B
bobzills
Guest
What about the use of abortifacient birth control pills. Would that be directly aborting a child? Or would it be allowed, since the intent is otherwise?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
the intent of those pills is to prevent pregnancy or end one that may have begun. their intent is clear, and their use unjustifiable.What about the use of abortifacient birth control pills. Would that be directly aborting a child? Or would it be allowed, since the intent is otherwise?
A
awantz
Guest
What about those who don’t know that it would end one that may have begun and are only trying to keep their kids evenly spaced apart?the intent of those pills is to prevent pregnancy or end one that may have begun. their intent is clear, and their use unjustifiable.
Personally, I can’t stand the pill.
B
bobzills
Guest
Are those women who take the abortifacient birth control pills excommunicated from the Catholic Church? I don’t think so.the intent of those pills is to prevent pregnancy or end one that may have begun. their intent is clear, and their use unjustifiable.
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
and? you asked about the pills and i answered. thats not even considering how horrible they are to the woman’s body. they are even worse to the body of the baby they kill.Are those women who take the abortifacient birth control pills excommunicated from the Catholic Church? I don’t think so.
W
wanner47
Guest
Rape isn’t an excommunicable offense, either. Are you suggesting that rape is sometimes justifiable, since it’s not an excommunicable offense?Are those women who take the abortifacient birth control pills excommunicated from the Catholic Church? I don’t think so.
J
Jermosh
Guest
The Pill or the Morning after pill are not direct abortions in most cases, direct abortions need intent, intent needs knowledge. There are only a few cases when someone would know when conception happened and still be in the window to use the pill. I am not saying that its right, its just not the same as direct abortion.What about the use of abortifacient birth control pills. Would that be directly aborting a child? Or would it be allowed, since the intent is otherwise?
RU486 is a differant story in that it is direct abortion medicine, and quite dangerous for both parties.
B
bobzills
Guest
So it is like playing Russian roulette. Think of if this way. If you commit suicide it is a mortal sin. But if you play Russian roulette by placing a single bullet in a revolver, spin the cylinder, place the muzzle against your head and pull the trigger, then you have committed the same sin and it is just a grave an offense whether or not the bullet actually fires into your head.The Pill or the Morning after pill are not direct abortions in most cases, direct abortions need intent, intent needs knowledge. There are only a few cases when someone would know when conception happened and still be in the window to use the pill. I am not saying that its right, its just not the same as direct abortion.
RU486 is a differant story in that it is direct abortion medicine, and quite dangerous for both parties.
Since many times the result of taking the birth control pill is killing the embryo, it is playing Russian roulette with abortion. Why would it not merit excommunication since playing Russian roulette with abortion is just as bad as surgically procured abortion?
W
wanner47
Guest
Care to answer, bobzills?Rape isn’t an excommunicable offense, either. Are you suggesting that rape is sometimes justifiable, since it’s not an excommunicable offense?
B
bobzills
Guest
Obviously it is not up to me to determine whether an offense deserves excommunication or not, but if you want my personal opinion on it, then it seems to me that the following two actions should be considered as possibly deserving something similar to excommunication:Care to answer, bobzills?
- Rape, expecially of a minor.
- The use of birth control pills which is playing Russian roulette with abortion.
W
wanner47
Guest
But the fact is, they’re not excommunicable offenses, and you’re not the one Christ put in authority to make those decisions. Moreover, the Church also teaches that bcps can licitly be taken for medical reasons despite the possible abortifacent effect.Obviously it is not up to me to determine whether an offense deserves excommunication or not, but if you want my personal opinion on it, then it seems to me that the following two actions should be considered as possibly deserving something similar to excommunication:
- Rape, expecially of a minor.
- The use of birth control pills which is playing Russian roulette with abortion.
C
chaz0426
Guest
What if the mother’s life was at risk for any reason? I am extremely pro life but have never knew the answer if it was between the life of the mother and the life of the child. Such cases are rare but what is the answer and the mother was not conscious to make her own decision? It’d be honorable and of great love to give your life for your child but if she is not able to make that decision what would be the moral obligation of the physician or the husband/family member?Abortion can never be justified.
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
Well the Church’s teaching is clear, that the abortion is not justified. No ifs ands or buts.What if the mother’s life was at risk for any reason? I am extremely pro life but have never knew the answer if it was between the life of the mother and the life of the child. Such cases are rare but what is the answer and the mother was not conscious to make her own decision? It’d be honorable and of great love to give your life for your child but if she is not able to make that decision what would be the moral obligation of the physician or the husband/family member?
R
RosaryFan
Guest
It does directly abort the child (that’s why it’s called an “abortifacient”). And artificial birth control is not acceptable in the Catholic Church, even if it wasn’t an abortifacient, like condoms.What about the use of abortifacient birth control pills. Would that be directly aborting a child? Or would it be allowed, since the intent is otherwise?
