Is contraception the answer to reducing abortions?

[ASimpleSinner]

er…the very high rates of illegitimacy of old in Catholic countries indicated that there was* quite a lot* of fornicating without contraception.

You don’t have any statistics or studies to back that up do you?

I’m not trying to put you out… I mean I know from following your comments on here as of late you are so busy making snarky non-sequitors actually offering citation might slow you down…

But maybe you could show how bad the illegitimacy that demonstrated “quite a lot of fornicating” was? Maybe show corresponding statistics in other countries at the time… show correlations between pre-contraception era (we will say 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it) and after?

If you just want to bash the Catholic Church or offer glib remarks and can’t be bothered to back these up, I understand.

We see that all the time here.

 

[mikew262]

I do a lot of praying about this, hoping God will “open my eyes”.

Maybe they are open already.

 

[Scottgun]

Maybe they are open already.

Again, contraception is objectively wrong and not merely an opinion. You complained about not getting called a bad Catholic. Fine. I’ll let your own words and attempts to undermine the constant teaching of the Church speak for itself.

 

[guanophore]

Just fyi, I am female, and I have always been opposed to both contraception and abortion.

If a child comes, it is God’s blessing. It is neither a curse or a disease to be female, nor to be pregnant, and the attitude that it is, is demeaning to women.

I do not need a pill to cure me of my femininity, and I do not need to kill my child in order to feel “empowered.”

Well said! Preach it sister!

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

It is interesting to note that those who do not honor Mary are more likely to practice contraception and abortion.

“Honoring Mary”, which in the Catholic church translates as worship, has nothing to do with contraception or abortion.

People who use contraception have an attitude opposite of that our Blessed mother had. Luke 1:38
38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

It is a physical, mental, and emotional way of saying “be it done to me according to MY will.”

Protestants accept contraception because they value motherhood so much, because conception should be planned so that the children planned by loving couples will be loved and provided for.

And, before contraception came into popular use, did mothers devalue their motherhood? Did they not love and provide for their children? why didn’t mothers who wanted happy families just kill the children that seemed like too many?

“Honoring Mary”, which in the Catholic church translates as worship, has nothing to do with contraception or abortion.

I am not sure what your purpose is in being on the forum. Maybe you just want to pander your hatred against the Catholic Church. Maybe you are not interested in remaining, an maybe you really do want to “hit and run”. Whatever the reason, if you do want to stay in the forum, then I have to tall you that misrepresenting Catholic beliefs by bearing false witness, perpetrating lies agains the Church, and making derogatory remarks about the Faith will eventually result in getting yourself banned. The purpose of the forum is to answer questions about the Catholic faith. You have posted no question above, but stated a blatant falsehood. It is your opinion, of course, but you might do better to take it elsewhere, because it is not welcome here.

Honoring Mary does impact attitudes of women toward fertility and childbirth. People who use contraception have an attitude opposite of that our Blessed mother had. Luke 1:38
38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

It is a physical, mental, and emotional way of saying “be it done to me according to MY will.”

The rest of the post I answered over in the contraception thread, since they are not really related to Loving Mary.

Abortion is condoned because it is unpreventable.

:bigyikes:

Wow. Shall we continue in sin? Rape is condoned because it is unpreventable. Pedophilia is condoned because it is unpreventable? This kind of thinking is representative of the culture of death, and represents a severely seared conscience.

if it is illegal and it will remain as common, but become far more dangerous.The best way to prevent abortion is by sex education and contraception, not by making abortion illegal. The Scandinavian countries, who have mandadory sex education from an early age, and who use widespread contraception, have the lowest abortion rates in the world. Countries which have neither, such as Catholic countries in Latin America, have the highest, with the highest number of abortion-related deaths.

If murder is illegal, it will remain as common?

If rape were made legal, it could be done much more safely in a clean clinic. Mandatory sex education from an early age should prevent it, though.

 

[Scottgun]

Protestants accept contraception because they value motherhood so much, because conception should be planned so that the children planned by loving couples will be loved and provided for.

Move over George Orwell. Youv’ve got Newspeak competition.

 

[hasikelee]

No, but I have a minor in general science. I understand the general concepts behind NFP.

It is not the only one that can achieve pregnancy. The failure of a condom, a diaphragm, or NFP can result in pregnancy.

One of the definitions of the word barrier is:
That was the context in which I was using the term. NFP is only a barrier in the sense of timing.

