contraception vs abortion

[Michel2010]

What do you think of the position of Father Fessio concerning the contraception which could be morally graver than the abortion?

«Is it true that abortion is a greater evil than contraception, even “decidedly more serious”? Not necessarily. Take the case of married couples who without grave necessity use contraception to postpone having children for years after they are married. Certainly in some cases it is God’s will for them to be open to new life. Which then is the graver evil? To prevent the conception – and very existence – of a human being with an immortal soul, desired by God and destined for eternal happiness? Or to abort a child in the womb? The latter is certainly a grave evil, “Gaudium et spes” calls it an “abominable crime”. But a child exists who will live eternally. In the former circumstance a child God intended to be will never exist.

«Certainly contraception is widespread, even among married Catholics. But, just as in the millions upon millions of procured abortions that have taken place in recent years, the profound question is raised: How can God allow such evil to proliferate? There are no easy answers to this “mysterium iniquitatis.” And that means that the easy answer – that an evil like contraception is not really serious – is unacceptable for a Christian. God’s ways are not our ways. But that does not negate knowable fundamental principles, one of which is: it is a greater evil to deprive someone of existence than to deprive someone of temporal life.»

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350979?eng=y

 

[kozlosap]

In my miniscule intellect, there is no connection between abortion by choice and ABC. Many here will disagree with my stance, but since abortion rates are beginning to fall, I think that the correlation is with proper use of contraception, especially with teens.

 

[Michel2010]

«Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”.

«But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.»

John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, # 13.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

If I understand, according to John-Paul II, contraception and abortion are fruits of the same tree, but abortion is a graver evil than contraception. Father Fessio, on the contrary, says that abortion is not necessarily a grater evil than contraception.

 

[SuperLuigi]

In my miniscule intellect, there is no connection between abortion by choice and ABC. Many here will disagree with my stance, but since abortion rates are beginning to fall, I think that the correlation is with proper use of contraception, especially with teens.

Well, on the surface that sounds sensible. However, how many teens or people in general know how to use contraception outside of a condom, and how often is the condom removed during intercourse?

And how many teens are really sexually active to the point of vaginal intercourse? Or has internet porn become a substitute?

 

[Windmill]

In my miniscule intellect, there is no connection between abortion by choice and ABC. Many here will disagree with my stance, but since abortion rates are beginning to fall, I think that the correlation is with proper use of contraception, especially with teens.

Even the Supreme Court clearly recognizes the connection between abortion and contracpetion:

               *Planned Parenthood v. Casey*, the recent Supreme Court decision that           confirmed *Roe v. Wade*, stated, "in some critical respects abortion is of the           same character as the decision to use contraception . . . .            for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate           relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in           society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception           should fail."

Janet Smith, PhD comments on the above quote:

                             The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to           "expose" what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion.   As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need           abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles.  It is not because contraceptives are ineffective           that a million and half women a year seek abortions as back-ups to failed contraceptives.  The "intimate relationships" facilitated           by contraceptives are what make abortions "necessary".  "Intimate" here is a euphemism and a           misleading one at that.  Here the word           "intimate" means "sexual"; it does not mean "loving and           close."  Abortion is most often the           result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which           there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse.   Contraception enables those who are not           prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant,           they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the           solution of abortion.

I think there will be many souls lost to this “Culture of Death” (JPII), and contraception will be the doorway into the darkness.

 

[marymary1975]

If we take into account that by far most of the contraception currently existing is not really contracepting but actually abortifacients, I think there is a good argument to say that they are both equally evil.

 

[Abu]

kozlosap #2
I think that the correlation is with proper use of contraception, especially with teens

Since contraception is always a grave evil, there is never a “proper use”.

 

[Michel2010]

But is it true that abortion is not necessarily a greater evil than contraception?

 

[JimG]

Both are serious evils opposed to life. Contraception leads to abortion, and it enabled the sexual revolution, which has ruined a lot of lives and destroyed others.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

If we take into account that by far most of the contraception currently existing is not really contracepting but actually abortifacients, I think there is a good argument to say that they are both equally evil.

This is not true.

Condoms = contraception
Spermicide = contraception
The Pill = Primarily contraception, a small possibility for preventing implantation
hormonal IUDs = 50/50 contraception / preventing implantation.
Copper IUDs = contraception

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I’d say that it is a bit more than we know to say that a child exists who will live eternally. For all we know the children killed in abortion could suffer an eternity of torment and death in hell.

 

[kozlosap]

Well, on the surface that sounds sensible. However, how many teens or people in general know how to use contraception outside of a condom, and how often is the condom removed during intercourse?

And how many teens are really sexually active to the point of vaginal intercourse? Or has internet porn become a substitute?

I taught in a highschool that was fifty percent kids from upper middle class highly educated families and fifty percent literally from the other side of the tracks. From the kids I spoke with over my thirty five years, the kids from the educated side were normally on the pill or used the long acting shot while the other group normally relied on condoms and other, not so proper, contraception. In the end, my students who did not use formal methods ended up pregnant at far higher numbers.

When discussing this, I’m not debating the Catholic view of ABC, I’m discussing the success/failure rates of different methods and teenagers. My last comment to my seniors on Prom Night, right after “have a magical time”, was “KEEP YOUR PANTS ZIPPED UP AT ALL TIMES!”

 

[thistle]

What do you think of the position of Father Fessio concerning the contraception which could be morally graver than the abortion?

