerning being disrespectful to a religion, as you stated above.

Pax

 

[QContinuum]

What I meant was that there would be no otherworldly consequences. For an unbeliever (atheist) once you’re dead you’re dead and there are no consequences. If that is true (and I don’t believe it for an instant) then there is no need for, say, law and order.

Well, I prefer living in a peaceful, prosperous society, so despite my atheism, I am right there in agreement with you about preferring law and order.

Part of civil society is respecting boundaries. I will never understand people who insist that they should be married in a Catholic Church despite disagreeing with major rules. No offense intended to the earlier poster, but is it truly a plot twist when the priest says, “And children are a main purpose for marriage?” It’s a rather old and long-standing rule.

I don’t know if children are the “primary” end because I have seen disagreement here before on that. I just know you can’t go into Catholic church intending a childless marriage.

 

[Abrosz]

Again, you’re not making any sense. People practice virtue all the time.

Everyone is “virtuous” in their own eyes. There are many meta-ethical systems, and some act might be called “virtuous” in some of them, but not “virtuous” in others.

Then you can do whatever you want and there will be no consequences whatsoever to you.

There will be, or might be in this world. Since there is no evidence for any afterlife, I am not going to lose sleep over it.

The OP is still not answered. What kind of solution can you suggest, which has more chance to be accepted than a “snowball’s chance in hell”? Because abstinence has no chance to gain widespread acceptance.

 

[fredystairs]

The OP is still not answered. What kind of solution can you suggest, which has more chance to be accepted than a “snowball’s chance in hell”? Because abstinence has no chance to gain widespread acceptance.

I’m not sure why you even raised the question. With your worldview, i.e. there is no afterlife, then according to that worldview, neither contraception nor abortion is evil. Neither are they good. They just are.

Pax

 

[1ke]

What kind of solution can you suggest, which has more chance to be accepted than a “snowball’s chance in hell”? Because abstinence has no chance to gain widespread acceptance.

Why have you come on a Catholic moral theology board to ask for “solutions” if you are not Catholic and do not believe in Catholic teaching?

There is only one answer to the moral question of abortion, and the question of contraception: they are moral evils and can never be done even in the pursuit of good. Doing so is grave matter against the commandments.

For those who do not want to transgress against God, the “solution” is to abstain from intercourse outside of marriage, abstain periodically when married if in need of spacing/avoiding, accept children lovingly when pregnant, and don’t have abortions.

For those who don’t care if they transgress the moral law, or those who don’t know it is against the moral law, well, they choose to contracept and some also abort their children.

Going back to your OP, you stated that one has to compromise on these issues. What we are telling you is that we CANNOT compromise on either. Period. That’s the end. Nothing more to discuss. They are immoral.

If you want a discussion on utilitarian ethics, start a thread on that somewhere else.

 

[Abrosz]

I’m not sure why you even raised the question. With your worldview, i.e. there is no afterlife, then according to that worldview, neither contraception nor abortion is evil. Neither are they good. They just are.

Obviously contraception is simply neutral. Abortion is a more nuanced question. It needs to examined in detail.

Why have you come on a Catholic moral theology board to ask for “solutions” if you are not Catholic and do not believe in Catholic teaching?

Because I like to learn. And I do NOT dismiss a Catholic teaching OUT OF HAND. If and when the teaching is sensible, I support it.

Going back to your OP, you stated that one has to compromise on these issues. What we are telling you is that we CANNOT compromise on either. Period. That’s the end. Nothing more to discuss. They are immoral.

If you are unable or unwilling to suggest a solution, which has some chance of possible wide-spread acceptance, they you are willing to accept the status quo.

 

[fredystairs]

fredystairs:

What I meant was that there would be no otherworldly consequences. For an unbeliever (atheist) once you’re dead you’re dead and there are no consequences. If that is true (and I don’t believe it for an instant) then there is no need for, say, law and order.

Well, I prefer living in a peaceful, prosperous society, so despite my atheism, I am right there in agreement with you about preferring law and order.

So let’s change the scenario. Let us imagine that you, QContinuum, are out for an evening stroll and you come across a wallet on the ground. You open it up and you find say $200 and the owner’s name and contact information. No one’s around and you could keep the wallet without anyone knowing. Do you try to contact the person and return the wallet? Looking at it from my point of view, based on your worldview, you should just keep the wallet because there is no eternal consequence because, for you, there is no eternity. And for the owner of the wallet, well that’s just his bad luck.

So what would you do?

Pax

 

[fredystairs]

fredystairs:

I’m not sure why you even raised the question. With your worldview, i.e. there is no afterlife, then according to that worldview, neither contraception nor abortion is evil. Neither are they good. They just are.

Obviously contraception is simply neutral. Abortion is a more nuanced question. It needs to examined in detail.

Why does abortion have to be examined in detail?

Pax

 

[QContinuum]

. Do you try to contact the person and return the wallet? Looking at it from my point of view, based on your worldview, you should just keep the wallet because there is no eternal consequence because, for you, there is no eternity. And for the owner of the wallet, well that’s just his bad luck.

So what would you do?

I’ve had a similar situations of finding money and a purse. I turned it in to the appropriate authorities both times.

I don’t keep it because it’s not mine. It’s someone else’s lost property. As I’ve been in the situation of having lost valuables and having them kindly found and returned, I understand that feeling of dread and anxiety over missing stuff. I would do what I can to alleviate another from feeling that.

 

[1ke]

If you are unable or unwilling to suggest a solution, which has some chance of possible wide-spread acceptance, they you are willing to accept the status quo.

There are so many existing solutions for abortion, either that are already implemented or that could be if we shifted the $$ that goes into abortion into other services. There are already many pregnancy help centers, and there could be more with better funding. Healthcare, child care, financial aid, family leave, and so many structural barriers that exist that can be torn down. We don’t need to pit women against their children, we need to love them both. Women deserve better than abortion.

 

[fredystairs]

I’ve had a similar situations of finding money and a purse. I turned it in to the appropriate authorities both times.

I don’t keep it because it’s not mine. It’s someone else’s lost property. As I’ve been in the situation of having lost valuables and having them kindly found and returned, I understand that feeling of dread and anxiety over missing stuff. I would do what I can to alleviate another from feeling that.

As would I.

However, turning it in is not in keeping with your worldview as an atheist. I would say that there is something else going on for you to turn it in.

Pax