I guess I don’t understand your theory of failure of monitoring. How can taking a daily temperature, measuring cervical positions and analyzing excretions be called a barrier that fails? I don’t want the thread to go off topic, so I will take your idea as it is and puzzle over its implications.

Thanks for your patience in helping my understanding of this new concept. I wish you well in your studies!

 

[mikew262]

Again, contraception is objectively wrong and not merely an opinion. You complained about not getting called a bad Catholic. Fine. I’ll let your own words and attempts to undermine the constant teaching of the Church speak for itself.

I’m not trying to undermine anything. I’m simply stating my views on the subject. This is a forum you know.

In your own words, why do you think non-abortive contraception is so wrong? Pls don’t just regurgitate Church doctrine.

 

[fix]

I find it remarkable that, on this forum and on another well-known Catholic forum which shall not be named, that, in posts on this incendiary topic:

—there are relatively few posters, and several appear to be talking back and forth to each other, all, or most agreeing, and therefore, preaching to the choir;

—all or most are men. On the* other forum*, the posters who opposed contraception and abortion, appeared mostly to be men; most were single, and many appeared to post a great deal online, maintain webpages (giving clues to their identity), blogs, etc. Did they have a life? Unclear.

—on* that forum*, the tone grew extraordinarily vicious. Some advocated that women who had abortions should be subject to capital punishment (more orphans at home–many women who have abortions have other children).

News bulletin, guys:

Women are the ones who get pregnant, carry and bear children, raise them, and have abortions. In this country and, I suspect, throughout the world, the vast, vast majority of women support availability of contraception, and at least some access to abortion, particularly early abortion, “morning after” and emergency contraception, and in case of rape or incest.

Period.

Are moral actions now determined by which gender we are?

 

[RWMorris]

I guess I don’t understand your theory of failure of monitoring. How can taking a daily temperature, measuring cervical positions and analyzing excretions be called a barrier that fails? I don’t want the thread to go off topic, so I will take your idea as it is and puzzle over its implications.

Thanks for your patience in helping my understanding of this new concept. I wish you well in your studies!

From post #49:
"One of the definitions of the word barrier is:

something immaterial that impedes or separates

• merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barrier

That was the context in which I was using the term. NFP is only a barrier in the sense of timing."

A barrier does not have to be physical. For instance, being trained as an automobile mechanic is a barrier against poverty. It is not a common use of the word, but proper none-the-less.

In NFP, if a couple does everything correctly and still ends up pregnant, then the barrier (timing) has failed. Every-one’s body is different, and NFP is subject to failure just as non-abortive ABC is subject to failure.

I a couple uses non-abortive ABC and are comfortable and accepting of new life if it happens, then I don’t (currently) see the difference between NFP and non-abortive ABC.

I’ve been reading and contemplating a great post by:

The goodness or badness of an act must be evaluated according to 3 criteria:

1. The objective–this is the rightness or wrongness (or indifference) of an act in and of itself. (Examples: murder is objectively bad, almsgiving is objectively good.)
2. The subjective–this is the intent of the one doing the act (called the agent). Note that a good intention does not make an objectively evil act good, and that an evil intent can render a good act evil. (Such as giving alms in order to trick people into thinking you are pious).
3. The relative–this is all the surrounding circumstances and the actual result of the act or the end achieved. These do not change the objective goodness or badness of the act in and of themselves.

Plugging the above in it becomes abundantly clear that NFP is NOT morally equivalent to ABC and that the Church’s teaching is entirely consistent.

By the way, the techniques of NFP are not really an act, it’s information gathering. Having marital relations is the act. So:

1. The objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent. Putting physical barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down as morally unacceptable right out of the gate. NFP passes, but is not quite out of the woods yet 'till we get to:
2. The subjective–as stated above, good intentions do not make objectively evil acts good. Here we can see that with an NFP-practicing couple, there is a possibility of evil intent which would render abstinence evil, but obviously it is hard for outsiders to judge others, because ta-da! it is subjective. (We can have a giant debate about what constitutes bad intent, but here I’m just dismantling the NFP=ABC canard.) Big red note: The intention to not have children in a particular fertile cycle by itself is not immoral.
3. The relative–and here is the cause of much the trouble regarding this teaching. We are living in the age of a widespread mental illness that denies the existence of #1 (objective right and wrongs), that everything is #2 and #3, and says the ends justify the means (consequentialism). So people look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy, and wrongly conclude they are morally equivalent. T’ain’t so.

