Condoms vs. abortions

[mlchance]

you are right in that you are not responsible for some one else’s sin. i was using the word “allow” in that you let it happen without intervening.

You’re still nonsensical. How am I supposed to intervene? Burst into the bedroom and rip condoms off? Kidnap the woman when she gets pregnant and hold her captive until after she delivers? I am neither allowing nor allowing them to do anything.

My responsibility is to the truth, or more precisely, to the Truth. I’m under no obligation to compromise principle to compensate for the moral failings of others.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Island_Oak]

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

Valid critique…but the OP with all the marbles set the rules–and we only got 2 choices. Play or don’t play his game, or take your marbles down the block and play your own game/start your own thread.

…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.

We’re never getting to the issue of eternal damnation of anyone’s soul or eventual final judgments~as again that was not part of the game we were asked to play. The offense of the actions undertaken and against whom however, can be assessed in the context of the question posed.

It is rightly pointed out that in the options offered: sex + contraception and sex + abortion, each of the acts of sexual intercourse and the acts of contracepting/aborting would be offensive as sins under Catholic teaching. However, one cannot dismiss the fundamental and profound distinction that also harmed and sinned against in the second scenario (abortion) is an innocent third party–whose life is created by and then destroyed as a consequence of the contraceptive abortion chosen by couple #2.

Whether this distinct infraction entitles one to a longer, harsher, hotter stay in purgatory or hell~or is long since repented and forgiven before death, is unknowable and irrelevant for the current question. But that it IS a distinct offense has to be admitted-otherwise you deny the uniqueness of the soul and person whose life was lost by means of the abortion.

 

[wanner47]

It is rightly pointed out that in the options offered: sex + contraception and sex + abortion, each of the acts of sexual intercourse and the acts of contracepting/aborting would be offensive as sins under Catholic teaching. However, one cannot dismiss the fundamental and profound distinction that also harmed and sinned against in the second scenario (abortion) is an innocent third party–whose life is created by and then destroyed as a consequence of the contraceptive abortion chosen by couple #2.

Very true. However, that really doesn’t have any bearing on this scenario. The OP is attempting to implicate a third party in these sins – the person with whom the hypothetical couple is consulting – when the sins belong solely to the couple depending upon the choices they make. In addition, as has been pointed out, the situation is a false dichotomy.

The OP is attempting to tell us that there are no other choices besides the couple using a condom or having an abortion, when that is not the case (and never is).

A Catholic, to be consistent with the teachings of the Church, should tell the couple that the only moral choice they have in their situation is to abstain from sex altogether.

 

[mark_a]

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?

Will this couple seek an abortion when the condom fails? My guess is yes.

I also guess that abortion puts you in a hotter part of hell.

This question reminds me of the grief the Church takes concerning the AIDS/condom issue.

Its not the Church’s business to teach people how to sin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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

Let’s try an experiment – I’ll chop off your left arm, and coat your right arm with jellied gasoline and set it afire. You can make up your own mind.

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.

The example is perfect, because it shows the folly of your proposition. You are allowing someone to hold God hostage – “If You don’t let me use condoms, I’ll murder the baby.”

 

[Holly3278]

I am not opposed to the use of condoms regardless of whether a woman is going to use abortion as birth control or not. I see nothing wrong with using a condom. In fact, I think it is responsible to use a condom if you’re going to have sex in order to either prevent pregnancy or to prevent the spread of disease.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am not opposed to the use of condoms regardless of whether a woman is going to use abortion as birth control or not. I see nothing wrong with using a condom. In fact, I think it is responsible to use a condom if you’re going to have sex in order to either prevent pregnancy or to prevent the spread of disease.

If you don’t have a sexually-transmitted disease, and your spouse doesn’t either, how could you spread disease by not using a condom?

 

[Good_Daughter]

**do i see a problem with ABC? yes. ** would i rather a life not be conceived at all than aborted? YES. i am for the illegalization of abortion but not the illegalization of condoms or ABC (non-abortofacients) because ABC can prevent more abortions from taking place.

i am frustrated by some answers in here because it seems to show a lack of understanding of the world we live in and the willingness to let the innocent die to make a point that ABC is wrong.

What problem do you see with ABC?

Can you explain what problem Catholicism sees with ABC?

 

[Holly3278]

If you don’t have a sexually-transmitted disease, and your spouse doesn’t either, how could you spread disease by not using a condom?

Of course you’re not going to spread disease if your spouse doesn’t have a disease and neither do you. But condoms can still be used to prevent pregnancy and I see nothing wrong with the use of condoms for either purpose.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Holly, I see you’re Episcopalian.

Were you aware that until 1930 your denomination taught that condom use was morally wrong. . .and for the same reasons, and using the same Scripture, that Catholics use and teach today?

Now, we are told to judge a teaching by its fruits.

