Abortion vs. contraception

[Abrosz]

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

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding going on here.

I said that biologically (in the fauna) we belong to the family of great apes. The great apes are the only animals, whose sexuality is not governed by the estrus. And the morality of some of those great apes - the bonobos especially - is much higher than the average human’s. They literally practice the maxim “make love not war” - in other words, they practice a much more civilized conflict resolution than humans.

When they are frustrated, they don’t fight, they don’t try to hurt or kill each others, they engage in sex. And conflict resolution is what “morality” is all about. There is a very dumb description for some movies: “No sex and violence”. As if sex and violence were two sides of the same coin.

Next, the reference to the teenagers was in ONE respect only. There ARE methods to enjoy sex without the possibility of conception. Those the non-vaginal intercourses. (I hope this neutral phrase is permitted.) Let’s just say, mutual masturbation (for example). You don’t practice it, but it nevertheless exists. You call it “immoral”, that is fine. But to keep on asserting that EVERY method of birth control can fail - is simply incorrect.

Third, you say that a solution that nobody will pursue is not a solution. That’s not what morality is about though.

What morality? There are many meta-ethical systems, and yours is just ONE of them. It is not accepted by the majority of the people. Don’t think that everyone, who rejects the usual Christian approach to sex is immediately “immoral”. May be “immoral” according to you, but you are not the “standard” of all humanity.

If you say that there is only ONE method of birth control which is in accordance with the Catholic morality - and that is periodic abstinence, then you are right, but this true statement firmly belongs to the “irrelevant” category. Practice it if you wish, but don’t denigrate or “bad mouth” those who disagree.

 

[Abrosz]

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.

So one instance of un-repented masturbation is exactly as “sinful” as the Holocaust?

Such a statement would gain traction, if there would be some actual, physical evidence for it. But let’s accept it. When you have two “immoral” choices, you cannot practice ostrich-politics and hide your head in the sand. You MUST choose. And how to decide what you should choose is the question.

 

[Montrose]

So one instance of un-repented masturbation is exactly as “sinful” as the Holocaust?

Such a statement would gain traction, if there would be some actual, physical evidence for it. But let’s accept it. When you have two “immoral” choices, you cannot practice ostrich-politics and hide your head in the sand. You MUST choose. And how to decide what you should choose is the question.

If a person dies in a state of mortal sin it makes no difference what mortal sin has been committed. That person has freely chosen to reject God’s love and go to Hell.

 

[kapp19]

And the morality of some of those great apes - the bonobos especially - is much higher than the average human’s.

This is the issue. There is no such thing as morality for bonobos, apes, or anything without rational faculties.

And conflict resolution is what “morality” is all about.

I reject this. I neither think every conflict ought to be resolved, nor that resolving a conflict suffices for doing what one ought. I think morality is about happiness, resting on natural ends indicated in a structural network and hierarchy within our very being.

But to keep on asserting that EVERY method of birth control can fail - is simply incorrect.

I think you have been talking past everyone else on this point. When most people here say “contraception” or “birth control” they relate to only that kind of sexual activity which can result in procreation.

What morality? There are many meta-ethical systems, and yours is just ONE of them. It is not accepted by the majority of the people. Don’t think that everyone, who rejects the usual Christian approach to sex is immediately “immoral”. May be “immoral” according to you, but you are not the “standard” of all humanity.

Now we are getting to it. I wonder what the “standard” is, then? What is it all really about? Why be good?

Practice it if you wish, but don’t denigrate or “bad mouth” those who disagree.

I don’t think I’ve bad mouthed anyone. But I do think your position is deeply flawed and yes, immoral to hold and to practice. Because it leads away from your objective flourishing, your good, your happiness, despite any illusions to the contrary. Call that irrelevant if you want, but then I wonder why you started this thread in the first place.

 

[kapp19]

If a person dies in a state of mortal sin it makes no difference what mortal sin has been committed. That person has freely chosen to reject God’s love and go to Hell.

This is not correct at all. There certainly is an order of gravity within mortal sin. Perjury is far worse than adultery, for instance, idolatry far worse than murder… etc. And the punishments reflect this in Hell.

