If contraception is intrinsically evil...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LJN21 said:
And this is why your position is flawed. How is it not the “conjugal act” by your definition… You said the “conjugal act” and the properties is something happens when you get married which is why the church has said no contraceptives in marriage. Now here you are advocating a position that where they can be used in marriage.
Click to expand...
If you don’t know the difference between consensual marital intercourse, and rape, then I don’t know what to tell you.
 
Am I to come to the distressing conclusion that “contraception is intrinisclaly evil” is a true statement, but we don’t really know what it means?
 
Debora123 said:
If you don’t know the difference between consensual marital intercourse, and rape, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
Oh I know the difference. Your the one that seems to have issues how reason and moral theology works.
 
wow, 46 pages.

Why don’t we consult some professionals?
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=301
The Church teaches that rape is not a unitive act that requires openness to procreation. It is rather an act of violence against another person, and the woman is allowed to take steps to prevent the possible fertilization of her own egg(s).
Click to expand...
 
Nate13 said:
@levinas

I have yet to see this point addressed, and its what is making me logically believe that preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg if there is no chance of killing a newly conceived life may be permissible in cases of rape.

If as you say it would be considered a sin to take an emergency contraceptive in the case of rape even when its been determined there is no danger to life, how is it not also a sin for the woman to do anything else while being raped that might prevent the act from being finished “correctly”. Just even bringing up this notion seems absurd to me, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on it. I assume you do not believe its a sin for the woman to attempt to get away while being raped, but wouldn’t that have to be considered pulling out and thus the sin of contracepting as well?
Click to expand...
While I am still studying the whole EC after rape issue, I do think it is different than fighting off a rapist during the act. At that point, the woman is protecting herself from immediate danger or at least trying to get the ongoing violence to stop. “Pulling out” isn’t always for contraceptive reasons and certainly wouldn’t be when the woman was fighting off a rapist or trying to escape.
 
Nate13 said:
wow, 46 pages.

Why don’t we consult some professionals?
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=301
Click to expand...
Well, that article pretty much says the same things as the USCCB guidance statement that was posted many pages ago. The problem is “the Church teaches”… This article has no references and I think many people have been unsuccessful finding where the Church teaches this.
 
Corki said:
While I am still studying the whole EC after rape issue, I do think it is different than fighting off a rapist during the act. At that point, the woman is protecting herself from immediate danger or at least trying to get the ongoing violence to stop. “Pulling out” isn’t always for contraceptive reasons and certainly wouldn’t be when the woman was fighting off a rapist or trying to escape.
Click to expand...
Read Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. piece i posted above. He is the Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center… The opinion of one theologian alone doesn’t make something so, but his opinion is definitely not one to slough off.
 
Corki said:
Well, that article pretty much says the same things as the USCCB guidance statement that was posted many pages ago. The problem is “the Church teaches”… This article has no references and I think many people have been unsuccessful finding where the Church teaches this.
Click to expand...
Lol alright lets just not keep trying to say the opinion we share with Father Tad is untenable and poor ethics. He is the Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center… He also is not afraid to tell it how it is, especially if you have read his piece on what to do with frozen embryo’s…
 
Debora123 said:
Yes, I know that’s how you feel about it. Thank you. :rolleyes:

PS - When someone responds to you with just a “I disagree”, that means they don’t really want to discuss it anymore. Either because they don’t think it’s worth it, or because it’s already been discussed extensively, or both. 👍
Click to expand...
 
Debora123 said:
Yes, I know that’s how you feel about it. Thank you. :rolleyes:

PS - When someone responds to you with just a “I disagree”, that means they don’t really want to discuss it anymore. Either because they don’t think it’s worth it, or because it’s already been discussed extensively, or both. 👍
Click to expand...
Ouch!
 
Nate13 said:
Lol alright lets just not keep trying to say the opinion we share with Father Tad is untenable and poor ethics. He is the Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center… He also is not afraid to tell it how it is, especially if you have read his piece on what to do with frozen embryo’s…
Click to expand...
I didn’t say his position was untenable and I certainly don’t question his ethics. I don’t even disagree with him but even the Director of Education at the NCBC should be able to point to a source when he says “the Church teaches”. If someone would give the reference, it’s one I would like to bookmark.
 
Debora123 said:
Yes, I know that’s how you feel about it. Thank you. :rolleyes:

PS - When someone responds to you with just a “I disagree”, that means they don’t really want to discuss it anymore. Either because they don’t think it’s worth it, or because it’s already been discussed extensively, or both. 👍
Click to expand...
 
I still think the real issue here is terminology. Contraception is intrinsically evil. People cannot use it even “in case” they get raped. So if you can use some form of birth control after rape it’s probably more properly called self-defense, not contraception.
 
Ana_v said:
Am I to come to the distressing conclusion that “contraception is intrinisclaly evil” is a true statement, but we don’t really know what it means?
Click to expand...
That’s the issue, huh? “Intrinsic” means “intrinsic”. Always. So that’s why I really don’t think it can be allowed even outside of marriage.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
That’s the issue, huh? “Intrinsic” means “intrinsic”. Always. So that’s why I really don’t think it can be allowed even outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
No one is questioning whether contracepting is intrinsically evil. We are questioning and Father Tad is stating that its Church teaching that it would not be contracepting in the case of rape.
 
Corki said:
I didn’t say his position was untenable and I certainly don’t question his ethics. I don’t even disagree with him but even the Director of Education at the NCBC should be able to point to a source when he says “the Church teaches”. If someone would give the reference, it’s one I would like to bookmark.
Click to expand...
His source for saying its Church teaching is that a collection of bishops are teaching it in concert together. I don’t know if its just the American bishops that are, or whether its worldwide thing, but I haven’t seen any higher authority condemning the bishops for their judgement on the matter. You could argue its prudential judgement, but all the same its the best we have to go off of given the information and abilities we currently have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top