contreception

  • Thread starter Thread starter emilyt67
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CCC
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:158
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159
 
The act of using abortifacient contraception, while sexually active, is inherently directed (intrinsically ordered) toward two moral objects:
  1. depriving the sexual act of its procreative meaning
  2. depriving the prenatal of life
    An act is intrinsically evil whenever it is inherently directed at an evil moral object, regardless of whether or not it achieves that moral object. So even if the use of abortifacient contraception on one occasion (e.g. so-called emergency contraception) happens to be only contraceptive, and not abortive, the chosen act is still ordered toward both evil moral objects.
The Church does teach that Christ’s human soul was created at the same time as His body, at the same time as the Incarnation, and also teaches that Christ (in His human nature) is like us in all things but sin. So since the creation of the soul does not pertain to sin, this implies that the human soul and body are created at the same time, at conception.
 
budgie2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And many do not, and I am one of them. Even the Church doesn’t know when ensoulment happens.
budgie2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand where you’re coming from, and understand what your beliefs are in this matter, and you have every right to them. But so do I and I should err on the side of cautions as it relates best for my situation, and that’s all I can do, and all I will do. I refuse to be tied down, raped, and then on top of that, be forced to become pregnant. I have no clue why some people think I should. And it is inappropriate for someone to tell another person what their punishment will be for supposedly breaking the law of God. Only God determines that.
 
Rence said:
And many do not, and I am one of them. Even the Church doesn’t know when ensoulment happens.

I understand where you’re coming from, and understand what your beliefs are in this matter, and you have every right to them. But so do I and I should err on the side of cautions as it relates best for my situation, and that’s all I can do, and all I will do. I refuse to be tied down, raped, and then on top of that, be forced to become pregnant. I have no clue why some people think I should. And it is inappropriate for someone to tell another person what their punishment will be for supposedly breaking the law of God. Only God determines that.
Click to expand...
Two wrongs don’t make a right… if someone tries to hurt me, does that mean I ought to hurt others? hmmmm…
 
Rence said:
In some matters, yes. In the matter of choosing whether or not to take plan b afte a rape, YES.
Click to expand...
Why only in some matters? Explain to me how situations now have moral authority over moral absolutes?
 
Rence said:
It has nothing to do with retaliation.
Click to expand...
well it sure seems to be… I mean the murdered human zygote/embryo/fetus’ life is taken away because the mother was raped… The mother is hurt… & then hurts(well actually murders) her own child
 
Podo2005 said:
Why only in some matters? Explain to me how situations now have moral authority over moral absolutes?
Click to expand...
No matter what I say in response, it’s not going to be a good enough answer. I feel as strongly about my position as you do about yours. But I’ll go ahead and answer again.

It matters in the case of abortion because a woman has the right to protect herself from the further violation of a rapist’s sperm causing her to be pregnant against her will. This is something I will not tolerate for myself. Period. It’s beyond me why someone would want to prevent me from protecting myself from further harm after I’ve already been hurt - unless it is their express intention to continue my pain ans suffering. There can be no other reason to try and hold someone down in this way. It’s an act of force and violence with the intention to mortify and injure, not a consensual encounter that a woman chooses. Even the USCCB syas it’s permissible for one to take plan b in the case of rape, pending a negative pregnancy test, a test that says she’s not ovulating which indicates that this is indeed her right to do so. And while I don’t agree that an ovulation test is required, I agree that the rest is reasonable.

There is no moral abosulute governing a rape victim’s choice in either taking or not taking plan b, except for the fact that rape is evil.
 
Podo2005 said:
well it sure seems to be… I mean the murdered human zygote/embryo/fetus’ life is taken away because the mother was raped… The mother is hurt… & then hurts(well actually murders) her own child
Click to expand...
Well that’s not the intent, and I’m the only one who can explain my own intent. And if the rape victim takes plan B as soon as possible, the likelihood that she will be preventing a pregnancy is extremely high, and to some people (including me) worth the risk.
 
Podo2005 said:
Why only in some matters? Explain to me how situations now have moral authority over moral absolutes?
Click to expand...
Please see ST I-II, q. 64, a. 7. The argument can be made that a fetus is an assailant and the use of plan B can constitute self defense in that instance.
 
Rence said:
No matter what I say in response, it’s not going to be a good enough answer. I feel as strongly about my position as you do about yours. But I’ll go ahead and answer again.

It matters in the case of abortion because a woman has the right to protect herself from the further violation of a rapist’s sperm causing her to be pregnant against her will. This is something I will not tolerate for myself. Period. It’s beyond me why someone would want to prevent me from protecting myself from further harm after I’ve already been hurt - unless it is their express intention to continue my pain ans suffering. There can be no other reason to try and hold someone down in this way. It’s an act of force and violence with the intention to mortify and injure, not a consensual encounter that a woman chooses. Even the USCCB syas it’s permissible for one to take plan b in the case of rape, pending a negative pregnancy test, a test that says she’s not ovulating which indicates that this is indeed her right to do so. And while I don’t agree that an ovulation test is required, I agree that the rest is reasonable.

There is no moral abosulute governing a rape victim’s choice in either taking or not taking plan b, except for the fact that rape is evil.
Click to expand...
Even if you suffer pain & suffering surely this pain & suffering is better to suffer to then to cave in to evil?

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html on Plan B

There is a moral absolute regarding a rape victim’s choice in either taking or not taking plan B because there is the chance(if she did get pregnant) that Plan B will terminate the life of the newly formed human zygote which is which the church calls a “chemically induced abortion” (see document above).
 
