Is contraception the answer to reducing abortions?

[mikew262]

Not everybody agrees that murder is wrong, even though the Church thinks it is.

I see no connection between contraception (especially the non-abortive type) and murder. Apples and oranges.

 

[jmcrae]

I see no connection between contraception (especially the non-abortive type) and murder. Apples and oranges.

They are both sins according to the Church, and there are lots of people who disagree that there is anything wrong with them. Fewer who would say that there is nothing wrong with murder, of course, but there are, and I have met, people who honestly had no idea why, if someone needed killing (for abusing his wife and children, or for non-payment of a debt, etc.), they themselves should not step up and do the job; they saw it as a holy calling and a means of keeping order in society - the fact that the police and the church disagreed with them, they thought that was unfortunate and awkward, but they had the same conviction that they were doing the right and responsible thing as anyone else who commits any other sin.

 

[kell0618]

How many unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions could have been avoided by more aggressive policies on sex education and encouraging contraception? It’s tricky issue and I am concerned that we should continue to discuss this.

If you want to discuss it further there is a discussion group at cicerotv.com/question/83

Unwanted pregnancies? Well, I have the answer: Keep your clothes on. As far as I know, there is only one way to become pregnant.

 

[guanophore]

If nothing else, IMO,common sense dictates that properly used contraception would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn, would reduce the number of abortions.

Of course, the Church takes issue with the use of contraception, but I think the premise is still sound.

Absolutely this is a valid premise. Unfortunately, it has not been shown to be the case. People whose birth control fails use abortion as birth control. The thinking behind both these forms of frustrating God’s plan for human sexuality and love produce death and selfishness.

The Church opposes the taking of innocent life for the convenience of others.

Parts of this post were excerpted from another thread where they were off topic. I was struck by some of the content, so brought it over to this thread:

You have to look at the bigger picture. They (Protestants) support it(Contraception) in an effort to reduce abortions. The bottom line is teens will have sex no matter what.

I think this is faulty for a couple reasons. The thinking that “teens will have sex no matter what” is not right. We have taught this as a society, and to support such a premise is to contribute to the culture of death.

Also, supporting a sin to mitigate another sin does not seem like the approach of “overcomers”. How can we be salt and light to the world if we are supporting sin?

The ultimate answer is wait until marriage. But if you are going to have sex use protection. I’m going through this now with my son who is 17 and coming out of High School. I remember those days and the lectures my Father gave to me about abstaining. Did I listen? No. Did you? Only you can answer. So in essence if you went to a Priest and said, which is worse having unprotected sex and then having an abortion, or using protection?

This represents some faulty thinking too. Why must we accept that conception that occurs during sinful behavior must be terminated by murder? why cannot the persons involved be supported and the innocent life protected?

I’m sure the Priest would say neither you should abstain.

I hope so!

But the Priest is also realistic and if forced to decide I’m sure he would say practice safe sex then. As a matter of fact I can introduce you to a Roman Catholic Priest that made this very statement.

Never mind, I will pray for him. If a priest is being realistic according to Kingdom standards, then he would not be overcome with evil, but would overcome evil with good. Perhaps this priest did not know how to help the supplicant to develop a life of prayer and piety, so counselled falling into sin instead? Shame!

. I’m old school though. I grew up Roman Catholic so I take a harder stance on this like you. So does the church I now attend. I believe if we stick to Biblical principles there is no gray area. Unfortunately some new wave churches try to make it gray.

 

[guanophore]

One either properly uses contraception or they don’t. It’s as simple as that. Using contraception and having sex outside of marriage is considered sinful by the Church, but saying sin makes you stupid has no direct connection to the proper use of contraception. In fact, it sounds kind of silly. It may be stupid to sin, but not the other way around.

Maybe stupid is not the best term, but certainly continuing in sin hardens the heart, and produces more sin. One who is making bad moral decisions inevitably makes more bad moral decisions. Keeping company with sin corrupts what good morals remain, and the conscience becomes seared as with a hot iron.

 

[guanophore]

I keep finding posts elsewhere that seem related to this thread!

 The notion, which you seem to have, that sexual relations between husbands and wives should always risk having children is unfortunate. Couples should be able to express their love and intimacy without that. This smacks of the mistaken idea that sex's only purpose should be producing children - and that's it.

Maybe this is also bordering on another topic too, but I found these statements fascinating. Roy5 says that the Catholic view is “unfortunate”. But to me, it seems that this is the way God made it! In studying The Theology of the Body, it seems lcear that it was God’s intention that couples express their love and intimacy fully in a self gving manner (not preventing life). I don’t agree that the only purpose of sex is having children, but I don’t believe preventing life is right either. Is this some of the thinking that underlies the promotion of contraception and abortion?

