Maternal Mortality rate and the morality of contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter svoboda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MikeinSD:
Actually that is pretty easy to answer.
Click to expand...
Actually, you didn’t answer it at all. Why can’t non-Christian Africans murder HIV/AIDS positive non-Christian Africans to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS? Why would that be wrong? Christians say it’s because murder is wrong - why should Africans listen?

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
ReformedCatholic:
Also, the concept as God as the “heavy” and talk of fire and brimstone and hell has always filled the pews. You need the OT for that. I also have a problem with the idea of Original Sin which comes from there. I have never seen a baby and thought “you vile sinner!” LOL
Click to expand...
  1. Christ spoke more about Hell than He did about Heaven. Go buy a Bible and read it. If you don’t have the money, here’s a link.
  2. You don’t understand the Church’s teaching on Original Sin. Go buy a Catechism and read it. If you don’t have the money, here’s a link. For OS, start around Chapter 400. Here’s a taste:
It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
Click to expand...
As for Catholic theology, don’t try this at home without a helmet - you’ll do yourself more harm than good. Leave it to the professionals (i.e., the Magisterium, a.k.a. those whom Christ left in charge of His flock), and read what they have to say.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
ReformedCatholic:
Are you talking about the sperm cells? Or the ovum? A baby does not make until the two shall meet. Contraception prevents that from happening. Hence, no baby and no killing. How does one kill what does not yet exist?
Click to expand...
The pill works primarily by two methods - preventing ovulation and hardening the walls of the uterus to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The second is an abortion. Here’s a link to help explain. I believe, however, that you’re refering only to condoms, right? It’s helpful to be specific when talking about ABC.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
You: It is irresponsible to advocate against contraception because the Church is big.

Me: Non-sequitor. How does this make sense?

You: You missed the point.

Me: No, I missed the logic.
40.png
ReformedCatholic:
The sin of Onan… that must be the best argument for this because that’s what seems to be quoted the most. Being that’s Old Testament which is no longer applicable to me as a Christian, because there is a New Testament, maybe the position is outdated.
Click to expand...
I think we’ve established that you’re making up the Gospel as you go with regards to the second sentence; regarding the first sentence, try reading this. Onan’s Sin is referenced a lot because it’s very explicit - the rest of the verses require you to actually know something about theology and/or hermeneutics to understand. That said, do you realize that for 1900 years ALL of Christianity thought ABC was inherently sinful? Everyone. En totum. It was only last century that everyone except the Catholic Church decided that they could change revealed truth, and decide for themselves what was actuall sinful and what was not - and they did it apart from the Scriptures. Ever wonder why? Of course not. Make you feel any more comfortable about being “Reformed”?

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
ReformedCatholic:
I’m not saying they have ditched it, but maybe they should. I believe the emphasis should be on Christ’s message and teachings, e.g., “love God above all else…” and “love others as I have loved you…” and so forth.

I don’t buy into the “angry God” type depiction the OT provides and therefore I see it as flawed. I don’t know why the Church still uses it as a source of authority except that it may support their teaching on things like contraception.

Also, the concept as God as the “heavy” and talk of fire and brimstone and hell has always filled the pews. You need the OT for that. I also have a problem with the idea of Original Sin which comes from there. I have never seen a baby and thought “you vile sinner!” LOL
Click to expand...
Its very simple - God is perfectly loving and perfectly just. He has to judge perfectly. This is an important aspect left out in today’s catechesis.
 
40.png
svoboda:
I am not a Catholic, I used to be but I lost faith.

All of those are arguments, not scriptural support of a prohibition of birth control. I allege that there are none, but you can prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Where did Jesus say we must believe a Gospel made up of our interpretation of scripture?

Jesus commanded everyone to believe the Gospel that His Church taught and preached. No where did He say to believe a Gospel based on our personal guesswork of scripture verses.

The teaching that has come down from the apostles, who learned from God is that artificial birth control is a mortal sin. The Church did not make up this teaching. It came from the apostles who learned from Jesus.

Birth control pills cause abortions because they prevent implantation.
Families who use artificial birth control have 30-50% divorce rate.
Families who use natural family planning have less than a 3% divorce rate.
Artificial contraception leads to the acceptance of abortion.

Abortion is never accepted in a country until the country first passes laws allowing contraception.

So lets see.

Birth control pills cause abortion.
They cause a 30-50% divorce rate.
Those using them commit a mortal sin.

Those who use natural family planning have less than
a 3% divorce rate.

Why would anyone want to use artificial birth control?

Isn’t Jesus wonderful to give us His Church so that we can know
exactly what His teachings are, and not have to guess what is right and wrong like the rest of the world.

How many Christians who are not Catholic get divorced because they had no idea that birth control pills were causing the problem?
 
