Can you help with sterilization/abc discussion?

[ABsitively]

Hi,

I and an internet friend have been going back and forth on this subject, Sterilization and birth control. I have bolded his latest response.I am pretty sure how I would like to respond to this but I was hoping that people here might have additional resources or see some holes in this man’s logic that I don’t see.

I agree with ou that the ends don’t justify the means; which is I why I oppose abortion.But I remain unconvinced that birth control is an unetihical menas; since no individuals are killed in the process.The woman who founded the ogranizaiton paying crack moms to get sterilized has actually adopted many of these crack babies herself. I’m not talking about eliminating individuals, I’m talking about not passing down needless suffering to future generations. We’re talking here about traits, not about people.A potnetial child is not a child; it’s only a hypotheticla construct.Secondly, the Cracc organization is wholly voluntary; non woman is forcibly sterilized, and I would oppose any state-imposed sterilizations programs.
I think we have to be careful that we don’t fall into false sentimentality. This is why i would never bestow futilre sympathy on convicted violent criminals; people like that should be treated like insects; they are subhuman; trash on two legs.People are innocent until proven guilty; but once proven guilty; we have every right to execute them; and even the Catholic Catechism eagrees with me on this point.even though i support sam Brownback for president, I think he is a little naive on this point. he spent the night in a faith-based prison.I support those institutions, but I’m sad to report that too many Christians seem to think that anyone can change, and tkhat no one is outisde of god’s grace.I’m not sure I buy that anymore. there are some people who will never change, either because they are unwilling, or because they simply are incapable of doing so.

Let me present the following scenario to you. Before my sister decided to have children, she took a blood test to see if she was a carrier of the disease tht caused my blindness. She said she wouldn’t mind having a blind child, but didn’t want a deaf child, and this condition, called Norrie’s Disease, can also cause people to go deaf it alos causes mental retardation, so I’ve beaten the odds considerably.She turned out not to be a carrier, but if she had been one, she was going to get a tubilligation, and adopt children.I cant’ see how this is ethically objecitionable.No one is forcing her to do this, it was her own choice.

Thanks, all

 

[johnnycatholic]

I agree with ou that the ends don’t justify the means; which is I why I oppose abortion.But I remain unconvinced that birth control is an unetihical menas; since no individuals are killed in the process.The woman who founded the ogranizaiton paying crack moms to get sterilized has actually adopted many of these crack babies herself. I’m not talking about eliminating individuals, I’m talking about not passing down needless suffering to future generations. We’re talking here about traits, not about people.A potnetial child is not a child; it’s only a hypotheticla construct.

Artificial contraception is wrong for pretty much the same reasons as other types of fornication, and it is fornication, see theology of the body. Sterilization, is an assault on human dignity. It treats your fertility as a disease and reduces you to an animal getting neutered. The overall plan is voluntary eugenics. It doesnt matter whether it is voluntary or not, It inherently denies the value of suffering as redemtive and in my view denies free will.

** Secondly, the Cracc organization is wholly voluntary; non woman is forcibly sterilized, and I would oppose any state-imposed sterilizations programs.**
I think we have to be careful that we don’t fall into false sentimentality. This is why i would never bestow futilre sympathy on convicted violent criminals; people like that should be treated like insects; they are subhuman; trash on two legs.People are innocent until proven guilty; but once proven guilty; we have every right to execute them; and even the Catholic Catechism eagrees with me on this point.even though i support sam Brownback for president, I think he is a little naive on this point. he spent the night in a faith-based prison.I support those institutions, but I’m sad to report that too many Christians seem to think that anyone can change, and tkhat no one is outisde of god’s grace.I’m not sure I buy that anymore. there are some people who will never change, either because they are unwilling, or because they simply are incapable of doing so.

The catachism says that the death penalty is only ok in instances where a society is unable to defend itself from the aggressor. It also says that these instances are rare if non-existant due to advances in our ability to imprison someone for life. This statement denies free will and the efficacy of Gods grace. It denies forgiveness to criminals and removes their human dignity. That is not to say they are not worthy of punishment but these are arguments along the same lines as those used by te nazi’s to justify killing the handicapped.
ABsitivly:

Let me present the following scenario to you. Before my sister decided to have children, she took a blood test to see if she was a carrier of the disease tht caused my blindness. She said she wouldn’t mind having a blind child, but didn’t want a deaf child, and this condition, called Norrie’s Disease, can also cause people to go deaf it alos causes mental retardation, so I’ve beaten the odds considerably.She turned out not to be a carrier, but if she had been one, she was going to get a tubilligation, and adopt children.I cant’ see how this is ethically objecitionable.No one is forcing her to do this, it was her own choice.