So while one can lodge all kinds of complaints against the Church’s teaching on contraception, logical inconsistency or “distinction without a difference” with ABC should not be among them.

It seems my problem is “The Relative” i.e., ABC is defined by the Church as an Objective sin, so by me going on to step 2, from step 1, in the process of trying to work through this in my mind is what is leading me astray.

More questions: Is this teaching of the Church final on non-abortive ABC? I know that Abortion and abortive ABC are carved in stone. Does the Church recognise a difference between the two? Is using non-abortive ABC a mortal sin?

 

[hasikelee]

From post #49:
"One of the definitions of the word barrier is:

That was the context in which I was using the term. NFP is only a barrier in the sense of timing."

A barrier does not have to be physical. For instance, being trained as an automobile mechanic is a barrier against poverty. It is not a common use of the word, but proper none-the-less.

In NFP, if a couple does everything correctly and still ends up pregnant, then the barrier (timing) has failed. Every-one’s body is different, and NFP is subject to failure just as non-abortive ABC is subject to failure.

I a couple uses non-abortive ABC and are comfortable and accepting of new life if it happens, then I don’t (currently) see the difference between NFP and non-abortive ABC.

I’ve been reading and contemplating a great post by:
It seems my problem is “The Relative” i.e., ABC is defined by the Church as an Objective sin, so by me going on to step 2, from step 1, in the process of trying to work through this in my mind is what is leading me astray.

More questions: Is this teaching of the Church final on non-abortive ABC? I know that Abortion and abortive ABC are carved in stone. Does the Church recognise a difference between the two? Is using non-abortive ABC a mortal sin?

Using any contraceptive is considered sinful because it 1) puts a barrier between the unitive act and 2) frustrates the actual procreative act.

I wonder…do you see a difference between killing grandma now and waiiiiiting until she dies? I think the keyword that changes monitoring fertility from contraception to working with God’s creation is that of timing.

 

[RWMorris]

Using any contraceptive is considered sinful because it 1) puts a barrier between the unitive act and 2) frustrates the actual procreative act.

Are you reading and understanding the definition of “barrier”? Both NFP and non-abortive ABC uses barriers, just different kinds.

I wonder…do you see a difference between killing grandma now and waiiiiiting until she dies? I think the keyword that changes monitoring fertility from contraception to working with God’s creation is that of timing.

I do not understand your analogy. There is no barrier in your analogy; the timing you are speaking of is not being used as a barrier.

If I am not married and in love and have sex with the one I love and a child is born, it is a beautiful thing, but we have objectively sinned.

If I wait until I am married and have sex with my wife that I love and a child is born, it is a beautiful thing, and we have glorified God.

If we are practising NFP for the right reasons and our “timing” fails and a child is born, it is a beautiful thing, and we have glorified God.

If we are practising NFP for the wrong reasons and our “timing” is correct and a child is not born, we have sinned.

If we are practising NFP for the wrong reasons and our “timing” fails and a child is born, it is a beautiful thing, and we have glorified God, but we have still sinned.

I’ve probably introduced too may “ifs”.

 

[fix]

I a couple uses non-abortive ABC and are comfortable and accepting of new life if it happens, then I don’t (currently) see the difference between NFP and non-abortive ABC.

Their comfort level is no proof they act morally.

The end they accept does not make the means they choose good.

 

[jmcrae]

Is using non-abortive ABC a mortal sin?

Yes. In the sense that it is grave matter, done with full knowledge that it is considered a sin by the Church, and with full consent of the will.

If the person were not aware that it is considered a sin by the Church, or if they were somehow forced into using birth control against their will, then it would still be grave matter, but not a mortal sin.

The reason is that it interferes with the unitive aspect of the sex act, as well as the procreative aspect of the sex act.

This is also why it is sinful to use NFP as a means of birth control, as well.

 

[manualman]

RWMorris, I appreciate the way you posted about your difficultiy with catholic teaching on contraception vs NFP. As someone who has practised NFP for 8 years now (including 2 planned kids and one ‘what the heck’ kid), I’ll give you my experience.

God made sex to both bond spouses and give them kids. But don’t think of them as separate elements! They are inextricably linked in a healthy marriage.

