Infanticide, abortion and contraception on same moral level but why does it stop there?

[Stornoway]

I’m having an ongoing debate with two atheist friends at the moment and I need your help.
They don’t believe in free will and more or less disagree that there can be moral objectivity. They subjectively agree that infanticide, abortion and contraception are on the same moral level though. However, unsurprisingly, neither are advocates of infanticide but maintain that contraception is okay in all circumstances and abortion is acceptable some cases. Their reason for this being that there is a need to be pragmatic on the issue, considering that the same solid logic which links infanticide, abortion and contraception, could then be used for the argument that any time a man’s sperm isn’t used for reproduction then this is also on the same moral level as contraception,
I know at first it sounds nonsensical on their part as they’re basically suggesting that not having sex for reproduction whenever possible is on the same moral level as the three practices mentioned above but I found it a surprisingly difficult one to contend with.

How can I take their concession that infanticide, abortion and contraception, are on the same moral level and use this to persuade them that all three practices are wrong… without then myself conceding that it is just as immoral for me to not be using the free will I believe in, to be out using all my sperm for reproducing at all times? I know the line can be drawn at contraception but I need help for the why.

 

[jpjd]

It is not until the sperm and the egg join that conception occurs and a soul is infused. At this point we have human life.

A single sperm or a single egg are just cells. They have no soul. They are not human life any more than any other cells in your body, such as fingernails, hair, skin, tissues, etc.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

There is a big Difference: Infanticide and Abortion is Killing, Stopping viable Human Life, a Human; Contraception is Unnatural Blocking of a beautiful Reproductive function, by Human inventions. All Contraceptive devices Sometimes fail, and almost all types result in Damage to the Person: IUD’s, etc almost all result in some forms of Cancer, among some using them. The Only 100% Ideal form of “contraception” is Abstinence during the Lady’s Fertility. It is Science based knowledge of The Lady’s Fertility, Celebrates, Honors Her, and Results in a Highly Romantic for the Male Saving for about 10 Days. NFP is the Only 100% effective ‘contracption’, and Respects Nature, and Each practioner.
The Church often considers Unnatural Acts as Sinful, because selfish, as is using women as objects for selfishness. The result is The Church again teaches Idealism in Practise, Respect for God and Nature.

 

[David89]

There is a big Difference: Infanticide and Abortion is Killing viable Life; Contraception is Unnatural Blocking of a beautiful Reproductive function, by Human inventions.

Dont forget that some Contraceptions such as some types of the Pill also act after conception takes place. Hence Contraception often acts as an abortion also, as it causes the body to reject the conceived human life as the sperm as already entered the egg, which is subsequently rejected by the body due to the contraceptive pill.

 

[philial]

Of itself, sperm (or eggs, for that matter) has no potential to be anything other than what it is - it contributes to a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. That is to say, a fertilize egg can grow and develope, and achieve some potential that is inherent to itself, whereas the sperm (or egg) cannot.

 

[Stornoway]

It is not until the sperm and the egg join that conception occurs and a soul is infused. At this point we have human life.

A single sperm or a single egg are just cells. They have no soul. They are not human life any more than any other cells in your body, such as fingernails, hair, skin, tissues, etc.

Going by the logic that it’s all about when the egg and sperm fertilize to make a person/soul, artificial contraception is justified.
I’m not sure if you guys know what I’m getting at. I’ve successfully argued to this pair that infanticide, abortion and contraception are on the same moral level, they accept this from a secular viewpoint, but how do I then argue that these are wrong without using the same logic which links the three practices (all three prevent life) without conceding that by not reproducing whenever I can I am also preventing life; they use the analogy that leaving someone dying by the side of the road when you could do something to save their life is equal to killing someone.

 

[mark_a]

How can I take their concession that infanticide, abortion and contraception, are on the same moral level and use this to persuade them that all three practices are wrong… without then myself conceding that it is just as immoral for me to not be using the free will I believe in, to be out using all my sperm for reproducing at all times? I know the line can be drawn at contraception but I need help for the why.

