Is contraception difficult to sustain that it is inherently wrong?

[futboladikt86]

Hi all! This article I’m presenting is in the Philippine politics setting. It is defending a bill, which includes giving of artificial contraception to people and limiting the number of children per family, that is being passed.

RH Bill: A matter of conscience
by Jaime Oscar M. Salazar

Certain representatives of the Catholic Church, a staunch and powerful opponent of the reproductive health (RH) bill, have gone as far as threatening those in favor of the controversial piece of legislation with excommunication… The condemnation of “artificial” birth control is enshrined in the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, and what seems to be its most significant argument is that “artificial” birth control methods seek to separate the unitive and the procreative functions of sexual intercourse—functions that God made inseparable.** Though “based on natural law”, and in line with what has been “constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church”, such a formulation ultimately begs the moral question, saying little more than this: artificial contraception is morally wrong because what it does is, and has always been, bad. It is a circular argument: it presupposes what it seeks to establish. In other words, The conclusion that artificial contraception is bad, is supported by the same premise: that artificial contraception is bad.**
Even the assertion itself that artificial contraception is inherently wrong is also difficult to sustain, as will be shown below.
ph.politicalarena.com/noynoy-aquino/blogs/rh-bill-a-matter-of-conscience

What’s your take on this article guys? I disagree with what the article’s author says. :dts:

 

[Schluns]

Lets start with the circular argument he uses. In answer: Artificial birth control is wrong because it is an abortifactant. They do not prevent conception, they prevent implantation of the ovum, be it fertilized or not.

 

[Jermosh]

Lets start with the circular argument he uses. In answer: Artificial birth control is wrong because it is an abortifactant. They do not prevent conception, they prevent implantation of the ovum, be it fertilized or not.

Depends on the ABC entirely. But abortifactant is not the main issue that can make ABCs immoral acts. Abortifactant does not always equate to direct Abortion though,

 

[PJY86]

Let me try something quick and easy:

1. To willfully deprive a thing or action of its due good is evil.
2. Using contraception deprives human sexuality of its natural reproductive end.
3. The natural reproductive end is a due good of human sexuality.
4. Therefore, using contraception is evil.

Notice that NFP is not touched by the argument because it doesn’t inhibit the natural reproductive end, but rather aligns its participants with the body’s natural behavior in order to be prudent about reproduction.

 

[futboladikt86]

Thank you for all your replies! I think the author seeks to misguide the readers by using his “intelligent” argument, when in fact, his statements are wrong, especially in what he stated as a circular argument.

As stated in the Catholic Answers’ library, “Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.”” I don’t see anything circular in this argument.

OT: What is sad is that this Reproductive health bill is being supported by a candidate who is running for president in a predominantly Catholic country, Philippines, and who is leading in the surveys.

 

[Rence]

Hi all! This article I’m presenting is in the Philippine politics setting. It is defending a bill, which includes giving of artificial contraception to people and limiting the number of children per family, that is being passed.

RH Bill: A matter of conscience
by Jaime Oscar M. Salazar

Certain representatives of the Catholic Church, a staunch and powerful opponent of the reproductive health (RH) bill, have gone as far as threatening those in favor of the controversial piece of legislation with excommunication… The condemnation of “artificial” birth control is enshrined in the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, and what seems to be its most significant argument is that “artificial” birth control methods seek to separate the unitive and the procreative functions of sexual intercourse—functions that God made inseparable.** Though “based on natural law”, and in line with what has been “constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church”, such a formulation ultimately begs the moral question, saying little more than this: artificial contraception is morally wrong because what it does is, and has always been, bad. It is a circular argument: it presupposes what it seeks to establish. In other words, The conclusion that artificial contraception is bad, is supported by the same premise: that artificial contraception is bad.**
Even the assertion itself that artificial contraception is inherently wrong is also difficult to sustain, as will be shown below.
ph.politicalarena.com/noynoy-aquino/blogs/rh-bill-a-matter-of-conscience

What’s your take on this article guys? I disagree with what the article’s author says. :dts:

Well, okay, you asked for opinions. These are mine:

I think that if someone goes by the medical community’s guidelines, which are, they can’t confirm one pregnant until they test positive for HCG levels, which happens after implantation, then you’re probably not going to be able to convince a non-Catholic that taking them is “bad”.

ABCs cannot be outlawed merely because the Church wants them to be. The article (unless I skimmed too quickly and missed it) didn’t address the fact that many women take ABCs to treat endometriosis, painful/irregular periods, too much bleeding during periods, uterine fibroids, ovarian cysts, and other maladies that can be treated with ABCs. For that alone, I don’t think it’s likely that ABCs will be outlawed. So it makes the notion that the CC will excommunicate those who support it…well, petty IMOHO. If I were a nurse in a women’s health setting and had to give out ABCs to a patient who had any of the above medical conditons, I’d give them out. Plain and simple. If you outlaw ABCs, women who need them will have to jump through hoops to get them, and frankly that shouldn’t be required of women. Why take away more of their rights and victimize them further? If they need them, they shouldn’t need anything but a prescription to get them. Period.

