Abortion vs. contraception

[vsedriver]

We all know that the church considers both of them to be grave sins. Which one is considered “graver”?

it’s not a contest. They are both grave sins.

Since it is impossible to eradicate both, one must compromise.

why must you compromise? are you wishing to eliminate abortion and contraception or are you wishing to eliminate the grave sins of abortion and contraception?

Successful contraception eliminates the need for abortion.

facts not in evidence. But even if this was true, both are still grave sins.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

non sequitur

So what is the best (or better) solution?

not to sin

Does the church have some “dogmatic” view on this question?

Yes, the church says don’t sin

 

[Abrosz]

it’s not a contest. They are both grave sins.

Yes, it is. An unrepented masturbation is not in the same league as the Holocaust.

are you wishing to eliminate abortion and contraception or are you wishing to eliminate the grave sins of abortion and contraception?

I would like to eliminate or minimalize abortion. I have no problem with contraception. What can you suggest as a solution, which has more than a snowball’s chance in hell to get implemented. Facts:

1. People like to have sex.
2. The percenatge of instances when people also want to procreate is very small.
3. As such, people want to have pleasure, without the unwanted pregnancies.
4. Therefore, if pregnancy occurs, people might choose to keep it, or terminate it.

These are facts.

One possible solution is total abstinence. It would “work”, but you have no chance to sell it. Another, not 100% solution is NFP. Apart from the fact that it is not foolproof, it is also totally unnatural. It takes away the spontaneity from the act… checking temperature, or whatever.

So what remains? Some totally certain methods to avoid conception. But these are declared “sinful”. So you are between a rock and a hard place. Preferably a solution, where BOTH parties must agree that they BOTH wish to procreate. Then there could not be accidental and unwanted conception. If you say that this is a “pipe dream” and cannot be done, then you need to investigate the question.

You can say that both are “grave sins” and accept the status quo. That is the least rational “solution”.

 

[Anicette]

It is fact that everything cost money. Resources which are to prevent and heal diseases cost money.

…

There is nothing cruel or shocking here.

For a developped nation, it is called unethical by everyone, including physicians, and atheists. (and it was said countless times during covid outsbreak).

I understand that you you don’t have more than a war ethic, so sorry you should be ashamed of.

And so, you know nothing of pro life work.

There is no point of discussing abortion prevention when we have no ethic at all.

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

You repeat yourslef for the third times, including quoting immoral books. It is enough, isn’t it?

We are not silly. And we don’t need spenting our leisure time reading them.

So the only question I think that matter here: why are so insistant on abortion prevention (by only mean, dissociating sex and procreation) when you see it as no moral problem, and no more than a question of choice and rational economic choice (for the people involved and the all society?)

 

[Abrosz]

So the only question I think that matter here: why are so insistant on abortion prevention (by only mean, dissociating sex and procreation) when you see it as no moral problem, and no more than a question of choice and rational economic choice (for the people involved and the all society?)

This is a correct assessment of my view. Though why is this called “no ethic” is beyond me. As if there would only be one ethical system?

 

[kapp19]

One possible solution is total abstinence. It would “work”, but you have no chance to sell it.

People will rob banks too. Sometimes this even leads to murder. Do you think that maybe we should just give the robbers some free handouts to placate them instead?

 

[Abrosz]

People will rob banks too. Sometimes this even leads to murder. Do you think that maybe we should just give the robbers some free handouts to placate them instead?

We put them into jail and thus curtail their freedom. But that has NOTHING to do with abortions.

 

[kapp19]

I’m sorry, but it certainly does have a lot to do with abortions. Which is worse, ruining the banking system, or murder?

1. People like taking money.
2. The percentage of instances when people also want to earn money fairly is not exhaustive.
3. As such, people want to have money, without the work.
4. Therefore, if someone tries to stop them from taking money without work, the thieves might choose to give up or to use violence.

These are facts.

One possible solution is total abstinence from theft. It would “work,” but you have no chance to sell it. Another, not 100% solution is an enormous welfare system. Apart from the fact that it is not foolproof, it is also totally unnatural. It takes away the dynamics of the free market… incentive and risk-analysis, or whatever.

So what remains? Some totally certain methods to avoid theft (like giving away free money to would-be robbers - like in Portland). But these are declared “sinful.”