 

[Montrose]

This is not correct at all. There certainly is an order of gravity within mortal sin. Perjury is far worse than adultery, for instance, idolatry far worse than murder… etc. And the punishments reflect this in Hell.

You have completely missed my point. Yes some sins are graver than others and yes there may be other punishments in Hell.
However the point I was making is that if you die in a state of mortal sin (no matter which mortal sin is on your soul) you go immediately to Hell.

 

[kapp19]

You have completely missed my point. Yes some sins are graver than others and yes there may be other punishments in Hell.
However the point I was making is that if you die in a state of mortal sin (no matter which mortal sin is on your soul) you go immediately to Hell.

Okay. Well then it would stand to reason to address that point quite directly with the OP, I would think…

 

[Montrose]

Okay. Well then it would stand to reason to address that point quite directly with the OP, I would think…

I was responding to comments made by a poster. This is a discussion forum. I am allowed to address posters other than the OP!!

 

[kapp19]

I mean the “original poster” (who began the thread) who was asking you if one instance of self-abuse was equivalent to killing 6 million people. Which it isn’t.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

-K

 

[1ke]

and it would not make them choose between abstinence and having pleasure.

We can never do evil, even in the pursuit of good.

You can suggest contraception until the second coming, it won’t change Catholic teaching.

You aren’t understanding, even though I’ve already said it a zillion times, contraception is a moral evil and there is zero point in putting it forward as some sort of “solution” in a Catholic moral theology board. Because the answer yesterday, today, and tomorrow is that it is immoral and can never be a “solution” to anything.

 

[1ke]

Why “force” them to become parents against their own desire?

No one is forcing anyone to have children. A permanent intention against children is an indication one is not suited to marriage. There are other vocations.

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.

Nice slur against Catholics, but the Church doesn’t teach that we are. The Church doesn’t teach providentialism, rather it teaches responsible parenthood AND generosity, with discernment by the couple.

There is already a huge problem of overpopulation in the inner cities,

Oh here we go, poor people shouldn’t have kids. Nice, the eugenics dog whistle.

Overcrowding and inner city poverty are political and moral issues, not reproductive ones. There is no “overpopulation” only an misaligned distribution of wealth and resources. Demographers are actually quite alarmed by the DEpopulation going on worldwide.

 

[1ke]

When you have two “immoral” choices, you cannot practice ostrich-politics and hide your head in the sand. You MUST choose.

You choose the moral one: abstaining.

You continue with the premise that people on this thread must choose between contraception and abortion. This simply is not true. You can’t make it true by saying it over and over again.

We may never do evil, even in pursuit of good.

Contraception and abortion are both moral evils, neither is a solution to anything.

This entire thread is pointless.

I’m out.

 

[goout]

Yes, Margaret Sanger still is alive and well unfortunately.
I am continually amazed that people still cling to such prejudiced, cruel, notions, such as “there are too many poor people”. It’s so tired, and such a knee-jerk reaction to problems.

The children of the enlightenment are not so much.

 

[Abrosz]

This is the issue. There is no such thing as morality for bonobos, apes, or anything without rational faculties.

First of all, the jury is still out about the faculties of animals. But if you prefer, use the word “civilized” instead of “moral”.

I reject this. I neither think every conflict ought to be resolved, nor that resolving a conflict suffices for doing what one ought. I think morality is about happiness, resting on natural ends indicated in a structural network and hierarchy within our very being.

But the happiness is subjective. What makes a psychopath “happy” does not make other people happy. Especially not the victims. Let’s use reality as the starting point. We are both individuals and herd animals. Therefore we must balance the aims of the individual and the well being of others. Sometimes cooperation is preferable, other times it is not. Everything is relative when it comes to human interaction.

I think you have been talking past everyone else on this point. When most people here say “contraception” or “birth control” they relate to only that kind of sexual activity which can result in procreation.

I cannot help that. And I was talking about non-procreative sexual activities.

Now we are getting to it. I wonder what the “standard” is, then? What is it all really about? Why be good?

The concept of the “golden rule” (also borrowed by Jesus) is the proper starting point.

Because it leads away from your objective flourishing, your good, your happiness, despite any illusions to the contrary.