When a couple uses NFP to avoid children for a time the couple enjoys the God - given non-fertile times for sex that bonds them together, but then must FAST from sexual union during the fertile time if they wish to avoid children for now (as you know, they must discern a just reason for this). This fasting, by its very nature, allows (but doesn’t guarantee) the couple to retain the healthy and balanced attitude towards their sexual union and BOTH of its purposes. Nobody REALLY understands why fasting is so crucial in the spiritual life, but we know from revelation that it is. This fasting time has a way of purifying the couple’s ability to discern just reasons from frivolous ones. Indeed, I probably would still have just two kids if it weren’t for this effect.

Contracepting couples, by contrast, inherently change the meaning of their sex. By taking direct action to sterilize their love, they unknowingly and (usually subtly) change it into an occasion of mutual self-gratification. It makes sex into a form of gluttony. Gluttony being the exact opposite of fasting, it is no wonder that contracepting couple choose to have fewer kids. Their version of love-making never prompts them to ponder why they are forsaking more kids.

The above is WHY ABC is a sin. Like any sin, it doesn’t render the sinner or the marriage utterly evil and without merit, but it DOES inflict damage on them.

 

[manualman]

In the real world yes!
Look at the disminution of abortion in Eastern Europe and Japan once contraception became legal.
Proven beyond al doubts.
The problem in the US and Western Europe is that contraception and abortion became legal at the same time creating the birth control at all cost mentality that leads to abortion.
In countries were abortion was legal before contraception became available and in countries were abortion was made ilegal or restricted but contraception remained legal the fall in the number of abortions was clear, in the hundred of thousands once contraception became available.
That is worth paying attention.

I betcha the cold beer of your choice that the studies that portray this effect do not consider RU486 or “emergency contraception” as abortions for the purpose of their calculations. While certainly not all applications of the morning-after-pill do their work AFTER fertilization, a fair number sure do.

If I’m right, this is just plain manipulation of definitions, not an actual reduction in abortions.

 

[1234]

I’ll ignore the stuff about the blogs and having a life because that is just cheap ad hominem. By this women-have-the-babies logic, only murderers could sit on a jury for capital cases. Reason and moral law don’t work like that.

No, it’s not ad hominem. It’s not directed at you. It’s mainly directed at posters at the other forum, but it’s also a commentary on who’s posting on the topics that control women.

Most of the posters are men.

 

[jmcrae]

No, it’s not ad hominem. It’s not directed at you. It’s mainly directed at posters at the other forum, but it’s also a commentary on who’s posting on the topics that control women.

Most of the posters are men.

How do you know?

 

[1234]

Are you reading and understanding the definition of “barrier”? Both NFP and non-abortive ABC uses barriers, just different kinds.

I do not understand your analogy. There is no barrier in your analogy; the timing you are speaking of is not being used as a barrier.

If I am not married and in love and have sex with the one I love and a child is born, it is a beautiful thing, but we have objectively sinned.

If I wait until I am married and have sex with my wife that I love and a child is born, it is a beautiful thing, and we have glorified God.

If we are practising NFP for the right reasons and our “timing” fails and a child is born, it is a beautiful thing, and we have glorified God.

If we are practising NFP for the wrong reasons and our “timing” is correct and a child is not born, we have sinned.

If we are practising NFP for the wrong reasons and our “timing” fails and a child is born, it is a beautiful thing, and we have glorified God, but we have still sinned.

I’ve probably introduced too may “ifs”.

I love the Catholic preoccupation with SIN–right reasons NFP is OK apparently , but practice NFP for the wrong reasons, and you SIN, even with NFP!!

A longitudinal study was done in England of children born after the mother had scheduled an abortion, but for some reason, did not have it performed. A high percentage of these children as adults were in jail, were felons, were mentally ill. I don’t think that their mothers felt that they had ‘glorified God’ by having these unwanted babies.

 

[jmcrae]

I love the Catholic preoccupation with SIN–right reasons NFP is OK apparently , but practice NFP for the wrong reasons, and you SIN, even with NFP!!

A longitudinal study was done in England of children born after the mother had scheduled an abortion, but for some reason, did not have it performed. A high percentage of these children as adults were in jail, were felons, were mentally ill. I don’t think that their mothers felt that they had ‘glorified God’ by having these unwanted babies.

So, why don’t we just go ahead and kill these useless people now?

(Why is it legal to kill them before they were born, and before they had ever committed any crimes, but it is not legal to kill them now that they have turned out to be criminals? Does anyone besides me sense a kind of insanity, in that?)