It seems they forget that even the most loving and generous of married couples might actually use only 10 to 20 sperm cells for each cell’s intended and designed purpose.

 

[underacloud]

Going by the logic that it’s all about when the egg and sperm fertilize to make a person/soul, artificial contraception is justified.
I’m not sure if you guys know what I’m getting at. I’ve successfully argued to this pair that infanticide, abortion and contraception are on the same moral level, they accept this from a secular viewpoint, but how do I then argue that these are wrong without using the same logic which links the three practices (all three prevent life) without conceding that by not reproducing whenever I can I am also preventing life; they use the analogy that leaving someone dying by the side of the road when you could do something to save their life is equal to killing someone.

I think you have made a mistake here. The Church does not teach that contraception and abortion are equally grave. Abortion is generally considered a much greater sin than contraception (for example, anyone who procures or participates in an abortion is automatically excommunicated).

In my opinion, they are very different.

Abortion and infanticide destroy life. It is a great sin against the very real life that exists.

Contraception prevents life. The Church teaches that this is wrong, but there is no subject (a real life) that is violated in this sin.

Sex that does not lead to procreation does not necessarily prevent life. If the sex is ordered towards procreation - that is, not frustrated in any way - and conception does not transpire, there is no sin; it’s just a part of nature that not all sex leads to babies. The Church teaches that sex must be open to life; not that all sex must result in life.

 

[mark_a]

. . . . but how do I then argue that these are wrong without using the same logic which links the three practices (all three prevent life) without conceding that by not reproducing whenever I can I am also preventing life;

I think your friends are leaving marriage and it’s purpose out of their equation. Being atheists, they very likely won’t have a Catholic view of marriage. Every unmarried Catholic should take your atheist friends’ “preventing life” point of view.

they use the analogy that leaving someone dying by the side of the road when you could do something to save their life is equal to killing someone.

I don’t see any similarity between the two. It’s impossible for someone who never lived to die.

 

[fred_conty]

I’m having an ongoing debate with two atheist friends at the moment and I need your help.
How can I take their concession that infanticide, abortion and contraception, are on the same moral level and use this to persuade them that all three practices are wrong… without then myself conceding that it is just as immoral for me to not be using the free will I believe in, to be out using all my sperm for reproducing at all times? I know the line can be drawn at contraception but I need help for the why.

Short answer: its impossible for obvious reasons.

 

[jpjd]

I don’t see the dilemma.

We are obligated to protect *life, *which is what we are doing when we are opposed to infanticide, abortion, and artificial contraceptives that act as abortifacients.

We are not obligated to attempt to make life happen, such as trying to make every sperm impregnate every egg. However, we are to be open to life, which means not that we try to make use of every sperm and egg, but that we do nothing to impede the sperm or the egg when the marriage act occurs. This is why the Church teaches against condoms and other forms of artificial birth control.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

I’m having an ongoing debate with two atheist friends at the moment and I need your help.

Ok, glad to try, but this is really cart-before-horse stuff, atheists have no basis to make value judgments of any kind, much less moral ones, and the ones who have not twigged to this are really frustrating.

They don’t believe in free will and more or less disagree that there can be moral objectivity.

It sounds as if this argument is going nowhere until such basic issues are worked out (and the short answer is that they cannot be worked out, outside of theism which allows for both deterministic material processes and free will as a property of the rational but non-material soul.) anyway…

They subjectively agree that infanticide, abortion and contraception are on the same moral level though.

OK, so that’s not Catholic, so don’t agree with them on this.

However, unsurprisingly, neither are advocates of infanticide but maintain that contraception is okay in all circumstances and abortion is acceptable some cases. Their reason for this being that there is a need to be pragmatic on the issue, considering that the same solid logic which links infanticide, abortion and contraception, could then be used for the argument that any time a man’s sperm isn’t used for reproduction then this is also on the same moral level as contraception,

So, in order to analyze the relationship between, say “infanticide, abortion and contraception”, you need to have a framework. The framework of analysis for a Catholic would be the teaching of the Church. For an Atheist it might be the Personal liberty Principle, or Utilitarianism, or some other system…hopefully these people have some sort of idea of where their moral principles come from.