What you call “illusion” is the reality. When I am happy, it is not an illusion.

 

[goout]

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.

Because it’s evidently a rigid fundamentalist/atheist dogma, that a clear binary distinction exists between

1. virtue
2. and having pleasure.

Why such binary thinking? Are we capable of nuance?

 

[Abrosz]

We can never do evil, even in the pursuit of good.

What you call “evil” is your approach. Not everyone agrees.

No one is forcing anyone to have children. A permanent intention against children is an indication one is not suited to marriage.

You mean - sacramental marriage. Marriage in general, or domestic partnership are quite compatible with remaining childless.

You choose the moral one: abstaining.

You still believe that there is only one “morality”. This belief is rejected by many.

 

[Abrosz]

Because it’s evidently a rigid fundamentalist/atheist dogma, that a clear binary distinction exists between

1. virtue
2. and having pleasure.

Since “virtue” is undefined, your dichotomy is incorrect.

 

[kapp19]

Now we are making progress.

But alas, your thread will close in 3 days. That’s not enough time. Here are some quick thoughts - with another suggestion to read the first few Questions in the Prima Secundae, which lay out these things much more clearly than I can…

First of all, the jury is still out about the faculties of animals. But if you prefer, use the word “civilized” instead of “moral”.

It’s not a small difference, given the context. And if you think the “jury is still out” on whether “animals” have “rational faculties,” then we are galaxies apart in our understanding of anthropology. If an “animal” has “rational faculties,” then it is a human. By “rational faculties” I do not mean “has good memory,” or “uses fitting means to attain ends,” or “has behavior that looks like human activity,” I mean the capacity for abstracting universal forms from particular instantiations of such forms and understanding them as such. (Mentally disabled humans are still humans - they suffer from an organ defect which prevents them from using their rational faculties… but since they come from a human by generation, they are human.) You will not find a dolphin or a chimp that can explain what a triangle is, even though they will be able to relate with triangularity in various kinds of puzzles or games or memory tasks. The best evidence for this, after common sense, is the lack of a real language among these species. There are sounds, but no discernible patterns that would be at all fitting for communication of ideas, only for the triggering of instinctual responses, i.e., “food here,” “danger there,” etc.

 

[kapp19]

Cont’d…

But the happiness is subjective.

Again, this is why Aristotle and Thomas both start with a discussion of happiness. They disagree with you. The reverse engineering here is that you have collapsed humanity into a bundle of emotions, sensations, and instinctual drives, which may be consciously experienced. This would explain why you think that the psychopath can be happy, and why you think that we are comparable in any meaningful way to apes. Virtue theory, on the other hand, looks “at the reality” of what a human being is in himself - for example, we are individual subsistent beings, wherein we find an innate drive to preserve ourselves, just like all other living things. This subsistence in our case means eating and drinking in relation to self-sustenance, which serves as a fundamental measure for what good eating is. We see that we have the capacity to keep our whole race/species in being by perpetuating it through procreation, and that sustenance of the species serves as a fundamental measure for what good reproductive activity is (which is where we hit the line on unnatural sex acts - they utterly corrupt this principle). Then we notice we are thinking beings who exist in relation to each other by generation/family, and the drive to live in community and pursue the truth in common leads us to seek out friendship, society, and goods of the mind, with the other principles serving as barriers for this activity. And within all this there are other structures which relate to each other in various ways and in hierarchies, but all of them come under the highest principle which is that of rational flourishing… Our rational faculties of intellect and will are the highest parts of us, thus are open to the best goods… even open to communing with God, Who is also Intellect and Will. And so we are off to the races with natural law, virtue, and the supernatural dimension of the life of grace and Beatitude… More than just “feeling good” about doing something.

The concept of the “golden rule” (also borrowed by Jesus) is the proper starting point.

Such a starting point is only useful if one knows how to love oneself in the first place. Which many people do not.

 

[goout]

goout:

Because it’s evidently a rigid fundamentalist/atheist dogma, that a clear binary distinction exists between

1. virtue
2. and having pleasure.

Since “virtue” is undefined, your dichotomy is incorrect.

You are the one who cast the dichotomy.
As charitably as possible, your course of argumentation is incoherent.