«Is it true that abortion is a greater evil than contraception, even “decidedly more serious”? Not necessarily. Take the case of married couples who without grave necessity use contraception to postpone having children for years after they are married. Certainly in some cases it is God’s will for them to be open to new life. Which then is the graver evil? To prevent the conception – and very existence – of a human being with an immortal soul, desired by God and destined for eternal happiness? Or to abort a child in the womb? The latter is certainly a grave evil, “Gaudium et spes” calls it an “abominable crime”. But a child exists who will live eternally. In the former circumstance a child God intended to be will never exist.

«Certainly contraception is widespread, even among married Catholics. But, just as in the millions upon millions of procured abortions that have taken place in recent years, the profound question is raised: How can God allow such evil to proliferate? There are no easy answers to this “mysterium iniquitatis.” And that means that the easy answer – that an evil like contraception is not really serious – is unacceptable for a Christian. God’s ways are not our ways. But that does not negate knowable fundamental principles, one of which is: it is a greater evil to deprive someone of existence than to deprive someone of temporal life.»

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350979?eng=y

It is irrelevant if one mortal sin is graver than another. It does not matter which type of mortal sin you commit because if you die unrepentant you go immediately to Hell.

 

[Michel2010]

It is irrelevant if one mortal sin is graver than another. It does not matter which type of mortal sin you commit because if you die unrepentant you go immediately to Hell.

Is the statement of John-Paul II irrelevant?

«But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.»

John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, # 13.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-pa…ium-vitae.html

 

[marymary1975]

This is not true.

Condoms = contraception
Spermicide = contraception
The Pill = Primarily contraception, a small possibility for preventing implantation
hormonal IUDs = 50/50 contraception / preventing implantation.
Copper IUDs = contraception

The pill as it is known today is not primarily contraceptive. The pill works in three alternative ways: suppresing ovulation, hardening the cervical mucus and thinning the lining of the uterys. The lining of the uterus when a woman is taking the pill does not grow to support the baby so when the woman ovulates (women on the pill do ovulate frequently…that is why they get “periods” which usually aren’t periods but abortions so it is not true that the chance is small) and conception occurs what the pill does is preventing implantation so a chemical abortion occurs. Because of this the pill is an abortifacient. Hormonal IUDs the hormones work exactly the same as the pill so a woman with an hormonal IUD will ovulate and will conceive so it works causing a chemical abortion. Same goes for the Cooper T. They are all abortifacients. The fact that it is a chemical abortion does not make it “contraception” because for the church life start at conception. The only truly contraception now existing that you can point at are condoms and depo provera.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

The pill as it is known today is not primarily contraceptive.

You either don’t understand how the pill actually works, or don’t understand the meaning of the word “primarily.”

The pill works in three alternative ways: suppresing ovulation, hardening the cervical mucus and thinning the lining of the uterys.The lining of the uterus when a woman is taking the pill does not grow to support the baby

Good so far …

so when the woman ovulates (women on the pill do ovulate frequently…that is why they get “periods” which usually aren’t periods but abortions so it is not true that the chance is small) and conception occurs what the pill does is preventing implantation so a chemical abortion occurs.

Women on the pill do not ovulate frequently. Most sources I found say about it’s about 3% of all cycles (across the whole population). EWTN says 2% to 10%, but that probably includes women on progestin-only pills, which have a higher rate of breakthrough ovulation than the much more common combination pills. Also, the “periods” you experience while on the pill are not tied to ovulation and absolutely are not abortions except in very rare occassions. They’re caused by the sudden drop in estrogen when you switch to the placebo pills in the last week of the month.

Because of this the pill is an abortifacient.

Just to review: Even if we give EWTN the benefit of the doubt and use its numbers for the breakthrough ovulation rate, you’re looking at ovulation in somewhere around 6% of all cycles. That means 94% of the time the pill works by preventing ovulation. (i.e.while it can act as an abortifacient in rare cases, you are completely wrong to say it is primarily an abortifacient.

Second, as you mentioned, there are three effects in action. So even in those 6% of cases were ovulation occurs, there will still be many instances in which the thickened mucus blocks sperm from entering the fallopian tubes. So we’re down to maybe 3% of cases in which there’s even a possibility of an egg and sperm ever meeting?

And WebMD says the chance of getting pregnant in any given month (when trying) is about 25%. So that would bring us down to about a 0.75% chance of the abortifacient issue coming up.

Hormonal IUDs the hormones work exactly the same as the pill so a woman with an hormonal IUD will ovulate and will conceive so it works causing a chemical abortion. Same goes for the Cooper T. They are all abortifacients. The fact that it is a chemical abortion does not make it “contraception” because for the church life start at conception. The only truly contraception now existing that you can point at are condoms and depo provera.

Depo Provera uses exactly the same three-prong approach as the pill and hormonal IUDs.

Please do some research before you start posting things like this online.

 

[Michel2010]

This is not true.
Copper IUDs = contraception

Is copper IUDs really only contraceptive?

mydomesticchurch.com/2006/01/iud-controversy.html

 

[thistle]

Is the statement of John-Paul II irrelevant?

«But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.»

John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, # 13.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-pa…ium-vitae.html

It does not matter what mortal sin you commit and if one is graver than the other because ANY mortal sin on your soul at death means you go immediately to Hell. There is no such thing as a less grave mortal sin at death allowing you the possibility to be saved. If you die in a state of mortal sin you go to Hell. It makes no difference if the mortal sin is the least grave or not.

 

[Michel2010]

ANY mortal sin on your soul at death means you go immediately to Hell.

I agree on thnat. But does it make that it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to know if a grave evil is more or less grave that an other grave evil?

 

[thistle]

I agree on thnat. But does it make that it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to know if a grave evil is more or less grave that an other grave evil?

Tell me the relevance then. ALL mortal sin separates us from God.
There is no point in a person sitting at home feeling smug thinking oh well I’m in a state of mortal sin but my mortal sin is not as grave as others!