Contraception outside marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheAmazingGrace said:
That’s only true for murder. With contraception, a life that didn’t exist before still doesn’t exist. Not every sex act is going to result in fertilization, even if the woman is ovulating
Click to expand...
Even if all sexual acts do not end up to a procreation, it must not be the result of an artificial intervention, we must leave this burden to God respecting the natural law on this subject.
Preventing a life before its conception, or deleting it just after, leads to the same result.
 
I don’t think anyone is arguing that contraception is good, just that it is not equivalent to abortion. Preventing a life from coming into being is different than ending a life that already exists. One is much, much, much worse.

Taking the contraception=abortion logic, you could argue that married couples MUST have sex every time the woman is ovulating, since abstaining from sex is a way of preventing conception and is therefore “anti-life.” You could argue that by choosing not to have intercourse, the couple has murdered a child that theoretically could have been conceived had they engaged in sex. Obviously, that’s absurd.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
It also contradicts the reality of the practice of radical sanation, and invincible ignorance. It’s a statement so removed from reality that it can be disregarded
Click to expand...
It is so far removed from reality that I wonder how this is still being discussed even!
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
If you think we have the affirmative duty to never prevent a life from coming into existence, you could argue that married couples MUST have sex every time the woman is ovulating, since abstaining from sex is a way of preventing conception and is therefore “anti-life.” Obviously, that’s absurd
Click to expand...
abstinence or making love during nonfertile periods is not opposed to natural law. The natural law wants when one puts a sexual act, let nature act according to its own laws.
 
Mboo said:
abstinence or making love during nonfertile periods is not opposed to natural law. The natural law wants when one puts a sexual act, let nature act according to its own laws.
Click to expand...
Same end result, though…
 
Right. If I have a duty to theoretical children, then I’m effectively murdering them by simply deciding that I’m not in the mood on any given night.
 
That’s a different argument than “contraception is murder.” You can say it’s disordered or unnatural without saying that it effectively murders a hypothetical baby.
 
but not the same responsibility. In one case it is the only man who wanted, in the other case it is God who wanted
 
Contraception is artificially opposed to life, as is abortion. Abstinence is not artificially opposed to life, in the astinence we respect the law.
 
But that doesn’t make them morally equivalent. Smacking someone with a rolled up newspaper and stabbing them in the neck with butcher knife are both violent acts, but one is much, much more immoral.
 
If they are the same kind, because it violates the natural law on life.
 
Natural law prohibits any artificial interruption of the process that leads to life. Contraception and abortion are in this logic of artificial interruption of the life process , so they are acts of the same kind.
 
Mboo said:
nonfertile periods is not opposed to natural law. The natural law wants when one puts a sexual act,
Click to expand...
What exactly is “natural law” ? (I have done extensive research on this from the Catholic "point of view ") yet I am still not sure either of us know what it actually is.
 
Mboo said:
Contraception and abortion are in this logic of artificial interruption of the life process , so they are acts of the same kind.
Click to expand...
Abortion kills a human being. Contraception interrupts/prevents processes that may or may not have led to fertilization. Most acts of sex, even those that take place during a woman’s most fertile times, are never going to result in pregnancy.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: not equivalent.
 
Last edited:
Would you at least acknowledge that they are different degrees of wrong? Can we at least get that far?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top