40.png
dcdurel:
Where did Jesus say we must believe a Gospel made up of our interpretation of scripture?

Jesus commanded everyone to believe the Gospel that His Church taught and preached. No where did He say to believe a Gospel based on our personal guesswork of scripture verses.

The teaching that has come down from the apostles, who learned from God is that artificial birth control is a mortal sin. The Church did not make up this teaching. It came from the apostles who learned from Jesus.

Birth control pills cause abortions because they prevent implantation.
Families who use artificial birth control have 30-50% divorce rate.
Families who use natural family planning have less than a 3% divorce rate.
Artificial contraception leads to the acceptance of abortion.

Abortion is never accepted in a country until the country first passes laws allowing contraception.

So lets see.

Birth control pills cause abortion.
They cause a 30-50% divorce rate.
Those using them commit a mortal sin.

Those who use natural family planning have less than
a 3% divorce rate.

Why would anyone want to use artificial birth control?

Isn’t Jesus wonderful to give us His Church so that we can know
exactly what His teachings are, and not have to guess what is right and wrong like the rest of the world.

How many Christians who are not Catholic get divorced because they had no idea that birth control pills were causing the problem?
Click to expand...
If I could speak in the name of social science. Correlation is not causality. That divorced couples use contraception at higher rates does not prove that it causes divorce. All that shows is that there is a correlation. It is more likely that people who use NFP are deeply religious and would never consider divorce because of their religious commitment. Thus, in this case, it would be commitment to doctrine that explains low divorce rate not contraception. One could test this by looking at divorce rates among other faiths who believe that divorce is sin but that contraception is acceptable. If one could develop a reliable indicator of religious commitment, then it could be done. This would be an enlightening

In order to prove that that is not the case, you would have to do a study of couples who are not religious but use NFP. If they too have low divorce rate, then you might have an argument. However, I imagine that that number might be too small to be statistically significant.

Kendy
 
One of my best friends is married to a Nigerian woman, and in her culture, if a man can’t have as many children (preferably boys) by his wife as possible, it’s actually a reason for divorce, i.e.he can send her back to her parents ! So…these women, if they got themselves sterilised, would be ‘out of the frying pan, but into the fire’: okay, no risk of getting pregnant…but instead being sent back to their parents by their husband for not bearing him any more children, with the ‘shame’ attached to that…Great idea…not!

Anna x
 
40.png
Kendy:
If I could speak in the name of social science. Correlation is not causality.
Click to expand...
I agree - the NFP divorce rate statistics are not necessarily causally linked in and of themselves.
It is more likely that people who use NFP are deeply religious and would never consider divorce because of their religious commitment.
Click to expand...
It is certainly a possibility, but I don’t think you could say it’s “more likely”. Is it not also possible that there is a greater communication between NFP practicers (relaying fertile times/non-fertile times, joint decisions reached as to whether or not to have children, mutual future planning being constantly considered)? Wouldn’t increased communication increase marrital longevity? Additionally, your “more likely” fails to take into account those who are not “deeply religious”, but rather are “green” and don’t want chemicals in their bodies which cause cancer and infertility (among other harms). Shouldn’t you afford them some consideration in your “more likely” argument? My wife originally wanted to practice NFP for exactly this reason (she’s non-Catholic), so you can’t exactly say it’s “unlikely”…

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Contraception is called the “Berlin Wall” of marriage.

The very fact that one gives totally is the basis. With contraception one withholds from the other.

It is as simple as that. A relationship that is full of giving thrives and one that is selfish does not.
 
40.png
RyanL:
I agree - the NFP divorce rate statistics are not necessarily causally linked in and of themselves. It is certainly a possibility, but I don’t think you could say it’s “more likely”. Is it not also possible that there is a greater communication between NFP practicers (relaying fertile times/non-fertile times, joint decisions reached as to whether or not to have children, mutual future planning being constantly considered)? Wouldn’t increased communication increase marrital longevity? Additionally, your “more likely” fails to take into account those who are not “deeply religious”, but rather are “green” and don’t want chemicals in their bodies which cause cancer and infertility (among other harms). Shouldn’t you afford them some consideration in your “more likely” argument? My wife originally wanted to practice NFP for exactly this reason (she’s non-Catholic), so you can’t exactly say it’s “unlikely”…

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
RyanL,

I am not trying to argue for or against the correlation of NFP and divorce. If you notice, I pointed out ways to design the research so that the hypothesis could be proven or disproven. I have seen these number thrown around often here and read a few articles using them, and the research design is always poor. Maybe, there is a causal link, but it will not be accepted by people who know social science until it can be statistically proven through solid research design. For the record, it would be cool if it was proven, but often the people doing the research are more interested in polemics than social science and thus, neglect to employ scientific methods. Consequently, they do the project a disfavor because it will never be accepted among social scientist with models like that.

Kendy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top