If contraception is intrinsically evil...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WingsOfEagles said:
Certain methods of birth control might be worse. For example, hormonal birth control that could abort a fertilized egg. This is why even a rape victim is supposed to be tested for pregnancy/ovulation first before Plan B is administered.
Click to expand...
I think we can stop talking about abortifacient BC, because we all understand that and agree.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I’m sorry, but I have to agree with LJN21.

Contraception is INTRINSICALLY evil. In all circumstances. We’re trying to spin it so that contraception after rape isn’t contraception-but it is. It prevents conception.

The Summa is not official Church teaching but since the Church hasn’t officially said anything the Summa is an excellent resource to use. Logically, Aquinas has shown us that contraception after rape is still contraception, and still a sin.

I’m not going to personally condemn anybody for it, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
Check out post 326 (among others). LJN21 is not saying it is wrong to use Plan B after a rape. She is simply terming it as self-defense vs. contraception.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I’m sorry, but I have to agree with LJN21.

Contraception is INTRINSICALLY evil. In all circumstances. We’re trying to spin it so that contraception after rape isn’t contraception-but it is. It prevents conception.

The Summa is not official Church teaching but since the Church hasn’t officially said anything the Summa is an excellent resource to use. Logically, Aquinas has shown us that contraception after rape is still contraception, and still a sin.

I’m not going to personally condemn anybody for it, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=25127
 
WingsOfEagles said:
Check out post 326 (among others). LJN21 is not saying it is wrong to use Plan B after a rape. She is simply terming it as self-defense vs. contraception.
Click to expand...
I don’t see a difference. It prevents conception. Contraception.

Honestly, if I heard a natural law argument explaining this, I’d be totally convinced. But it’s hard for me to get around this.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Contraception is INTRINSICALLY evil. In all circumstances. We’re trying to spin it so that contraception after rape isn’t contraception-but it is. It prevents conception.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that:

a woman may not do anything to prevent the release of an egg in order to not conceive a child by her rapist?

a woman may not beg her rapist to wear a condom?

a woman may not beg her rapist to withdraw before ejaculation?

a woman may not interrupt the sexual assault once it is underway because that would mimic the withdrawal technique?

a woman may not use any sort of spermicidal gel or douche after the assault?

Would you say yes to any of those five questions?

Here are some further questions:
When does a woman’s right to defend herself against her rapist begin?
When does a woman’s right to defend herself against her rapist end?

I ask these questions because each of the five actions she might take in self-defense is a contraceptive method as well. And you say that contraception is an intrinsical evil and therefore immoral in all circumstances. That doesn’t make any sense to me as a woman, after giving careful consideration to all the possible ways of defending myself if I were attacked.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I don’t see a difference. It prevents conception. Contraception.

Honestly, if I heard a natural law argument explaining this, I’d be totally convinced. But it’s hard for me to get around this.
Click to expand...
Well, murder is wrong. Killing in self-defense is not.

Abortion is wrong. The double effect of a child dying do to a medical procedure (such as fallopian tube removal due ectopic pregnancy is not).
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I don’t see a difference. It prevents conception. Contraception.

Honestly, if I heard a natural law argument explaining this, I’d be totally convinced. But it’s hard for me to get around this.
Click to expand...
She is under no moral obligation to conceive with her rapist. As long as she is not killing a fertilized egg, she has a right to protect herself. It is an unnatural sexual act. Not an act of unity.
 
Even if she didn’t feel comfortable coming up with a penalty, she should have slipped in that abortion is wrong and that it should be illegal. If she had stated this, but then said she could begin to come up with what the legal penalties would be, I wouldn’t have a problem.
 
Debora123 said:
Is The Summa an official Church doctrine? I’d feel better looking at Humanae Vitae and the ccc.
Click to expand...
Marc_Anthony said:
The Summa is not official Church teaching but since the Church hasn’t officially said anything the Summa is an excellent resource to use. Logically, Aquinas has shown us that contraception after rape is still contraception, and still a sin.
.
Click to expand...
If you will both look in the back of your CCC, on mine, it’s page 751, listed under Ecclesiastical Writers, you will find about 45 citations from the Summa Theologiae (Summation of Theology) for various doctrinal explanations. I could just tell you it IS part of Church Doctrine, but please, don’t take just my word for it.
Debora123 said:
I don’t recall reading anything you posted that said fornication is also ordered towards procreation.
Click to expand...
From my previous post:
40.png
Summa:
The sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. This may happen in two ways. First, in respect of the matter wherein this pleasure is sought; secondly, when, whereas there is due matter, other due circumstances are not observed. Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the “vice against nature,” which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is “simple fornication,” which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman."
Click to expand...
It couldn’t be clearer. The nature of all venereal acts is ordered towards procreation, and hindering that sins against nature, and if your not married, your not giving the potential child his right to mother and father which is a sin against justice as well. If you want the full context and citation, please look at my previous posting with the full explanation from the Summa.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
But not anywhere else. So I think the Summa is a good resource to address that.
Click to expand...
The Summa is the same source that says contraception would be wrong even after rape. Which I don’t agree with.

Humanae Vitae also addresses contraception within the context of a marriage.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I don’t see a difference. It prevents conception. Contraception.

Honestly, if I heard a natural law argument explaining this, I’d be totally convinced. But it’s hard for me to get around this.
Click to expand...
Not everything is so black and white. Life situation are sometimes more complicated and more abstract than that.
 
LJN21 said:
If you will both look in the back of your CCC, on mine, it’s page 751, listed under Ecclesiastical Writers, you will find about 45 citations from the Summa Theologiae (Summation of Theology) for various doctrinal explanations. I could just tell you it IS part of Church Doctrine, but please, don’t take just my word for it.
Click to expand...
Well then perhaps there’s a reason they only took certain PARTS of it and didn’t make the whole thing into a sort of official doctrine. 🙂
 
Debora123 said:
Not everything is so black and white. Life situation are sometimes more complicated and more abstract than that.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but there IS such a thing as intrinsic evil. Figuring out WHAT falls under that is hard but black and white exist.
 
I guess bottom line for me. I see no reason that God would call avoiding conception with your rapist a sin.
 
I want to tell you all right now, and I am being sincere. I am NOT trying to be difficult here. I’m not challenging things for the sake of it. I’m not even sure I’m right.

I want to make this very clear.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Indeed, but there IS such a thing as intrinsic evil. Figuring out WHAT falls under that is hard but black and white exist.
Click to expand...
Rape is grey area though. It’s not with two consenting adults, so the “open to life” obligations are not there for the victim. The victim was not open to sex, let alone life.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Indeed, but there IS such a thing as intrinsic evil. Figuring out WHAT falls under that is hard but black and white exist.
Click to expand...
Heck, even ABORTION is justifiable when it falls under something we now call double effect. 🤷

Sometimes we just gotta think outside the box rather than try to live out every little detail of our lives based on the letter of the law. Sometimes we must look at the spirit of the law when a complicated, extraordinary circumstance comes up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top