Shall I go on?

As we are talking on two threads, I am going to limit myself to the other. This one is due to die soon anyway.

Peace to you… I do mean that sincerely.

-K

 

[goout]

vsedriver:

it’s not a contest. They are both grave sins.

Yes, it is. An unrepented masturbation is not in the same league as the Holocaust.

are you wishing to eliminate abortion and contraception or are you wishing to eliminate the grave sins of abortion and contraception?

I would like to eliminate or minimalize abortion. I have no problem with contraception. What can you suggest as a solution, which has more than a snowball’s chance in hell to get implemented.

Abstinence. Should be obvious.
Trying to contain rampant sexual license ummmm…doesn’t work, or we wouldn’t be here talking about this issue.
The idea that mitigating the consequences of an action decrease the frequency of the action is patent nonsense. Especially when we are talking about the human sexual faculty.

I’m not sure how the obvious became so hard to comprehend.

 

[Abrosz]

Abstinence. Should be obvious.

How can you convince people to follow that route?

Trying to contain rampant sexual license ummmm…doesn’t work, or we wouldn’t be here talking about this issue.

Indeed. So why do you still propose it as a solution?

The idea that mitigating the consequences of an action decrease the frequency of the action is patent nonsense.

What is patent nonsense about wearing a seat belt in order to decrease the effects of a traffic accident? Because in most cases the conception is an accident. Unwanted accident. Going back to the original question, indeed all the traffic accidents could eliminated, of only people would just abandon driving cars and trucks, and resort to walking and carrying the wares.

Can you imagine how to convince people to do that?

 

[Anicette]

We still wait for your answer: why do you want to want to prevent abortion if you don’t have anything against this act?

 

[Abrosz]

We still wait for your answer: why do you want to want to prevent abortion if you don’t have anything against this act?

Because a surgical abortion, especially in the later stages of the pregnancy is detrimental to woman’s well-being. As for the morning-after pill and other chemical methods to prevent the implantation of the zygote into the uterus, I see no problem with them, but some other people might.

And because an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

 

[Anicette]

Well, the argument is not silly but still weak.

The overwelming majority of abortions are in the first trimester. Yet I am happy that you see late term abortion as being detrimental to a woman’s life. Thoses abortions are almost always done to kill a baby that is seen a s “defective”. So the option of birth and let him live seems a option to consider also for the well-being of her mother (and family).

Only a minority of women will have an abortion in their life in many developped countries. So why searching to twist sexuality to something unatural and contraception into something potentially more dangerous for health and future fertility in order try to prevent an hypthetical abortion? And only if a woman consent to it?

Does it deserve all this efforts?

In conclusion, your argument does not seems very convincing. For pro choice because your position can be seen as an acceptable constraint (“don’t make any contraception failure, because you abortion is wrong”) and for for pro life people because you put too much constrainst on people in order to prevent something that they would never want to do.

 

[Abrosz]

The overwelming majority of abortions are in the first trimester.

Yes. And I cannot see anything wrong with it. A zygote, a blastocyst or an embryo have no working brain, and without it there can be no human being. Preventing pregnancy is superior to having an unwanted one. The ideal solution would be that sex never leads to pregnancy, ONLY if both parties explicitly desire it.

Thoses abortions are almost always done to kill a baby that is seen a s “defective”. So the option of birth and let him live seems a option to consider also for the well-being of her mother (and family).

That is why it is the woman’s choice. It is never an easy one, and women don’t do it for frivolous reasons.

So why searching to twist sexuality to something unatural and contraception into something potentially more dangerous for health and future fertility in order try to prevent an hypthetical abortion? And only if a woman consent to it?

I have no idea what you mean here. Contraception is the way to enjoy sex for its own sake, without the unwanted side effect. Certain methods of having sex without the possibility of pregnancy are very natural and not even potentially (or actually) dangerous for the woman’s health and future fertility. The word you look for is “fellatio” (I hope the Latin word is acceptable).

In conclusion, your argument does not seems very convincing.

Maybe so. I cannot help you with that.

To repeat: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”.

 

[Stephen_says]

To repeat: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”.

And that’s why the church teaches chastity. Chastity is 100% preventative, so teaching self mastery and patience I believe is more what God wants from us than saying “well, you win, we lose, come get your condoms”

Remember:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Don’t compromise because of the culture. Soften your hearts for God

 

[Abrosz]

And that’s why the church teaches chastity.