Sadly, Catholicism and some expressions of Protestantism have demeaned sex. I have a book on the lives of many Catholic saints and the first word used to describe nearly all the female saints is ‘virgin’. There’s something very unhealthy about that. Sex under proper circumstances is a wonderful gift from God and should be celebrated and not put down. The vast majority of Catholics share this intelligent view.

  This same negative attitude toward sex seems to be an important underlying factor in the celibacy of priests. (True, there are other factors, of course.) Without the normal outlet for God-given natural desires, no wonder so many priests have strayed and the Catholic church has paid millions upon millions in damages here and elsewhere in the world. If the church permitted marriage of clergy thousands of healthy-minded young men could be attracted to the priesthood. There must be at least 300,000 married Protestant ministers in the USA at the moment. Yes, a few of them stray, also, but it's a far better system.

There seems to be a major flaw in this reasoning. Is contraception a refelction of celebrating our God-Given sexuality?

Why is chastity or celibacy considered “abnormal”? Did this happen with the advent of contraception? Is the “normal” outlet sexual activity upon urge? I just find myself mind boggled by this reasoning.

 

[jmcrae]

Roy:

This same negative attitude toward sex seems to be an important underlying factor in the celibacy of priests. (True, there are other factors, of course.) Without the normal outlet for God-given natural desires, no wonder so many priests have strayed and the Catholic church has paid millions upon millions in damages here and elsewhere in the world. If the church permitted marriage of clergy thousands of healthy-minded young men could be attracted to the priesthood. There must be at least 300,000 married Protestant ministers in the USA at the moment. Yes, a few of them stray, also, but it’s a far better system.

Statistically, more than double the number of married Protestant ministers “stray” than celibate Catholic priests. Fewer than one percent of Catholic priests have ever broken their vows of celibacy, while something like 4% of Protestant ministers break their marriage vows.

Both are a lot lower than society in general, but you can’t say that a married priesthood would be less prone to stray than our current celibate priests; at least not by looking at Protestant statistics.

 

[Scottgun]

One either properly uses contraception or they don’t. It’s as simple as that. Using contraception and having sex outside of marriage is considered sinful by the Church, but saying sin makes you stupid has no direct connection to the proper use of contraception. In fact, it sounds kind of silly. It may be stupid to sin, but not the other way around.

Contraception is sinful by it’s very nature. Not just because the Church says it’s so.

Another way of putting it is that “concupiscience darkens the intellect.” It means because of our sinful nature, our brain concots all manner of rationalizations for doing wrong, including fubbing up the very wrongdoing they think is ok. So when one is letting their rationalizations for wrong run the show, more often than not “proper usage” goes out the window. So yeah, there is a connection. So let’s get back to the only thing that matters and stop trying to kill the teaching with death by 1000 cuts.

 

[guanophore]

I see no connection between contraception (especially the non-abortive type) and murder. Apples and oranges.

At least you realize that most contraception actually does cause destruction of the zygote, and is abortive.

For the rest, I have two questions:

1. What is the standard of right behavior? Your post makes it sound like whatever most people think is the right thing.
2. What if God did not want mankind to interfere with the procreative process by using artificial birth control? IF that were true, then would non - abortive contraception still be ok in your mind?

 

[brycelaliberte]

First off, since we are not God, we could not reason this out by purely teleological (ends based) reasoning, seeing as we are not capable of perfectly consequenting our intentions. Therefore, our intentions of first action are our guilt. So no, contraception would not be an adequate answer to preventing abortions.

Also, as a teenager, I find it insulting when abstinence is skipped over and it goes straight to prevention, seeing as apparently “I’m a teenager and I can’t control myself.” People with such pessimistic views of me (I blame my generation in general) before they know me kind of put my day down.

The answer to reducing abortions is abstinence, followed by not having an abortion. (In the case of pregnancy) Simple as that, though it still very hard to make people realize that since they would rather have convenience than what is right once they’ve rationalized it to themselves that it’s okay.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

At least you realize that most contraception actually does cause destruction of the zygote, and is abortive.

Something that is seldome mentioned!

Non-barrier methods of contraception commonly are chemical abortifacients…

Conception is not contravened - gestation is.

One may argue that some “contraception” actually only increases abortion. It just does so chemically.

 

[RWMorris]

How many unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions could have been avoided by more aggressive policies on sex education…

DO - NOT - HAVE - SEX - OUTSIDE - OF - MARRIAGE. There, we’ve been educated. How much more aggressive do we have to be?

…and encouraging contraception? It’s tricky issue and I am concerned that we should continue to discuss this.

There have been about 40 million abortions in abortion clinics in the US since Roe V Wade. There have been hundreds of millions of abortions since the pill and IUDs have become legal. Abortive contraception is still abortion, you just don’t have to go to an abortion clinic. It is still murder, and one that most of us have been guilty of. It is a shameful legacy that most of us have contributed to.

