Condoms vs. abortions

[jmcrae]

i am sorry but the axe and flamethrower analogy is not the same. in your example, they both cause death. in mine only one causes physical death (to an innocent i might add). yes, the condom could cause a spiritual death, but it is a conscious choice made by the couple.

it’s just not the same.

Actually it is, because spiritual death is worse than physical death. We will all be resurrected from physical death, but no one can be resurrected from spiritual death.

 

[bengal_fan]

You’re assuming here that sex = pregnancy 100% of the time, which is not the case.

If I had that kind of power over this hypothetical couple in that my “permission” was needed before they would use a condom or not, then I would simply exercise that power and NOT ALLOW them to have sex in the first place. Problem solved!

But if this hypothetical couple is as obstinate as you seem to imply, then nothing I say would make a difference anyway – so I would encourage them to do the moral thing and abstain from sex, because I could not, in good conscience, encourage them to sin.

And if their condom-less union did result in a pregnancy, I would offer to adopt the baby in lieu of their aborting it.

so if you have no answer, then why are you posting?

people… this is HYPOTHETICAL. i have given the parameters of the situation. if you want to give an answer… please do so. if you don’t, please find another thread.

 

[RobbyS]

let me say something…

i would LOVE it if people stopped having pre-marital sex.
i am totally AGAINST abortion.
i agree that the increased availability of birth control (especially condoms) has caused an increase in sexual promiscuity.

i am just asking a hypothetical question (although these people do exist in the world with this line of thinking).

The pill was the real cause of the surge in sex outside marriage. Back during the '50s, the fear of pregnancy and of being shamed, made many girls resist easy sex. After the pill became available, it became acceptable for “nice” girls to have sex, since they were less likely to get pregnant. They were willing to pay the price of STDs to be part of the new youth culture. of free love and beer.

 

[vern_humphrey]

i am sorry but the axe and flamethrower analogy is not the same. in your example, they both cause death. in mine only one causes physical death (to an innocent i might add). yes, the condom could cause a spiritual death, but it is a conscious choice made by the couple.

it’s just not the same.

Yes, it is. We are trying to excuse one immoral act by saying it “prevents” another, more serious immoral act.

 

[bengal_fan]

Actually it is, because spiritual death is worse than physical death. We will all be resurrected from physical death, but no one can be resurrected from spiritual death.

so do you support laws to regulate all the things you think cause spiritual death?

a law that you must be at mass on sunday?

a law that everyone must be catholic?

your example is not applicable. sure, spiritual death is worse (ultimately) that physical death, but spiritual death is chosen by those who partake in the things that cause it. physical death in this situation is inflicted on an innocent.

 

[bengal_fan]

Yes, it is. We are trying to excuse one immoral act by saying it “prevents” another, more serious immoral act.

so you are saying that killing some one with an axe is less serious than killing some one with a flamethrower?

see, the example is not applicable because they both result in physical death. in my situation, only one has the potential to result in physical death. that is why your analogy doesn’t work.

 

[jmcrae]

so do you support laws to regulate all the things you think cause spiritual death?

a law that you must be at mass on sunday?

a law that everyone must be catholic?

your example is not applicable. sure, spiritual death is worse (ultimately) that physical death, but spiritual death is chosen by those who partake in the things that cause it. physical death in this situation is inflicted on an innocent.

Where in this hypothetical scenario were we lobbying to make anything illegal?

 

[gardenswithkids]

my accusation was because of the answers (or lack thereof) i was receiving to the question. people were just giving me the ideal (and changing the situation presented). i was asking for a practical answer.
.

You don’t think we answered your hypothetical question because you tried to limit the chooses. Comparing this moral problem to a simple math problem, that is like asking if 2+2 equals 5 or 6. We tell you that neither is correct because 2+2=4, then we get accused of not answering the question.

 

[jmcrae]

so you are saying that killing some one with an axe is less serious than killing some one with a flamethrower?

Yes, since the flamethrower would destroy the body completely; not just put a big gash in it. Also, you’d have to replace the furniture as well as the rug - much more expensive!!

 

[bengal_fan]

Where in this hypothetical scenario were we lobbying to make anything illegal?

it simply follows from your statement that spiritual death is worse that physical death. then why aren’t you campaigning for laws to be made about things that cause physical death? i assume you want abortion to be outlawed since is kills a baby. i just took your example and statement to the next level.

 

[bengal_fan]

You don’t think we answered your hypothetical question because you tried to limit the chooses. Comparing this moral problem to a simple math problem, that is like asking if 2+2 equals 5 or 6. We tell you that neither is correct because 2+2=4, then we get accused of not answering the question.

because in this situation there ARE only two “chooses”.

 

[bengal_fan]

Yes, since the flamethrower would destroy the body completely; not just put a big gash in it. Also, you’d have to replace the furniture as well as the rug - much more expensive!!

lol. but they are both dead. some could actually argue that the flamethrower might be more humane since the smoke can cause the brain to stop sensing pain. it is one of the reasons given for people being burned at the stake smiling. the smoke basically makes them high.

 

[jmcrae]

because in this situation there ARE only two “chooses”.

Actually, there are several possible choices in your scenario.

The first and best choice is to do something else besides have sex. Then, a whole world of choices open up - play a board game, play frisbee, watch a video, get a bite to eat, or whatever.

Second, the choice to use some form of birth control, whether a condom, or spermicidal jelly, or something else.

