Poll on contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlackFriar said:
Nor is the question clear.

Does it refer to:
“contraceptive acts” OR
“medical contracepting”.

But that’s just me.
Click to expand...
Contra-ception is an act.
“medical contraception” is a vague term, not sure what you are trying to say.
Do you mean to say “hormonal substances that might have a secondary effect interfering with conception”?

Contra-ception is an act against conception, by definition.
 
I see it. What am I to extrapolate from it, since I do not see contraception as akin to murder?
 
QContinuum said:
I see it. What am I to extrapolate from it, since I do not see contraception as akin to murder?
Click to expand...
here it is:

Morality evaluates human acts.
Substances are morally neutral.

Calling hormones “contraception” charges a substance with moral content, which is silly.

My axe is baaaaad. My axe is “murder”.
REally?
 
Last edited:
I already understand the Catholic view on contraception, which is why, as a non-Catholic, I didn’t participate in the poll, lest I skew the results. I shared my view with the OP, in case it was helpful as additional data.
 
Your statement is still meaningless to me, because again, I do not subscribe to Aristotelian concepts such as substances.

In order for me to accept your analogy, I first must agree with your terms and definitions. I do not agree.
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
Your statement is still meaningless to me, because again, I do not subscribe Aristotelian concepts such as substances.

In order for me to accept your analogy, I first must agree with your terms and definitions. I do not agree.
Click to expand...
We are to believe you don’t know what a substance is?..ok

That’s ok, this is for everyone else reading.

Morality evaluates human acts.
Substances are morally neutral.

An axe is not “murder”, and axe is an axe.
 
No. But I do try to show respect for the Catholic position, which at least has the advantage of being internally logically consistent.

I’m glad Catholics are so firm in this teaching. It’s a needed counterbalance to the excesses of our hedonistic society.
 
Last edited:
I understand the concept of substance, goout.

What you do not seem to understand is that I simply do not subscribe to that view.
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
I understand the concept of substance, goout.

What you do not seem to understand is that I simply do not subscribe to that view.
Click to expand...
Which view.?

Is it a matter of opinion that substances are morally neutral, or is that a common sense observation?
Is an axe an evil thing?

Or
Do you not think that acts can be morally evaluated?
 
Goout, I don’t think you understand my position.

That is, how do you convince someone what the substance of an axe is, if that person doesn’t accept your premise of substance to begin with?

The answer is you don’t. Your premise must be accepted first.
 
QContinuum said:
Goout, I don’t think you understand my position.

That is, how do you convince someone what the substance of an axe is, if that person doesn’t accept your premise of substance to begin with?

The answer is you don’t. Your premise must be accepted first.
Click to expand...
I have to push the like button on this post just for the relentlessly creative and inquisitive tone of it.
 
I selected the Never acceptable option but of course agree with the Church teaching that a medication which has a contraception side effect is permissible so long as it is not being taken as a contraception.
 
Thank you kindly, sir!

Please don’t derail the thread with ferreting out my lowly thoughts though. As previously stated, even in disagreement, I do respect the CC’s position.
 
Last edited:
This isn’t a reference to Aristotlean physics. He just means things in themselves are morally neutral. It’s the acts we do with them that have moral ramifications. If you don’t think there are “things” we can refer to, it’s more than Aristotle you don’t adhere to. A chemical that is poisonous is not morally evil or morally good. Acting to poison someone with it has a moral component.
 
Last edited:
And yet, definitions do matter. What he means by substance, and what I mean by it, affects our individual understanding of what “neutral” means.
 
It depends how we define “contraception.” If we define it as, say, the encyclical Castii Connubi does (“any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life”), then it is always sinful.

If we define it, say, as any use of a drug or device that prevents ovulation or fertilization, then the answer is it can be acceptable sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top