I think that if the CC wants Catholics to stop taking ABCs to prevent pregnancies, that they need to get out to the schools and Churchs and women’s groups and teach women what the rules of the Church are, and why, and make them want to comply. But telling the rest of the world that they can’t take it because the CC teaches preganancy starts from conception, is a violation of their right to medical treatment. When pharmacists are presented with prescriptions for ABCs, they do not know why women are taking them, and frankly it’s NONE of their business. When prescriptions are written by health care providers, it should be between the patient and the health care provider. If a woman is Catholic she should know not to take ABCS for non medical reasons to begin with. The Chuch thankfully doesn’t the authority to have access to medical records and can’t go door to door to inquire why each and every woman taking ABCs is taking them. They shouldn’t need a 50-page from their health care provider appealing to the CC.

ABCs ARE a matter of conscience. I agree with the part of the article that states: "St. Thomas of Aquinas would counsel prudence, the function of which, based on Summa Theologica, consists of the following: to learn the facts, take advice, and understand the issues involved; to judge carefully what one has found; and to act out of reason so as to ensure good and avoid evil.

 

[hellopeople]

Lets start with the circular argument he uses. In answer: Artificial birth control is wrong because it is an abortifactant. They do not prevent conception, they prevent implantation of the ovum, be it fertilized or not.

This hasn’t been proven and condoms certainly don’t do this.

 

[hellopeople]

To be honest, I am going to go against the church on this entirely and say that NOT promoting condoms to people in danger of aids and HIV is inherently wrong.

 

[futboladikt86]

Well, okay, you asked for opinions. These are mine:

I think that if someone goes by the medical community’s guidelines, which are, they can’t confirm one pregnant until they test positive for HCG levels, which happens after implantation, then you’re probably not going to be able to convince a non-Catholic that taking them is “bad”.

ABCs cannot be outlawed merely because the Church wants them to be. The article (unless I skimmed too quickly and missed it) didn’t address the fact that many women take ABCs to treat endometriosis, painful/irregular periods, too much bleeding during periods, uterine fibroids, ovarian cysts, and other maladies that can be treated with ABCs. For that alone, I don’t think it’s likely that ABCs will be outlawed. So it makes the notion that the CC will excommunicate those who support it…well, petty IMOHO. If I were a nurse in a women’s health setting and had to give out ABCs to a patient who had any of the above medical conditons, I’d give them out. Plain and simple. If you outlaw ABCs, women who need them will have to jump through hoops to get them, and frankly that shouldn’t be required of women. Why take away more of their rights and victimize them further? If they need them, they shouldn’t need anything but a prescription to get them. Period.

I think that if the CC wants Catholics to stop taking ABCs to prevent pregnancies, that they need to get out to the schools and Churchs and women’s groups and teach women what the rules of the Church are, and why, and make them want to comply. But telling the rest of the world that they can’t take it because the CC teaches preganancy starts from conception, is a violation of their right to medical treatment. When pharmacists are presented with prescriptions for ABCs, they do not know why women are taking them, and frankly it’s NONE of their business. When prescriptions are written by health care providers, it should be between the patient and the health care provider. If a woman is Catholic she should know not to take ABCS for non medical reasons to begin with. The Chuch thankfully doesn’t the authority to have access to medical records and can’t go door to door to inquire why each and every woman taking ABCs is taking them. They shouldn’t need a 50-page from their health care provider appealing to the CC.

ABCs ARE a matter of conscience. I agree with the part of the article that states: "St. Thomas of Aquinas would counsel prudence, the function of which, based on Summa Theologica, consists of the following: to learn the facts, take advice, and understand the issues involved; to judge carefully what one has found; and to act out of reason so as to ensure good and avoid evil.

Sadly, the main objective of this reproductive health bill is on reducing the number of possible children by artificial means, and maternal medical conditions is but a small part in this bill. The bill even requires mandatory reproductive health education from grade V to 4th year high school. Lawmakers supporting this bill argue that our country is overpopulated, which is very arguable since a great amount of taxpayer’s money go to corrupt politicians.
I believe the Catholic Church opposes this bill for love of God and country. If this bill becomes a law, our country could be in a much sorrier state because of rejection of God.

 

[futboladikt86]

To be honest, I am going to go against the church on this entirely and say that NOT promoting condoms to people in danger of aids and HIV is inherently wrong.

I disagree. People always have the option of abstinence, which is a sure fire way of preventing aids and HIV. Promoting condoms promotes sexual promiscuity and fornication. The Church not promoting condoms is not inherently wrong, and in fact right, because It respects the natural procreative functions God has given to us.