Third, the choice to risk pregnancy, and then the subsequent choices whether to kill the baby, give him up for adoption, get married and raise him yourselves, or give him to an older married sister to raise, etc.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, no, there are not ‘only two choices’. There is always the choice to do good.

What you have done in this scenario is limit, artificially, a situation into one in which there are only 2 choices, both of them morally evil, and attempted to argue that since one is by a relative definition ‘less’ evil (since in the case of condoms there is the sin of condom use, and the sin of illicit sex if they are unmarried, while in the other there is the sin of illicit sex if they are unmarried and the sin of abortion since they ‘refuse’ to permit the baby to live), that we should ‘choose’ to support them by a supposed restraint from a ‘worse’ sin.

Apparently you do not recognize that the sin of contraception is ‘just as bad’ as the sin of abortion in that both are grave matter.

Suppose I beat a person into a comatose state. Is he ‘better off’ because I did not kill him? While I may not have committed murder, I certainly commited a serious crime against the 5th commandment in the first scenario–and yes, if I died unrepentent of either I would find myself in a much hotter place than I am right now.

So are you assuming (as it appears to me) to argue that somehow if the couple ‘only’ uses condoms then if they die unrepentent they won’t be damned because they ‘didn’t murder’–but if they abort, then because that is murder, they will? If so. . .you do mistake the matter according to all Catholic teaching I have ever read or heard. . .including from the Catechism of the church.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

would you be opposed to the use of a condom if the woman would use abortion as birth control otherwise?

basically, if a woman (or couple) would abort the baby should pregnancy occur, would you rather them have used a condom to avoid the pregnancy (and eventual murder) in the first place?

This is substituting a lesser evil for a greater evil.

They should rather abstain.

 

[jmeyer3131]

This is an unlikely scenario. People willing to have an abortion don’t have any moral reason to object to condoms, so why would this ever come up in the real world?

I just can’t imagine any couple actually agonizing over that. If they’re willing to abort, they’re willing to use condoms.

 

[manualman]

Nice. I have an idea. Lets teach wife-beaters how to inflict agonizing pain on women in ways that won’t result in killing them. That way we’ll reduce the numbers of women killed in domestic violence.

Oh no, don’t preach about stopping it. Our clients are GOING to beat their wives no matter what anybody says about it. We just want to try to avoid needless tragic deaths.

Good logic, all around us.

 

[PapaSquash]

my accusation was because of the answers (or lack thereof) i was receiving to the question. people were just giving me the ideal (and changing the situation presented). i was asking for a practical answer.

Look up false dichotomy sometime. Here, I’ll do it for you:
info-pollution.com/false.htm

This hypothetical situation cannot exist, I can’t be in a postion where the advice to “keep it zipped” isn’t an option.

As for practical, why do people so often seem to think that some admixture of evil is required for solutions to be effective? Why are “the dark gods” seen to be more “practical” than the True God?

The only “practical” answer (the only answer that correctly resolves the moral question in the real world) is the answer you refuse to accept: we advise the parties to keep their pants on.

The fact they may likely, or even almost certainly, will reject this advice has no bearing on my moral obligation to give it. I cannot be party to either the decision to use a condom or to have an abortion. I am obligated to “not give scandal” and to present the moral truth to the couple.

 

[Debra_C]

but it does have the ability to prevent an abortion in the specific situation i am citing.

this is not a “society as a whole” question. i am asking a SPECIFIC question about a SPECIFIC situation. basically which is worse… the use of a condom or an abortion. the only possible answers are:

1. the use of a condom is worse than an abortion.
2. getting an abortion is worse than the use of a condom.
3. they both carry equal weight and therefore neither can be condoned.

the third one is tantamount (in this situation) to a higher potential for an abortion ( as is the first one).

Superficially it would seem that to insist that birth control is equally evil is ridiculous. One might expect that judicious use of birth control by those who refuse to honor the laws of God would at least reduce abortions. PP has claimed such, and credits their successful campaign to distribute birth control as the precise reason abortion has dropped in this coutry in the last two years. Statistics do not bear this claim out, though. Statistics show that the gradual drop in the abortion rate directly correlates to the rise of the pro-life movement. More people are seeing abortion is intrinsically evil than five years ago. Also, since one seems to have only personal consequences and the other is explicitly murder, it seems absurd to say the two are equivalent.

But this logic is completely false. First, abortion did not become a wide scale issue until after reliable contraception became technologically possible and freely available. In other words, before we removed the obvious consequences to sex, people controlled themselves more. This is due to the fact that they could not rationalize away the risks. Now, they can. Second, birth control not only erodes the marital relationship, it also causes abortions! So, they are equally evil. In point of fact, it would seem things have played out just as Pope Paul VI suggested they would in regard to the moral degradation of our society as a result of legalizing birth control.

 

[wanner47]

so if you have no answer, then why are you posting?

people… this is HYPOTHETICAL. i have given the parameters of the situation. if you want to give an answer… please do so. if you don’t, please find another thread.

My answer fits the constraints of your question (although, as another poster rightly pointed out, the situation you’re presenting is indeed a false dichotomy).

If this hypothetical couple is asking for my permission to use condoms or not to use condoms, then I must have some sort of power or sway over them – otherwise how would I have any (name removed by moderator)ut into the situation? Therefore, my answer to this couple would be: “I would advise not having sex at all – that way you don’t have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy.”

If I don’t have any power or sway over them, then it doesn’t matter what I tell them, and I would wonder why you are presenting a scenario in which the respondents have no (name removed by moderator)ut into the situation at hand.