contreception

[Podo2005]

It follows that I find it more than morally acceptable for a woman to take plan B in the ER after a rape.

so it follows that you find the murder of a human person several minutes or hours morally acceptable after they were concieved then…

 

[ThomasToo]

so it follows that you find the murder of a human person several minutes or hours morally acceptable after they were concieved then…

I, for one–I’m not able to speak for Rence–, am unwilling to concede that a single cell or a group of a couple hundred cells is a human person (in the moral sense).

 

[Podo2005]

I, for one–I’m not able to speak for Rence–, am unwilling to concede that a single cell or a group of a couple hundred cells is a human person (in the moral sense).

suppose the egg is fertilized in the time taken to go obtain that pill?

 

[ThomasToo]

suppose the egg is fertilized in the time taken to go obtain that pill?

Duly supposed. Still not a moral person.

 

[Podo2005]

Oh sure, I can understand how they believe what they do about abortion, and I appreciate their position. I just don’t believe that one should have the power to make decisions regarding another person’s reproductive choices. And once you try to control others, they just pull themselves in the opposite direction anyway. Abortion isn’t right for me, but I want the autonomy to decide that for myself. I don’t want another person or persons to make that choice for me. No one should have that kind of power over another. We are not slaves or objects owned by someone else.

I quite agree with you that you shouldnt be coerced into doing anything… but I disagree that it follows you thus have licence to do whatever you want to do, as if morality were a matter of personal opinion & not something objective & absolute. I see you often bring up the case of rape… is it your personal opinion that rape is morally wrong or do you believe that it is objectively & absolutely always wrong regardless of ones opinion?

Your brother in Christ,
Zachary

 

[Podo2005]

Duly supposed. Still not a moral person.

What do you mean by “moral person”?

 

[ThomasToo]

I quite agree with you that you shouldnt be coerced into doing anything… but I disagree that it follows you should have licence to do whatever you want to do, as if morality were a matter of personal opinion & not something objective & absolute. I see you often bring up the case of rape… is it your personal opinion that rape is morally wrong or do you believe that it is objectively & absolutely always wrong regardless of ones opinion?

Thankfully in liberal democracies–in the technical sense not in the sense of liberal v. conservative–there is not a conflation of morally wrong and legally wrong. For example, you would, if you cleave to Church teaching, assert that masturbation is morally wrong but certainly you shouldn’t say it ought to be illegal.

What do you mean by “moral person”?

A moral person is, put very simply, an entity that bears rights. We often use the word ‘person’ as a synonym for the word ‘human’ but for technical discussion like this we cannot simply accept that without examination.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

that’s a pretty big imposition to make on a rape victim to say “I don’t know if there’s a soul in there, but just in case, you have to just accept a pregnancy and just allow it to happen to you.”

Rence,

Just assuming, arguendo, that one doesn’t know “if there’s a soul in there” how would you respond to the ethical principle that being willing to kill what might be a person is being willing to kill what is a person?

VC

 

[Rence]

I quite agree with you that you shouldnt be coerced into doing anything… but I disagree that it follows you thus have licence to do whatever you want to do, as if morality were a matter of personal opinion & not something objective & absolute. I see you often bring up the case of rape… is it your personal opinion that rape is morally wrong or do you believe that it is objectively & absolutely always wrong regardless of ones opinion?

Your brother in Christ,
Zachary

I believe a rape victim has the right to take plan B in response to her rape in an attempt to protect herself from further harm. And that’s not my personal opinion, it’s also the law.

 

[Rence]

Rence,

Just assuming, arguendo, that one doesn’t know “if there’s a soul in there” how would you respond to the ethical principle that being willing to kill what might be a person is being willing to kill what is a person?

VC

First of all, I see an ethical dilemma in forcing a woman to become pregnant against her will. That should never be something forced on a woman. I don’t see the justification in denying a woman the right to protect herself from becoming pregnant in a rape situation. I believe, in fact, that it’s immoral to do so.

If a rape victim does not dilly dally, and takes plan b immediately after a rape, she trying to prevent conception. It’s not that she is willing to “kill a person” because it’s highly unlikely that conception has occured that quickly, it’s more probable she has prevented conception. Therefore it is worth the risk. I believe in a rape situation, there is justification in taking that risk in order to avoid becoming pregnant against her will.

 

[Podo2005]

I believe a rape victim has the right to take plan B in response to her rape in an attempt to protect herself from further harm. And that’s not my personal opinion, it’s also the law.

You still havent answered my question… do you believe morality to be a matter of personal opinion?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Rence,

I was attempting to prescind from a case of rape, actually. I was just inquiring about that line of your argument about not being sure “if there’s a soul in there” would justify violence against whatever is in there. I suppose I’m speaking of cases where fertilization was known to have occurred.

I asked this because you mentioned “ensoulment” – and I thought this implied fertilization. So I asked how not knowing if there is a soul would change what would be permissible action. The ethical principle that being willing to kill what might be a person is being willing to kill what is a person seems on point in that case, doesn’t it?

VC

 

[Rence]

You still havent answered my question… do you believe morality to be a matter of personal opinion?

In some matters, yes. In the matter of choosing whether or not to take plan b afte a rape, YES.

 

[Rence]

Rence,

I was attempting to prescind from a case of rape, actually. I was just inquiring about that line of your argument about not being sure “if there’s a soul in there” would justify violence against whatever is in there. I suppose I’m speaking of cases where fertilization was known to have occurred.

I asked this because you mentioned “ensoulment” – and I thought this implied fertilization. So I asked how not knowing if there is a soul would change what would be permissible action. The ethical principle that being willing to kill what might be a person is being willing to kill what is a person seems on point in that case, doesn’t it?