My critique of the moral reasoning of a lot of the Catholic internet is this: We believe that certain moral principles are true primarily because the Church holds and teaches them, not because we believe their congruence to natural law is entirely obvious to us. We hold a “faith seeking understanding”, which is first a faith, and secondarily a seeking. A lot of the talking and thinking about “infanticide, abortion and contraception” revolves around convincing infidels that Catholic moral principles make obvious sense to non-Catholics…when they clearly do not.

NFP is not a moral means because it does a certain thing (such as not erecting a physical barrier between spouses, or being more congruent with good marital psychology), rather, it is a moral means because the Church says so. We can use our reason to enumerate characteristics of NFP that are congruent with natural law…but we cannot, ever, confuse those reasons as being the cause of its morality.

I can certainly imagine a reality in which NFP is not a moral means. And I can imagine (and indeed have read) all of the arguments that would be advanced in that reality as to why NFP was totally incongruent with natural law. I can imagine this reality (unlike a reality in which 2+2=5, which I cannot imagine) because this issue of whether NFP is moral is not a scientific or logical issue. It is a religious issue, and firstly a matter of authority. It is only secondarily a matter of reason.

Ultimately, the moral teachings of the Church rest upon the authority of the Church. The Church is given the power to bind, which is different than the mere power of discovery. We believe that the infallibly proclaimed and ancient moral teachings of the Church are also objectively true and congruent with natural law, but this is a matter of faith first, and the law remains the law whether human society or we personally possess the information necessary to see this truth and congruence.

I know at first it sounds nonsensical on their part as they’re basically suggesting that not having sex for reproduction whenever possible is on the same moral level as the three practices mentioned above but I found it a surprisingly difficult one to contend with.

Yes, I can see that it would be difficult to contend with, if you were going at it on the basis that Catholic moral principles make obvious sense apart from the teaching authority of the Church. What I think you are missing is this idea: Indeed, we can imagine a reality in which God decreed it evil to waste a single sperm on a non-procreative act, but that is not the reality which exists and we live in. In this reality, the actual one, God has made His Laws about human sexuality, and He intends mulitple purposes for human mating, which we usually call “unitive and procreative”.

There is no scientific experiment which one can do which will “prove” that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, or that abortion in more evil than contraception. These are primarily matters of revelation. Trying to “prove” them to a person who has no connection to the magisterium is like trying to prove to a fish that fire is hot.

continued…

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

How can I take their concession that infanticide, abortion and contraception, are on the same moral level and use this to persuade them that all three practices are wrong… without then myself conceding that it is just as immoral for me to not be using the free will I believe in, to be out using all my sperm for reproducing at all times? I know the line can be drawn at contraception but I need help for the why.

This project is destined for failure. Overlooking the fact that moral statement above is wrong to begin with, the “reason” why it is not “just as immoral for me to not be using the free will I believe in, to be out using all my sperm for reproducing at all times” is because God did not deem it so. We as Catholics believe that what God has decreed is also logical, true, and right in all of the applicable senses, but we believe that we first follow the revealed law even if and when our understanding of it is dim, either personally or as a species.

We Catholics often want to appear to our atheist friends as “scientific” in our beliefs. We always fail at this, because the issues that our moral teachings rule upon are not scientific issues. Our system of morality is based upon divine revelation. We know what our system is, we know whereby we have access to its riches, and we know that failure to follow it is detrimental to our lives, sometimes temporally and always eternally.

For an atheist, really, everything which was, is, and will be is random and meaningless…even if a fairly major intellectual industry popped up in the last few centuries to claim otherwise. An atheist with complex moral opinions, such as those about detailed human reproductive issues, is a strange fish indeed. This is someone with no apparent need of internal consistency. I do not know how one would ever convince a person like this of anything, nor frankly why one would want to. Anything which takes root in such a mind is going to by warped in strange ways. Good luck.