How can a condom be an abortifacient when there is no fertilized egg to abort?

[Santi2]

How right you are. For the pro-Rh bill advocates, it is alright for religious groups to meddle in state affairs - as long as they agree with the bill. However, there are certain Christian and even Muslim groups who have expressed opposition to the bill. The ire of the pro-Rh group seems to be concentrated on faithful Catholics alone.

Not to mention that they have a flawed understanding of the principle of state-church separation. The principle states in essence that the state must not favor any religious group. It is basically a prohibition to the state. It does not prohibit the Catholic Church to speak out in the public sphere, in the same manner that it is not supposed to prohibit ANY legitimate group for that matter from voicing their approval/disapproval on matters of national concern.

Perhaps being sarky with the pro-RH group might work better. Has anyone brought up the fact that none had any difficulty with separation of Church and state when the former dictator was ousted?

P.S.

I have just noted that you are in the Philippines. Carrying you all in prayer.

 

[puzzleannie]

and some condoms are impregnated with a spermicide that might possibly be an abortificant, but in general, not. which is beside the point. Their use use morally wrong at all times, like every other artificial contraceptive. Chemical based contraceptives and those that physically interfere with implantation definitely are. The warnings on their labels spell it out.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Perhaps being sarky with the pro-RH group might work better. Has anyone brought up the fact that none had any difficulty with separation of Church and state when the former dictator was ousted?

P.S.

I have just noted that you are in the Philippines. Carrying you all in prayer.

Thank you for the prayers. We need them badly. Anti-life forces are well-oiled and funded here.

 

[1ke]

erm…what about masturbation ?

What about it?

 

[benidict]

First of all, I’m against contraception. But I have a question, though. How can a condom be an abortifacient when, simply stated, there is no fertilized egg to abort?

What are your thoughts on this?

Ok to answer your question with one? If there is no egg to abort, why wear a condom? Im just curious. Never did like condoms. Cant really feel anything. Lousy!

 

[cho_pilo]

It appears that separation of church and state is invoked only where it concerns the Catholic Church’s opinions against the proposed anti-life and anti-family legislation, ChoPilo. No one amongst the supporters of the president invokes the same against the National Council of Churches in the Philippines which includes: “the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, the Apostolic Catholic Church, the Convention of Philippine Baptist Churches, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, among others.”.

newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20101205-307208/Protestant-Christian-churches-back-RH-bill

As to your original query, in the sense that it terminates the possibilities towards life, I would treat condoms as abortifacients.

You’ve got a point there, Santi. What can you say about the idea to conduct this entire debate on purely secular terms? Pro-RH bill said that all religious arguments are irrelevant.

 

[Santi2]

You’ve got a point there, Santi. What can you say about the idea to conduct this entire debate on purely secular terms? Pro-RH bill said that all religious arguments are irrelevant.

How very odd that they now say that religious arguments are irrelevant when their Constitution invokes the guidance of an Almighty God.

But, if they insist on purely secular terms, you could perhaps argue that the Bishops are not precluded from exercising their rights as citizens and direct the attention of the anti-life and anti-family supporters to Article III Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution which states: …” No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.” lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html

An atheist could equally rely on that proviso where the proposed legislation infringes on parental authority.

 

[Newbie2]

The whole reason for sex is to create life, and to use a condom is to prevent that from happening, and to just have sex for the pleasure of it. By using a condom it is not causing an abortion, but is still preventing life from being created.

Not entirely correct. Part of sex is for creation of life, part for union of the spouses. Otherwise there would be no infertile period in human beings; women would always be fertile.

Using a condom MAY be preventing life from being created, only if the right circumstances are present (correct time of the cycle, etc.)

Still, the action of using a condom is against life, and as such is sinful. Couples who use condoms who are infertile (yeah, some use them for one reason or another) are not contracepting and are not commiting a sin.

Perhaps a twist on the OP question: “How can a condom be contraceptive if it is used during the time when there is no viable egg present to fertilize?”



And yes, I already know the answer to this one.

 

[cho_pilo]

How very odd that they now say that religious arguments are irrelevant when their Constitution invokes the guidance of an Almighty God.

But, if they insist on purely secular terms, you could perhaps argue that the Bishops are not precluded from exercising their rights as citizens and direct the attention of the anti-life and anti-family supporters to Article III Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution which states: …” No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.” lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html

An atheist could equally rely on that proviso where the proposed legislation infringes on parental authority.

Thank you for your thoughts. I am trying to refute arguments of a pro-RH bill who is a lawyer. I presented a survey showing that 15% of condom-users end up with pregnancies. He said, “You would
have that, rather than the 85% who end up with no pregnancies?”

How to refute this kind of argumentation? It seems that he was highlighting the reason why we need RH information for couples.