And what is the effectiveness of this teaching? How many people will follow it (both in absolute numbers and percentage-wise)? In the general population? Among the Christians? Among the Catholics? Among the Catholic clergy?

Isn’t is obvious that the teaching something that practically no one will follow - for the good reason that it is unnatural and goes against our biological nature - is a mistake? The stance of the church: “this is the only moral course of action, and we shall not deviate from it, even though there is a better method to drastically decrease the need for abortions” is not very smart, to say the least.

 

[fredystairs]

Stephen_says:

And that’s why the church teaches chastity.

And what is the effectiveness of this teaching? How many people will follow it (both in absolute numbers and percentage-wise)? In the general population? Among the Christians? Among the Catholics? Among the Catholic clergy?

Isn’t is obvious that the teaching something that practically no one will follow - for the good reason that it is unnatural and goes against our biological nature - is a mistake? The stance of the church: “this is the only moral course of action, and we shall not deviate from it, even though there is a better method to drastically decrease the need for abortions” is not very smart, to say the least.

This from the sixth chapter of St. John:

30 So they said, ‘What sign wil you yourself do, the sight of which will make us believe in you? What work will] you do?
31 Our fathers ate manna in the desert; as scripture says: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus answered them: In all truth I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, it is my Father who gives you the bread from heaven, the true bread;
33 for the bread of God is the bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
34 ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘give us that bread always.’
35 Jesus answered them: I am the bread of life. No one who comes to me will ever hunger; no one who believes in me will ever thirst.
36 But, as I have told you, you can see me and still you do not believe.
37 Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me; I will certainly not reject anyone who comes to me,
38 because I have come from heaven, not to do my own will, but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 Now the will of him who sent me is that I should lose nothing of all that he has given to me, but that I should raise it up on the last day.
40 It is my Father’s will that whoever sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and that I should raise that person up on the last day.
41 Meanwhile the Jews were complaining to each other about him, because he had said, ‘I am the bread that has come down from heaven.’
42 They were saying, 'Surely this is Jesus son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know. How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven?” ’
43 Jesus said in reply to them, 'Stop complaining to each other.
44 'No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me, and I will raise that person up on the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: They will all be taught by God; everyone who has listened to the Father, and learnt from him, comes to me.
46 Not that anybody has seen the Father, except him who has his being from God: he has seen the Father.
47 In all truth I tell you, everyone who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead;
50 but this is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die.

Continued:

 

[fredystairs]

51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’
52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’
53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person.
57 As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me.
58 This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever.
59 This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue.
60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’
61 Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you?
62 What if you should see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?
63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
64 ‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the outset who did not believe and who was to betray him.
65 He went on, ‘This is why I told you that no one could come to me except by the gift of the Father.’
66 After this, many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more.
67 Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘What about you, do you want to go away too?’
68 Simon Peter answered, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life,
69 and we believe; we have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.

This passage is called the Bread of Life discourse, where Jesus proclaims that He will give humanity His Body and Blood to eat and drink. Jesus proclaims this, many of the Jews are scandalized and they leave. Jesus does not try to bring them back but even asks the apostles if they want to leave too.

My point here is this: Jesus proclaims the truth and people walk away. Likewise the Church, which Jesus established on earth must also proclaim the truth and in fact is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3: 15). If people leave because of that, just like with the Jews leaving Jesus, the Church cannot not proclaim the truth.

contined

 

[fredystairs]

I think the difference here is the difference of our respective worldviews. I believe that you’ve said that you are an atheist (I apologize if I’m mistaken). If so, for you, the end is death and thus you must only worry about the here and now. The Church, on the other hand, worries about the here and now, but with the long term view that what happens here and now will help determine where a soul will end up in eternity. It cannot teach something that may cause a person not to go to heaven. Thus it must teach chastity because other teachings will lead some to eternal death in hell.

I’m afraid that gap between our respective worldviews may be one that we will never bridge.

Pax

 

[Stephen_says]

And what is the effectiveness of this teaching?

Is effectiveness or truth important? You sure can be effective if you don’t care about people’s souls, because then you can let them do whatever they want! God does not ask us to be effective, he asks us to be faithful.