 

[guanophore]

First off, since we are not God, we could not reason this out by purely teleological (ends based) reasoning, seeing as we are not capable of perfectly consequenting our intentions. Therefore, our intentions of first action are our guilt. So no, contraception would not be an adequate answer to preventing abortions.

Also, as a teenager, I find it insulting when abstinence is skipped over and it goes straight to prevention, seeing as apparently “I’m a teenager and I can’t control myself.” People with such pessimistic views of me (I blame my generation in general) before they know me kind of put my day down.

The answer to reducing abortions is abstinence, followed by not having an abortion. (In the case of pregnancy) Simple as that, though it still very hard to make people realize that since they would rather have convenience than what is right once they’ve rationalized it to themselves that it’s okay.

Well said! Bravo! :tiphat: :clapping:

 

[mikew262]

Contraception is sinful by it’s very nature. Not just because the Church says it’s so.

All contraception being sinful is strictly an opinion (IMO). Granted, the Church agrees with this point of view, but many, including myself am not convinced. Contraception that may inadvertently cause an abortion/or is designed to do so, ok, I see your point, but types like condoms and diaphragms, no, I’m not convinced.

BTW, please don’t give me the “I’m a bad Catholic” routine because of my feelings. It’s been done already.

 

[RWMorris]

All contraception being sinful is strictly an opinion (IMO). Granted, the Church agrees with this point of view, but many, including myself am not convinced. Contraception that may inadvertently cause an abortion/or is designed to do so, ok, I see your point, but types like condoms and diaphragms, no, I’m not convinced.

BTW, please don’t give me the “I’m a bad Catholic” routine because of my feelings. It’s been done already.

Mike, I will not condemn you. I have the same reservations. I know it is a teaching of the Church, but I have a tough time with the reasoning behind condoms and diaphragms being sinful. NFP, condoms, and diaphragms are all “barriers” to pregnancy. In fact NFP, if properly done, is a more reliable barrier than condoms or diaphragms. I do a lot of praying about this, hoping God will “open my eyes”.

 

[KathleenElsie]

How many unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions could have been avoided by more aggressive policies on sex education and encouraging contraception? It’s tricky issue and I am concerned that we should continue to discuss this.

If you want to discuss it further there is a discussion group at cicerotv.com/question/83

I think you have history wrong. Abortions have gone up, way up since contraception became so socially acceptable. Sex as a recreation is not expected to have consequences. Since birth control is not a sure thing and sex outside of marriage is now accepted in secular society most of the failures (babies) end up being aborted.

So abortions are up but so is contraception.

 

[puzzleannie]

How many unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions could have been avoided by more aggressive policies on sex education and encouraging contraception? It’s tricky issue and I am concerned that we should continue to discuss this.
3

since statistics from the pro-death forces themselves agree that at least half of women seeking abortions do so because of failed contraception, my guess would be no, more contraception would not reduce abortions.

 

[hasikelee]

Mike, I will not condemn you. I have the same reservations. I know it is a teaching of the Church, but I have a tough time with the reasoning behind condoms and diaphragms being sinful. NFP, condoms, and diaphragms are all “barriers” to pregnancy. In fact NFP, if properly done, is a more reliable barrier than condoms or diaphragms. I do a lot of praying about this, hoping God will “open my eyes”.

You should start a thread on that! I have never heard the monitoring of a woman’s reproductive cycle called a “barrier.”

Have you mentioned your theory to any scientists? I wonder what they would think about it.

As for the OP and this thread…

Artificial methods of contraception fail even during perfect use. Unfortunately, our bodies want to work properly no matter how hard we try to disable them. Part of this has to do with the uniqueness of a woman’s body. Hormone levels, for example, vary from woman to woman. Yet we are expected to swallow the same pill (Or the same 30 or so pills) and expect the same results? That requires more faith than simply medically monitoring fertility signs.

Furthermore, there are other issues, such as COCs possibly causing early term abortions, many BCs cause severe birth defects, and the numbers don’t prove the theory.

 

[1234]

Hit That Lyrics

Need I say more?

So?

Yes, you do.

 

[1234]

If nothing else, IMO,common sense dictates that properly used contraception would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn, would reduce the number of abortions.

Of course, the Church takes issue with the use of contraception, but I think the premise is still sound.

It’s sound, alright, and backed by reliable statistics the world over.

The combination of sex education and widely available contraception has decreased the rate of abortion in Scandinavia to the lowest in the world. Countries with abortion and no contraception, as previously stated, have (had) the highest rates in the world; contraception was abortion. Recently in South America, notably Brazil, the largest country, there is a huge new emphasis on contraception to try to decrease the very high rates of abortion.