Abortion vs. contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrosz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fredystairs said:
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.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, you know nothing about my personal worldview. You know that I don’t have any belief in a god. If we were neighbors, I would treat you as I would like to be treated, and I wouldn’t look to harm you or take advantage of you simply because it’s convenient or because it benefits me financially or otherwise.

Regardless of whether there is an afterlife, there are a lot of things to enjoy in this life. And I find that reducing the suffering of others, when I have power to do so, is its own reward. I hate to see others suffer, period. I would certainly return the wallet if it was yours and if it was missing money, and I had it within my means, I would make up the difference myself.

We are all in this together.
 
Last edited:
I agree that we are all in this together. All I’m saying is that your actions are not consistent with your belief that there is no God.

Pax
 
fredystairs said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for @QContinuum but I also do not believe in an afterlife. However, I do believe in a just society here where I live now. Just as I, too, have returned wallets…money included…to others, so I would wish for mine to be returned. Treating others as you wish to be treated isn’t just a Christian proposition, it’s pretty universal.

Just because one doesn’t believe in afterlife justice or punishments actually causes us to want more justice and consequences in the here and now…it’s the only world we will live in. Striving to make it better should be everyone’s goal including those that believe life continues after death. The canard that atheists can do whatever they want since there is no ultimate justice isn’t an atheist idea…it’s a sociopaths idea.
 
Abrosz said:
40.png
fredystairs:
Why does abortion have to be examined in detail?
Click to expand...
Because there is significant difference between the zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus.
Click to expand...
So when does it become a person?
 
fredystairs said:
Let us imagine that you, QContinuum, are out for an evening stroll and you come across a wallet on the ground.
Click to expand...
Even though you addressed it to QContinuum, it is an interesting problem to examine. As for the actual question of 200 dollars and contact information I would also return the wallet to the owner. As a matter of fact, it happened many times that a cashier gave me too much money and I warned her and gave it back.

Now, what would happen if I found bag with a million dollars in it, in used and unmarked twenties, I cannot say, honestly. The temptation would be just great.

I recall a great story about Churchill and a woman. (Could be apocryphal. )
Churchill asked: “Ma’'am, would you be willing to spend a night with me for a million pounds?”
She replied: “Well, I guess I would”.
So then Churchill asked: “And if I only offered ten pounds?”
She indignantly replied: “Who do you think I am?”
So Churchill said: “We already established that. Now we are haggling about the price!”

So moral questions of this kind are very difficult to answer - honestly and truthfully.
 
@Abrosz, you may or may not want to start this battle of the various stages of human development as the Catholic Church by definition doesn’t care. It is defined as human life from the point of conception and imbued with a soul. It doesn’t matter what it looks like, whether it thinks yet or feels pain. It’s murder at any stage of development. Any points trying to give it separate definitions is meaningless to the Catholic Church.

There are hundreds of threads on CAF that discuss abortion issues if you are truly interested in the Catholic position.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
There are hundreds of threads on CAF that discuss abortion issues if you are truly interested in the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
I am aware of the Catholic position. I am simply interested if there is some rational argument supporting it. So far I never heard one… but who knows? Maybe there is, but I never heard it.
 
The fifth commandment straight from God. It’s not a satisfying answer to us but it’s a perfectly valid reason for Catholics. They define life as starting at conception. I kind of doubt you have a rational reason why that isn’t the case. It’s human. It’s alive. I happen to agree with both of those claims. I’m also against abortion though for different reasons and different ways to eliminate it but they aren’t wrong.
 
atjar1 said:
Icantmarry someone and in agreement with my partner enjoy this wonderful sacrament without the risk ofprocreation. NFP is not infallible and risky for a couple who wants no children.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. You cannot contract validely a Catholic marriage (sacramental) and refuse to have children completely and deliberately.

The fact it is a mutual decision with a partner does not change it. A priest would likely not marry you if he is aware of your plan until you change your idea.
 
Abrosz said:
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.
Click to expand...
In another threat, the Little lady has already suggest you a practical solution to help some women to choose life over abortion.
To promote a culture of life when choosing life can get hard.

Practically it means to have a generous society that help families.
All the help possible to women who think of having an abortion should be presented to them when they start any procedure or ask any information*. It concerns hospitals, abortionists, medical staff, social center etc.*
Charities should go to women in need deliberately to offer them help. They should also let women come to them to ask for help.
Pro life people should take their own responsabilities to come to women in need, let women in need come to them, to offer practical help, financial help, and accept to be annoyed sometimes such as to accept to temporary house a woman in need or a family if that is beyound their practical possibilities.

No women should think of having an abortion because (a real situation I encountered) they are excepting twins after 3 children, with the last one of 11 months old. It would means 3 children in diapers in a nezr future.The woman is out of work presnetly and the pregnancy counter her wish to take a job. She is ill (hypermissidium gravissidium) and cannot spend her pregnancy ill while having youngs children to take care. They live in a small village with a car need to do everthing (including school)+, and 5 children can’t be put in a car. They don’t have the means to buy another bigger car or a second car. Yet, the parents hesitate a long time because they “are against abortion” before taking an appointment (and it is difficult to go to the abortion center as it is not close to their home and it is very difficult to go there with a young family to take care)…

This case should be resolve by social assistance thanks to a generous society over families, personal support of surrounding people and pro life people.

I try to do my best to support, listen and understand, during the limited time I spent with her but I know that I am guilt. I had at least to direct her to an organisation that offer listening through an hotline and by email for pregnant women in need. I have think to that, by finally don’t have the strenght to do it. Cowardise can have deadly consequences… :cry:

I don’t know but guess that she had an abortion…

Mea culpa…
 
Last edited:
Anicette said:
In another threat, the Little lady has already suggest you a practical solution to help some women to choose life over abortion.
Click to expand...
It is a possible solution, but how practical and how cost effective is it?