K
kage_ar
Guest
Above I posted the Catechism sections on abortion. You will see that the Church teaching is very clear on direct abortion.What if the mother’s life was at risk for any reason? I am extremely pro life but have never knew the answer if it was between the life of the mother and the life of the child. Such cases are rare but what is the answer and the mother was not conscious to make her own decision? It’d be honorable and of great love to give your life for your child but if she is not able to make that decision what would be the moral obligation of the physician or the husband/family member?
We can never kill one person so another may live.
Think of it this way, if a mother needs a heart translpant or she will die, is it okay to kill her child to take that heart? Or to kill a random stranger and take his heart? Never.
J
Jermosh
Guest
The issue with that is there are a whole host of other causes for miscarriage. Medication, alcohol consumption, emergency medicine, sport activity. Would those be considered Russian roulette? Direct Abortion needs intent and intent needs knowledge, there is very rarely any knowledge that a embryo is being miscarried.So it is like playing Russian roulette. Think of if this way. If you commit suicide it is a mortal sin. But if you play Russian roulette by placing a single bullet in a revolver, spin the cylinder, place the muzzle against your head and pull the trigger, then you have committed the same sin and it is just a grave an offense whether or not the bullet actually fires into your head.
Since many times the result of taking the birth control pill is killing the embryo, it is playing Russian roulette with abortion. Why would it not merit excommunication since playing Russian roulette with abortion is just as bad as surgically procured abortion?
J
Jessi_Thomist
Guest
I recognize the scenario from Judith Jarvis Thomson, but you must realize that there is a difference between “killing and allowing to die.” Philippa Foot has an excellent article called just that in which she gives an excellent argument against Thomson.
This is why. Particular actions are the result of agents or events initiating particular sequences. The fatal sequence in the ridiculous story that is proposed is begun by not by the person who unhooks himself from the person who needs the kidney or whatever, but rather by the disease. Thus when he unhooks himself, he is allowing the fatal sequence to continue; he has no moral obligation to give her the use of his organs.
On the other hand if he reached back and stabbed the woman so that she would die-- this would absolutely be morally impermissible-- because he is the agent who initiates the fatal sequence in this case.
Now to abortion. If the woman gets an abortion she is not allowing to die in any way, she is KILLING the baby.
Whether it is a rape or a teenager or some 40 year old woman without scruples, is irrelevant when it comes to the fact that the fetus is a human person, and that abortion is the direct killing of that human person.
We should have special care for difficult pregnancies and rape victims, they need special help and anyone who would consider killing their child needs prayers and love; but killing is killing.
Remember also, that women that are raped and have an abortion are more that twice as likely to commit suicide than women that either keep their babies or give them up for adoption. Many times abortion is a way of hiding the rape and not dealing with the psychological damage that has been done, or prosecuting the rapist.
No. Abortion is never justified.
Peace.
This is why. Particular actions are the result of agents or events initiating particular sequences. The fatal sequence in the ridiculous story that is proposed is begun by not by the person who unhooks himself from the person who needs the kidney or whatever, but rather by the disease. Thus when he unhooks himself, he is allowing the fatal sequence to continue; he has no moral obligation to give her the use of his organs.
On the other hand if he reached back and stabbed the woman so that she would die-- this would absolutely be morally impermissible-- because he is the agent who initiates the fatal sequence in this case.
Now to abortion. If the woman gets an abortion she is not allowing to die in any way, she is KILLING the baby.
Whether it is a rape or a teenager or some 40 year old woman without scruples, is irrelevant when it comes to the fact that the fetus is a human person, and that abortion is the direct killing of that human person.
We should have special care for difficult pregnancies and rape victims, they need special help and anyone who would consider killing their child needs prayers and love; but killing is killing.
Remember also, that women that are raped and have an abortion are more that twice as likely to commit suicide than women that either keep their babies or give them up for adoption. Many times abortion is a way of hiding the rape and not dealing with the psychological damage that has been done, or prosecuting the rapist.
No. Abortion is never justified.
Peace.
B
bobzills
Guest
What was your p;oint in asking me for my personal opinion and then when I take the time to respond, you say that I am not the one in authority to make these decisions?But the fact is, they’re not excommunicable offenses, and you’re not the one Christ put in authority to make those decisions. Moreover, the Church also teaches that bcps can licitly be taken for medical reasons despite the possible abortifacent effect.
W
wanner47
Guest
To emphasize that your opinions are just that – opinions. Not to mention opinions out of line with actual Church teaching.
B
bobzills
Guest
So it is OK to take an abortifacient birth control pill and play Russian roulette with a child in the womb?To emphasize that your opinions are just that – opinions. Not to mention opinions out of line with actual Church teaching.
Why would it be OK to play Russian roulette with a child in the womb, but not with a child outside of the womb?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.