Poll on contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What the Pope is talking about here is when say for instance a woman has a cancerous mass. The act is not contraceptive (when good circumstances outweighing the bad) if the doctor where to perform a hysterectomy. It’s not a direct, foreseeable, act against life (as chemical contraception is.) It’s a removal of a mass that includes a woman’s reproductive parts.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
And since some posters believe the pill can be used (and marital relations can occur) under some circumstances than why not all, even minor ones, and believe me the contraception doctors are prescribing the pill “off the hook.”
Click to expand...
No, posters here are ascribing to Church teachings. You’re deciding what you want to do. Don’t condemn others for going along with the Church. You do you, mate.
 
This is still your own teaching. I have yet to aee a Church document where it says one can use chemical abortifacient contraception and have marital relations?

The Church teaching stands on th side of life and procreative marital acts. Keep promoting abortifacient contraception(with the marital act) and more prenatal babies will be killed and more and more non procreative marital acts will occur. It’s just that simple.
 
You made that up. I still have yet to see teaching saying you cannot.

Post it and we’ll talk. I’m exercising common sense - and agreeing with a deacon - as HV doesn’t say “no in this case you cannot”.
 
Emergency contraception in the case of rape is permitted if the rape occurred before ovulation in order to prevent ovulation. Taken after ovulation it could prevent implantation.

Rape is a violent act. It isn’t a unitive act. A rape victim isn’t bound to procreate with her attacker.
 
I actually wonder how likely a break through ovulation can occur while on the pill ( if taken correctly), combined with fertilization.

I’ve done NFP and knew what fertile mucus looked like. I never had fertile mucus on the pill. :woman_shrugging:t2:
 
That’s why if taken correctly the Pill has an amazingly high success rate.

It essentially makes the ovaries dormant. Release of an egg occurs when women don’t take it like they should.
 
Last edited:
If there was a drug that guaranteed all fertilized eggs implanted, would you believe women are morally obligated to take it?
 
Last edited:
Contraception can be taken after a rape such as a non abortifacient spermicide. But that act is against the rape, not contraception per se. Abortifacient contraception cannot be used after a rape since it can kill a concieved child.
 
I don’t believe so but it may be useful for those that are struggling to have babies.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Contraception can be taken after a rape such as a non abortifacient spermicide.
Click to expand...
What?

That is not how that works. Where did you get that idea?

Spermicide doesn’t work that way. Post rape it’s waaaaayy too late for that. Spermicides are used prior to sexual activity to prevent pregnancy (and they don’t work very well). They’re not used after any sort of intercourse - consensual or rape.

Plan B is not contraception in the same way as OCPs.
 
Last edited:
I meant to say and used an example of intervention that is non abotifacient. Not sure what could be used.
 
Nothing. There is nothing but Plan B.

There’s also nothing unitive about rape, either.
 
Last edited:
You have no way of knowing what’s going on in that person’s uterus.

You cannot tell if she has ovulated or not.

This is where I draw the line. Thank God I have never been violently raped.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
While charitable discussion of the theological and practical “contradictions” we all observe in particular cases seems acceptable this public poll is somewhat political and a step too far I suggest… Polls with yes/no type answers leave little room for balanced discussion being vague and not anchored to a particular scenario which can be objectively analysed… Nor is the question clear… Does it refer to: “contraceptive acts” OR “medical contracepting”? … But that’s just me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have not voted because the options cannot adequately represent Church Teaching.

Its morally acceptable to use contraception for medical reasons, while using contraception between husband and wife for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is wrong.

Sex outside of Marriage is already a serious sin, so contraception in fornication is moot. That would be like asking the Church if its ok to kill someone with a banned weapon, and maybe the Church would say, “Yes use the illegal gun instead of the legal bomb since less damage would occur.”
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
I’m not Catholic, so did not want to invalidate your poll responses.

In any case, my preferred answer is not included:

“Contraception is, itself, a neutral thing. Whether it is used morally or not, depends on the context.”
Click to expand...
And this is the source of endless confusion.
Contra-ception is never morally neutral.

Everyone…
substances are morally neutral.
Acts can be morally evaluated.

Contra-ception is an act, not a substance.
 
Absolutely agreed.

One can be against axe murder, but still use Grandpa’s Fiskars to split wood.
 
goout said:
And this is the source of endless confusion.

Contra-ception is never morally neutral.

Everyone…

substances are morally neutral.

Acts can be morally evaluated.

Contra-ception is an act, not a substance.
Click to expand...
Perhaps confusing for Catholics. I’m not one. And do not subscribe to Aristotelian physics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top