Can you show me any way in which the
legitimating of the use of condoms has given us any Christian fruit whatsoever?

This is a big change in doctrine, you know. The fruits should be visible and tremendous.

Take, as an example, the so-called ‘change’ in the view of slavery. Now we all know that the Bible has never approved of chattel slavery, and we also know that the Catholic Church was one of the first to speak out against chattel slavery, using Scripture itself to show that it was wrong. Now, some people argued that “the Bible itself said slavery is all right.” And they were shown to be wrong.

And the fruits of getting rid of chattel slavery were visible and tremendous, weren’t they? People were released from being ‘property’ and given the opportunity to live as free beings.

Now, your argument (your Church’s argument) is that somehow even though Scripture taught that contraception/abortion are wrong, people had ‘misinterpreted’ the passages like they ‘misinterpreted’ the ones about slavery.

So. . .since the Lambeth conference of 1930, where are the fruits that should have been as visible and dramatic as were those of abolition of slavery?

In the first case, we have millions of people (former slaves) who were given life.

In the second, we have millions of people who were given death.

 

[Holly3278]

Holly, I see you’re Episcopalian.

Were you aware that until 1930 your denomination taught that condom use was morally wrong. . .and for the same reasons, and using the same Scripture, that Catholics use and teach today?

Now, we are told to judge a teaching by its fruits.

Can you show me any way in which the
legitimating of the use of condoms has given us any Christian fruit whatsoever?

This is a big change in doctrine, you know. The fruits should be visible and tremendous.

Take, as an example, the so-called ‘change’ in the view of slavery. Now we all know that the Bible has never approved of chattel slavery, and we also know that the Catholic Church was one of the first to speak out against chattel slavery, using Scripture itself to show that it was wrong. Now, some people argued that “the Bible itself said slavery is all right.” And they were shown to be wrong.

And the fruits of getting rid of chattel slavery were visible and tremendous, weren’t they? People were released from being ‘property’ and given the opportunity to live as free beings.

Now, your argument (your Church’s argument) is that somehow even though Scripture taught that contraception/abortion are wrong, people had ‘misinterpreted’ the passages like they ‘misinterpreted’ the ones about slavery.

So. . .since the Lambeth conference of 1930, where are the fruits that should have been as visible and dramatic as were those of abolition of slavery?

In the first case, we have millions of people (former slaves) who were given life.

In the second, we have millions of people who were given death.

Yes, I was aware of that. And also, I see plenty of good fruit of allowing condom usage. It prevents the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, I was aware of that. And also, I see plenty of good fruit of allowing condom usage. It prevents the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies.

So does Abstinence, except unlike condoms, it works 100% of the time.

 

[Holly3278]

So does Abstinence, except unlike condoms, it works 100% of the time.

Yes, but let’s say that by some freak accident or whatever, you find out that your spouse has a disease. Let’s say this disease was no fault of his own or was not found out about until after the marriage had already taken place. Would you, in all seriousness, require that couple to remain abstinent when a condom could allow them to have sexual intercourse with much less risk of getting that disease?

Also, you might say that it is like Russian roulette to do that but should we not allow the couple to decide whether or not they want to play Russian roulette?

 

[hasikelee]

nope, it’s correct. that is the way some people think so that is the way i worded it. no lack of logic.

the statistics i have seen is that condoms fail 10% (not 15-35 but maybe there are new statistics). i have also seen the statistics of dramatic decline in AIDS in countries that adopt condom use as a policy and ensure their population has access to them (uganda is a great example of this).

Nope, your statement did not accurately state the couple’s logic. The logic is, the couple does not want to conceive a human and the couple will utilize abortion to kill the human if the human comes into existence.

Your logic is that the use of a lesser evil, in this case a condom, will stop the killing.

This is incorrect. When the lesser evil fails, as even secular sites such as the CDC and Guttmacher institute admits will happen even in perfect, 100% use, the couple will utilize the original plan and kill the human.

A much more effective argument to make would be to claim that using a condom could delay the abortion.

Abortion is the answer to this equation with or without the use of a barrier contraceptive device.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, but let’s say that by some freak accident or whatever, you find out that your spouse has a disease. Let’s say this disease was no fault of his own or was not found out about until after the marriage had already taken place. Would you, in all seriousness, require that couple to remain abstinent when a condom could allow them to have sexual intercourse with much less risk of getting that disease?

Also, you might say that it is like Russian roulette to do that but should we not allow the couple to decide whether or not they want to play Russian roulette?

The flip side of that is the argument that "Why would you want to potentially expose your spouse to (assumed life threatening disease such as HIV) such a disease?

So we agree that such Russian roulette isn’t a good idea? If so, that’s why it’d be a good idea to discourage such behavior, no?