VC

No, it doesn’t change a thing for me. The rape was the violence. There is no violence involved in preventing conception by taking a hormone that prevents ovulation. You can’t wait until it’s determined whether or not fertilization has taken place because you can’t know if fertilization has occured until 5-7 days later when hCG levels indicate pregnancy, and by that time it’s too late. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to wait, does it?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Rence,

I’m not talking about rape, I apologize for not being clear.

You mentioned “ensoulment”, i.e. not knowing whether a fetus (post-fertilization) has a soul. If you want, we could consider a case post-implantation. In other words – a positive test for pregnancy at a very early stage. Why would not knowing if that pregancy entails a soul in there allow someone to take action to terminate whatever is in there?

That is my question – how do you respond to the ethical principle that being willing to kill what might be a person is the same as being willing to kill a person.

Thanks,
VC

 

[Rence]

Rence,
I’m not talking about rape, I apologize for not being clear.

You mentioned “ensoulment”, i.e. not knowing whether a fetus (post-fertilization) has a soul. If you want, we could consider a case post-implantation. In other words – a positive test for pregnancy at a very early stage. Why would not knowing if that pregancy entails a soul in there allow someone to take action to terminate whatever is in there?
That is my question – how do you respond to the ethical principle that being willing to kill what might be a person is the same as being willing to kill a person.
Thanks,
VC

I can’t. Every attempt I’ve made to try and explain why abortion is wrong because a soul is involved is usually answered with, “I don’t believe in souls” or something like that. Mostly people say they don’t follow Catholic teachings. You can usually sway someone who is on the fence, but if someone is adamant that they want an abortion, I haven’t seen that person swayed.

Take me for example, the only reason why abortion is not a choice for me is because of a soul being involved. If I didn’t believe in a soul being involved, I probably wouldn’t care either.

I’m sure other people are more articulate and have the gift of communication that helps sway a person from having an abortion. But I find that unless a person believes a pregnancy involves an actual “soul” they don’t value that preganancy when they’ve chosen to have an abortion. I think that’s the point that will either sway or not sway a pregnant woman.

Abortion is not an option for me. However, I find difficulty with the notion of forcing my views on another person who isn’t catholic, or who doesn’t practice the faith, or who is an atheist, for example. “ensoulment” is really a Catholic teaching, and for me, the concept only works on practicing catholics.

In addition to the fact that since I am opposed to another party choosing my reproductive options and having another party’s decisions trumping my own with regards to my own body, how can I try and impose mine on someone else?

 

[budgie2]

Rence,

I’m not talking about rape, I apologize for not being clear.

You mentioned “ensoulment”, i.e. not knowing whether a fetus (post-fertilization) has a soul. If you want, we could consider a case post-implantation. In other words – a positive test for pregnancy at a very early stage. Why would not knowing if that pregancy entails a soul in there allow someone to take action to terminate whatever is in there?

That is my question – how do you respond to the ethical principle that being willing to kill what might be a person is the same as being willing to kill a person.

Thanks,
VC

You cannot prove that a fetus or baby does not have a soul and a lot of Catholics believe the soul is given at conception. The soul is invisible and cannot be seen under the microscope. You are taking the risk that it does have a soul and being a full blown murderer which is a mortal sin. You should err on the side of caution as mortal sin can send you to hell and you will have to suffer 79 years in purgatory for each baby that you abort. You could convince yourself somebody doesn’t have a soul in order to murder and that is a murderer’s mentality.

 

[Jermosh]

You cannot prove that a fetus or baby does not have a soul and a lot of Catholics believe the soul is given at conception. The soul is invisible and cannot be seen under the microscope. You are taking the risk that it does have a soul and being a full blown murderer which is a mortal sin. You should err on the side of caution as mortal sin can send you to hell and you will have to **suffer 79 years in purgatory for each baby that you **abort. You could convince yourself somebody doesn’t have a soul in order to murder and that is a murderer’s mentality.

:ehh:

 

[StevenFrancis]

Contraception that suppresses ovulation is serious venial sin and better than abortifacient birth control ie. IUDs, morning after pill which destroy a fertilised egg. However, a pill that stops ovulation is worse than barrier methods which respect the natural fertility cycle and allow a woman to ovulate. Some pills can cause permanent infertility and peri-menopause aswell as damage to eggs and not all women ovulate normally after the pill.

Hi:
This is a real question, so please be kind. I’ve heard this before, and I think this attitude may feed some of the confusion that people seem to have on this matter. Can you tell me where you got the sense or idea that contraception is a “venial” sin? If it’s from the CCC, please give me the paragraph. If from Humanae Vitae, maybe give a clip that includes this idea. Or if from other church teaching. I’m really trying to chase this down. It is my current understanding of my Church that she believes contraception to be a real, soul killing, honest to goodness, confessable, mortal sin, worthy of deep remorse, and repentance, (turning away). In contraception, (other than NFP, which is specifically NOT contraception), a person is closing themselves to the gift of life, which God MAY or MAY NOT decide to bestow. But in either event, it is a domain which is His.

I’ll try to find the supporting documents for my understanding of this as well. In any event, I don’t want to be passing out bum information to people.

Thank you,

Steve

 

[Ron_Conte]

Can you tell me where you got the sense or idea that contraception is a “venial” sin? … I’m really trying to chase this down. It is my current understanding of my Church that she believes contraception to be a real, soul killing, honest to goodness, confessable, mortal sin, worthy of deep remorse, and repentance, (turning away).

Casti Connubii, n. 56.

“any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”