ThomasToo said:
Please see ST I-II, q. 64, a. 7. The argument can be made that a fetus is an assailant and the use of plan B can constitute self defense in that instance.
Click to expand...
Yes… if the premise that the fetus is an assailant is true… but how can an innocent zygote be an assailant? Therefore that argument doesnt hold…
 
Rence said:
Well that’s not the intent, and I’m the only one who can explain my own intent. And if the rape victim takes plan B as soon as possible, the likelihood that she will be preventing a pregnancy is extremely high, and to some people (including me) worth the risk.
Click to expand...
Even if your intent might be good & well intentioned we still need to examine whether the action in question is intrinsically good or intriniscally evil. The Catholic Church teaches that Abortion is intriniscally evil, meaning that no matter how good the intention or circumstances the act of abortion will always be wrong…
 
Podo2005 said:
Even if you suffer pain & suffering surely this pain & suffering is better to suffer to then to cave in to evil?
Click to expand...
It’s not evil to prevent an unwanted/forced pregnancy. It’s evil to force a woman to be pregnant against her will. Pregnancy should be her choice. Sex should be her choice.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html on Plan B
Podo2005 said:
There is a moral absolute regarding a rape victim’s choice in either taking or not taking plan B because there is the chance(if she did get pregnant) that Plan B will terminate the life of the newly formed human zygote which is which the church calls a “chemically induced abortion” (see document above).
Click to expand...
No, there is no abolute regarding a woman’s choice to take plan B after a rape. It’s her choice to either take it or not take it as part of her medical care after a rape. Even the US Bishops agree. So, if one is opposed to taking plan b in the case of rape, one doesn’t have to take it. However, if one wants plan b after a rape, she reserves the right to take it.
 
Podo2005 said:
Even if your intent might be good & well intentioned we still need to examine whether the action in question is intrinsically good or intriniscally evil. The Catholic Church teaches that Abortion is intriniscally evil, meaning that no matter how good the intention or circumstances the act of abortion will always be wrong…
Click to expand...
What is intrinsically evil is a man forcibly getting a woman pregnant. That’s why women have the right to either take or refuse plan B, according to her conscience. Pregnancy is not something that should be forced upon a woman, or a decision she must choose from being coerced. Preventing that rape from turning into a forced pregnancy is not evil. Not taking plan b in the case of rape is also not evil. It’s the rape victim’s choice. Holding her down and forcing her to be pregnant is evil.
 
It is not acceptable to abort in cases of rape for the following reasons:
  1. murder is worse than rape. Catholic believes abortion is murder and then the mother who aborts is worse than the father. A Catholic woman could aim for sainthood by carrying a rapist’s baby and then put the baby up for adoption. (I have personally been raped and this is one of the reasons I will be canonised)
  2. The baby is not responsible for the father’s actions and the mother has delivered capital punishment to her baby because the dad did something wrong.
  3. God said it’s nigh impossible to get pregnant from a rape that would be convicted as a woman needs to be turned on for full penetration. It’s more likely that she has has lied about being raped.
  4. Some women could shout rape but the rape isn’t convicted so it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law. Therefore no doctor should refer abortions based on a woman’s claim that she had been raped as she could have lied.
 
Interventions to prevent pregnancy can be given to a rape vicitm because the sexual act is inherently ordered toward procreation; so preventing procreation is morally an interruption of the rape. Just as it is moral to interrupt a rape in progress (it is not the contraceptive method called withdrawal), so also it is moral to prevent the rape from reaching its end, conception.

However, abortion is not justified in cases of rape. The prenatal cannot be killed on the basis of self-defense. The passage from the Summa Theologica cited by Thomas Too above does not state that a fetus can be considered an assailant (and it is II-II not I-II).

The Church infallibly teaches that direct abortion, as an end or as a means to a good end, is always gravely immoral. (EV, n. 62).

The question of the use of Plan B for rape vicitims is medically complex. It is not as simple as administering a pregnancy test. In theory, Plan B could be used if it only prevented conception in a particular case, and there was no significant chance that a conceived prenatal would be killed. In practice, this is difficult to determine. Pregnancy tests only show positive after implantation.
 
Rence said:
What is intrinsically evil is a man forcibly getting a woman pregnant. That’s why women have the right to either take or refuse plan B, according to her conscience. Pregnancy is not something that should be forced upon a woman, or a decision she must choose from being coerced. Preventing that rape from turning into a forced pregnancy is not evil. Not taking plan b in the case of rape is also not evil. It’s the rape victim’s choice. Holding her down and forcing her to be pregnant is evil.
Click to expand...
Yes… and I agree that rape is intrinsically evil… but we are not talking about rape, we are talking about abortion. Suppose the egg is already fertilized by the time the woman takes Plan B? Then by taking Plan B the woman will have aborted her baby…
 
Podo2005 said:
Yes… if the premise that the fetus is an assailant is true… but how can an innocent zygote be an assailant? Therefore that argument doesnt hold…
Click to expand...
You realize that wasn’t actually an argument it was just a question followed by the assertion that I’m wrong. Traditionally there’s a middle part where you outline why you think my assertion is manifestly wrong. Here’s mine:

I assert that a fetus is indeed an assailant because a woman who did nothing to open herself to the possibility of children (as separate from cases in which a woman chooses to have sex) now has an entity that is attempting to forcibly attach itself to her and not let go for nine months.

Imagine the following scenario for a moment. You awake from a night of uneasy dreams to find yourself in a hospital bed with numerous tubes and things attaching you to a machine that is in turn attached to someone laying on a hospital bed next to you. You begin to try to get up and someone explains to you that she is a member of the Society for the Appreciation of Classical Music and the person to whom you are attached is a famous violinist who has a rare blood disorder and only a nine month procedure involving you and these machines will save the violinists life because you are the only match the Society has been able to find. Are you morally obliged to remain in the bed because of the violinist’s right to life or do you have the right to disconnect the tubes and walk out the door? Do you see the parallel I’m making? Do you think it’s apt?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top