Once again, your sister was treating her fertility like a disease. This could not begin to be justified even if her offspring had a 100% chance of being infected. In this case she might refrain all together from the sexual act. The sexual act is sacred and so is fertility. I would consider this a call from God to celibacy. Furthermore it indicates that people with disabilities are undesirable. Does your friend wish he had never been born? What if his mother had taken that course? Where would he be? There are alot of issues bound up in this: The sacredness of sex, the dignity of humans, sacredness of fertility, the value of human life.
This overall attitude of not desiring handicapped offspring would eventually lead in society to the killing off of the handicapped as in nazi germany.

 

[ABsitively]

Furthermore it indicates that people with disabilities are undesirable. Does your friend wish he had never been born? What if his mother had taken that course? Where would he be?

Thanks, this was kind of the tactic I was going to take with him. Make it personal.

 

[Lee44]

Artificial contraception is wrong for pretty much the same reasons as other types of fornication, and it is fornication, see theology of the body. Sterilization, is an assault on human dignity. It treats your fertility as a disease and reduces you to an animal getting neutered. The overall plan is voluntary eugenics. It doesnt matter whether it is voluntary or not, It inherently denies the value of suffering as redemtive and in my view denies free will.

The catachism says that the death penalty is only ok in instances where a society is unable to defend itself from the aggressor. It also says that these instances are rare if non-existant due to advances in our ability to imprison someone for life. This statement denies free will and the efficacy of Gods grace. It denies forgiveness to criminals and removes their human dignity. That is not to say they are not worthy of punishment but these are arguments along the same lines as those used by te nazi’s to justify killing the handicapped.

Once again, your sister was treating her fertility like a disease. This could not begin to be justified even if her offspring had a 100% chance of being infected. In this case she might refrain all together from the sexual act. The sexual act is sacred and so is fertility. I would consider this a call from God to celibacy. Furthermore it indicates that people with disabilities are undesirable. Does your friend wish he had never been born? What if his mother had taken that course? Where would he be? There are alot of issues bound up in this: The sacredness of sex, the dignity of humans, sacredness of fertility, the value of human life.
This overall attitude of not desiring handicapped offspring would eventually lead in society to the killing off of the handicapped as in nazi germany.

Now that was just HardCore, LOL

 

[Joan_M]

Let me present the following scenario to you. Before my sister decided to have children, she took a blood test to see if she was a carrier of the disease tht caused my blindness. She said she wouldn’t mind having a blind child, but didn’t want a deaf child, and this condition, called Norrie’s Disease, can also cause people to go deaf it alos causes mental retardation, so I’ve beaten the odds considerably.She turned out not to be a carrier, but if she had been one, she was going to get a tubilligation, and adopt children.I cant’ see how this is ethically objecitionable.No one is forcing her to do this, it was her own choice.

Thanks, all

So, just because no one is forcing her it’s not ethically objectionable? As long as it’s her own choice, it is acceptable? What hooey!!

With logic like that, we could rationalize rape and murder!!

Getting a tubal ligation is deliberately shutting off the channel of life. Literally saying to God “take your gift of life and stuff it! I don’t want it!”.

If she doesn’t want to have children, then she shouldn’t have sex!

 

[fix]

I agree with ou that the ends don’t justify the means; which is I why I oppose abortion.But I remain unconvinced that birth control is an unetihical menas; since no individuals are killed in the process.

A good end is never justified by an evil means. The question is how do we know what an evil means is? Is it simply evil only if murder is involved? Of course not.

The “Good Teacher” points out to him — and to all of us — that the answer to the question, “What good must I do to have eternal life?” can only be found by turning one’s mind and heart to the “One” who is good: “No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18; cf. Lk 18:19).* Only God can answer the question about what is good, because he is the Good itself.**

To ask about the good, *in fact, *ultimately means to turn towards God, *the fullness of goodness. Jesus shows that the young man’s question is really a *religious question, *and that the goodness that attracts and at the same time obliges man has its source in God, and indeed is God himself. God alone is worthy of being loved “with all one’s heart, and with all one’s soul, and with all one’s mind” (Mt 22:37). He is the source of man’s happiness. Jesus brings the question about morally good action back to its religious foundations, to the acknowledgment of God, who alone is goodness, fullness of life, the final end of human activity, and perfect happiness…

Only God can answer the question about the good, because he is the Good. But God has already given an answer to this question: he did so *by creating man and ordering him *with wisdom and love to his final end, through the law which is inscribed in his heart (cf. Rom 2:15), the “natural law”. The latter “is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and this law to man at creation”.19…

Veritatis splendor

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Many forms of birth control have an abortifacient action, so yes, ABC can and does cause individuals to die.

 

[ABsitively]

Many forms of birth control have an abortifacient action, so yes, ABC can and does cause individuals to die.

Thanks, I am planning to mention this, too.