 

[Holly3278]

The flip side of that is the argument that "Why would you want to potentially expose your spouse to (assumed life threatening disease such as HIV) such a disease?

So we agree that such Russian roulette isn’t a good idea? If so, that’s why it’d be a good idea to discourage such behavior, no?

Yes, I agree that Russian roulette is a bad idea. And yes, I think it would be a good idea to discourage people from having sex when they have an STD. But what if they don’t have a life threatening STD or one that is just temporary? Would you still be against the use of condoms to protect against something like that?

 

[brandymmiller]

Personally, I’m of the opinion that there is an equal level of evil in the use of condoms and in abortion. Condoms are an in-your-face slap at God by saying that human beings should be able to dictate the where, when, and how of human life rather than God. They distort and pervert the use of the gift of sexuality, objectifying both the man and the woman. Furthermore, they are bound to fail. Even if they have a 90% success rate (fat chance if we’re talking about two teenagers or college kids who are likely to be careless), it’s a 10% chance of failure EACH TIME THEY HAVE SEX. That means that every time they have sex they are increasingly likley to become pregnant. They are more likely to have sex frequently because they have this false sense of security. In fact, studies show that any false sense of security increases risky behaviors.

Second, if the risky behavior does result in pregnancy, there is a VERY good chance the woman might change her mind and not abort the child after all, in which case the argument becomes moot. There are very strong chemicals released in the body which encourage the woman to bond with that tiny life inside her, even before it is born. Also, most promiscuous women are promiscuous because they are looking for love. Many of them have the misconception that a baby will bring them that love. Yes, she may go ahead and abort. However, I will say that the quality of life is not determined by how long we live. Who can say what good may come of that child’s life even if it is so briefly lived? Being murdered, especially by your own mother, is horrible. Never having lived at all is worse.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, I agree that Russian roulette is a bad idea. And yes, I think it would be a good idea to discourage people from having sex when they have an STD. But what if they don’t have a life threatening STD or one that is just temporary? Would you still be against the use of condoms to protect against something like that?

Now that’s a good question. If it’s temporary, abstinence would seem to be the best answer, no?

A chronic condition would be more difficult to define. I posted a very similar question a while ago to see what answers would pop up about condom use destroying the unitive aspect of intercourse (assuming that we are talking about a married couple).

My hypothetical involved a woman who would get, say, vaginitis without a condom; not life-threatening, but would require medical intervention to get under control…something more than a mild, self-limiting vaginitis.

I admit that this is a teaching that I struggle with a bit. The best answer seemed to come down to that the unitive aspect is destroyed by having a physical barrier between the two partners. What I struggle with is that there would also seem to be a loss of the unitive aspect of marital intercourse if the couple had to practice constant abstinence due to such a condition.

My struggle is to try to reconcile the Church teaching on the unitive aspect of marital intercourse without falling into the trap of relativism, i.e. which unitive aspect is the lesser of two evils to lose, the total loss of intercourse, or the loss of the unitive aspect that occurs with condom use.

 

[brandymmiller]

Yes, but let’s say that by some freak accident or whatever, you find out that your spouse has a disease. Let’s say this disease was no fault of his own or was not found out about until after the marriage had already taken place. Would you, in all seriousness, require that couple to remain abstinent when a condom could allow them to have sexual intercourse with much less risk of getting that disease?

Also, you might say that it is like Russian roulette to do that but should we not allow the couple to decide whether or not they want to play Russian roulette?

If my husband truly loves me why on earth would he seek his own sexual gratification over my life?? Yes, I would expect him to abstain if he could pass on a life-threatening disease to me, just as I would if I knew I could. No, I don’t think people should be allowed to “choose” to commit suicide via sexual intercourse with someone with a life-threatening illness, just as I don’t think people should be allowed to play the real game of Russian roulette.

 

[Holly3278]

Now that’s a good question. If it’s temporary, abstinence would seem to be the best answer, no?

A chronic condition would be more difficult to define. I posted a very similar question a while ago to see what answers would pop up about condom use destroying the unitive aspect of intercourse (assuming that we are talking about a married couple).

My hypothetical involved a woman who would get, say, vaginitis without a condom; not life-threatening, but would require medical intervention to get under control…something more than a mild, self-limiting vaginitis.

I admit that this is a teaching that I struggle with a bit. The best answer seemed to come down to that the unitive aspect is destroyed by having a physical barrier between the two partners. What I struggle with is that there would also seem to be a loss of the unitive aspect of marital intercourse if the couple had to practice constant abstinence due to such a condition.

My struggle is to try to reconcile the Church teaching on the unitive aspect of marital intercourse without falling into the trap of relativism, i.e. which unitive aspect is the lesser of two evils to lose, the total loss of intercourse, or the loss of the unitive aspect that occurs with condom use.

I personally don’t see the unitive aspect being destroyed with the use of a condom.