To develop a 100% fail safe and cheap contracepting method, which would be available for every woman (and/or man? why not give them the chance to have a say-so in their reproductive cycle) is definitely a very cost effective solution - and it would not make them choose between abstinence and having pleasure.

Not to mention that many women and men are simply not called for parenthood. You may call them selfish, but it IS their choice. Why “force” them to become parents against their own desire?

Also for many people having one or maybe two children is the “upper limit”, not just financially but also emotionally.

One of the points is that many people don’t realize or appreciate is that we are NOT rabbits to engage in producing a litter-full of offsprings. There is already a huge problem of overpopulation in the inner cities, where the poorest segment of the population dwells. I suggest to read the book of “Hidden Dimension” by Edward T. Hall. It describes the dangers of over-population.

The concept of “be fruitful and multiply” is simply inapplicable. There is simply no need to keep on procreating when the would-be-parents do not want it… and adoption simply does not solve this problem.
 
fredystairs said:
Why then ?
Click to expand...
Because we are our mind, and the mind is the electro-chemical activity of the brain. Just ponder an already existing adult, and keep on replacing all his organs with transplants of artificial prostheses - except the brain! The result is still the same someone, with enhanced or diminished capabilities. But leave everything in place and replace the brain… and you have totally different being, if it can stay alive at all.

So we are our mind, and the mind is the product of the brain. That is the 'why".
 
Abrosz said:
It is a possible solution, but how practical and how cost effective is it?
Click to expand...
It is already a solution, it is hard for everyone involved, mothers and helpers, but it works. Some babies and their mothers are save from abortion everyday.

Yet more people, I would say all people and all the society need to be helping, understandable family and life oriented. We should be convinced that all people are concerned, directly and indirectly by abortion and we should help our neighboors in need.

You speak of cost. Honestly it is shocking. Do you feel that human life can and should be rationalized and let her live when it is “not too costy”, and let persih (abort) when it is considered too costy?

Rescues in all form and abortion prevention by family- friendly social measures is not something that could be budget, planned and followed. You really have no idea what pro life works means and how it works.
Rescues associations cannot planned their activities (the needs of the women in distress), it just happens. They have to find solutions, including financial one in very short time. They use their money, they have donators, regular and occasionals. When they have no longer money, they need to ask more money to their donator in emergency. A lot of is thanks to the Providence.

More institutional groups and state services have more planification, but their missions are differents.
Abrosz said:
To develop a 100% fail safe and cheap contracepting method, which would be available for every woman
Click to expand...
Well, we already discuss it. 100% effective contraception does not exists. And even experts, gynecologists recognized that this goal is an illusion.
And even if it would exist one day (at health cost free, which is also another illusion, as every birth control methods bears it own health risks and not evryone can use every method) it would not solve the dilemna that more contraception = more abortion in proportion. Because unplanned pregnancy is becoming more socially and personally impossible to bear.

It would still have unplanned pregnancies. Method would be failed sometimes because of drug interference, because the body would reject the contraception, because the person should stop them because of too much side effects, between a spam between two contraception, or because of an absence of contraception. Thoses pergancies would be more unconventional and more likely to be abort.
 
Anicette said:
You speak of cost. Honestly it is shocking. Do you feel that human life can and should be rationalized and let her live when it is “not too costy”, and let persih (abort) when it is considered too costy?
Click to expand...
You really should not be. It is fact that everything cost money. Resources which are to prevent and heal diseases cost money. To feed people costs money. Soon the water supply will be dwindling and therefore water will cost money. And we have a limited amount of resources, so they must be allocated.

If you have (say) 10 sick people, and only have 5 doses of medication, you must CHOOSE, who will be saved, and who will perish. These are facts. They maybe unfortunate, but they are facts nevertheless. Nonexistent people - zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, fetuses are NOT baybies. If you have to choose, who will survive, an actually born baby or a blastocyst, you will choose the baby, whom you can hold in your arm. There is nothing cruel or shocking here.
Anicette said:
Well, we already discuss it. 100% effective contraception does not exists.
Click to expand...
Well, we never “discussed” this, because this is a FAMILY forum, so sexually explicit posts are forbidden. Though I suspect that the average teenager already knows a lot about this topic. So all I will do is direct your attention to some legally published books. There is the “Joy of Sex” and the “More Joy of Sex”, where you can find excellent ideas about how to have sex without the unwanted side effects of pregnancy. Or you can read the Kama Sutra… or many other books dealing with this subject. They may suggest methods which are “frowned upon” by Catholicism, but they are 100% effective - by separating sex from procreation.

I leave the details to be discovered at your leisure.
 
Abrosz said:
Though I suspect that the average teenager already knows a lot about this topic.
Click to expand...
That’s it. For crying out loud.

First of all, you say we are apes. So what is the point of morals anyway.

Second, you say we should consult the younger and dumber apes about how to achieve the goal you think is best, because apparently we are all such stoopid apes that we can’t even imagine how to touch people without clothing and not make a baby. I don’t think you are stupid, or an ape… do you really think we are?

Third, you say that a solution that nobody will pursue is not a solution. That’s not what morality is about though. See my first point.
 
Abrosz said:
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?
Click to expand...
Whether one is graver than the other makes no difference. A mortal sin is a mortal sin.
If you die in a state of mortal sin, no matter what the sin is you go to Hell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top