So...should artificial birth control be illegal too?

[kage_ar]

The govm’t is going to make trans-fat illegal.

Who really thinks trans fat is more important than the preservation of marriage and human dignity?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Is trans fat immoral? No.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

That is because the law makers and those who support the law makers, and the majority of civilians, all agree that murder, stealking and lying in business practice should be against the law.

But if they didn’t agree, it would be okay to legalise murder? Were Jim Crow laws okay where the majority agreed they were?

I’m sorry, I don’t know where Malta is. Where I live, there is no ban on abortion or restrictions on contraception.

Malta is an island south of Italy. The point is that Malta is far more catholic than where you live, the restrictions on abortion apparently haven’t driven great numbers of people away from the Catholic Church.

But you can’t force people to be Catholic and live by Catholic rules. I don’t think God wants people to be forced to believe in him. There is no merit in that. God wants people to freely come to him.

Not forcing people to be Catholic or believe in Him. That is of questionable morality. Just banning certain immoral things. There is nothing immoral about banning certain immoral things. Are you telling me that He honestly doesn’t like it when we enforce Exodus 20:13, or Exodus 20:15?

Murder is against the law, it’s is illegal. Contraception was against the law but that law was changed. It’s not agains the law now, it’s legal now.

Yes, but you’re not answering my point. Is it only okay for it to be illegal because it’s illegal?

We don’t have a society where murder isn’t legal, and if we do, I don’t know of that place, nor do I live there. And I don’t know of any place that doesn’t have some kind of governing body.

Let’s say Somalia.

I don’t understand how can you make anything legal or illegal without some kind of governing body?

You’re right. Let’s say we somehow establish a government in Somalia. We have to write some basic laws. At first, murder is not illegal because we haven’t written the basic laws. Should we make murder illegal? I’m not asking about whether it is illegal, I’m asking, given the choice, should it be illegal?

 

[Christopher68]

Instead of relying on the Wall Street Journal, could you address my points? Are we, as a society, going to say, “Sure, take all the dope you want. Then, when the dope overtakes your body and you’re a mess, we’ll pay for your treatment and rehab?” How about we teach people to avoid illegal drugs altogether so they don’t have to go through the drug disability process?

We are concerned about doped up people at work because they could hurt themselves and others.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

There are already people who abuse drugs. They do so regardless of the legal status of drugs. However, it is the black market for drugs that has caused so much crime and problems in society.

If drugs were legalized, I don’t personally know one single person who would suddenly say ‘I’m going to start taking drugs!’ I would assume that you don’t either. People know that drugs are bad. But the war on drugs has been an abject failure, and a new approach would certainly be welcomed.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

If drugs were legalized, I don’t personally know one single person who would suddenly say ‘I’m going to start taking drugs!’ I would assume that you don’t either

If murder would legalised, do you know anyone who would say “'m going to go kill a bunch of people”? Probably not, but it would still happen. Do you know anyone who is president? Probably not, but there’s still a president.

 

[Christopher68]

If murder would legalised, do you know anyone who would say “'m going to go kill a bunch of people”? Probably not, but it would still happen. Do you know anyone who is president? Probably not, but there’s still a president.

I don’t know where you were trying to go with this analogy, but it makes absolutely no sense to me. I stand by my earlier comments.

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

There are already people who abuse drugs. They do so regardless of the legal status of drugs. However, it is the black market for drugs that has caused so much crime and problems in society.

If drugs were legalized, I don’t personally know one single person who would suddenly say ‘I’m going to start taking drugs!’ I would assume that you don’t either. People know that drugs are bad. But the war on drugs has been an abject failure, and a new approach would certainly be welcomed.

Ok. How about this. Illegal drugs get out of the hands of criminals. Meanwhile, legal establishments like Bob’s Dope House open up. Bob will only let you buy a certain amount of these drugs because of the ‘use dope responsibly’ campaign. So, you and your buddies figure out how much dope you want so you just send in some other people with the money so you and your friends can get the quantities you’re looking for.

Hey. It’s Friday night. You’re all bored. Nothing else to do. Right? It’s legal, right?

Then, when the illegal drugs that all your friends told you won’t cause any problems start affecting your body or you get addicted, then what? Easy answer: we’ll just pump all that drug enforcement money into treatment. But… you just went through hell, and wasted a lot of time, being high. That approach was better?

I propose avoiding all illegal drugs.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Christopher68]

Ok. How about this. Illegal drugs get out of the hands of criminals. Meanwhile, legal establishments like Bob’s Dope House open up. Bob will only let you buy a certain amount of these drugs because of the ‘use dope responsibly’ campaign. So, you and your buddies figure out how much dope you want so you just send in some other people with the money so you and your friends can get the quantities you’re looking for.

Hey. It’s Friday night. You’re all bored. Nothing else to do. Right? It’s legal, right?

Then, when the illegal drugs that all your friends told you won’t cause any problems start affecting your body or you get addicted, then what? Easy answer: we’ll just pump all that drug enforcement money into treatment. But… you just went through hell, and wasted a lot of time, being high. That approach was better?

I propose avoiding all illegal drugs.

Peace,
Ed

I am only speaking for myself here, but I am a bit of a health nut, so I take great care with anything that goes into my body. I do not use drugs and would never have the slightest inclination to do so. My Friday nights are usually like most other nights - asleep by either 9:00 or 10:00 PM. So your possible scenario would not be applicable to me.

 

[hellopeople]

The govm’t is going to make trans-fat illegal.

Who really thinks trans fat is more important than the preservation of marriage and human dignity?

Well it certainly kills more people than the preservation of marriage and human dignity…and if you had a vote asking if birth control hindered the preservation of marriage and human dignity, society would vote that it didn’t hinder those things.

 

[hellopeople]

Ok. How about this. Illegal drugs get out of the hands of criminals. Meanwhile, legal establishments like Bob’s Dope House open up. Bob will only let you buy a certain amount of these drugs because of the ‘use dope responsibly’ campaign. So, you and your buddies figure out how much dope you want so you just send in some other people with the money so you and your friends can get the quantities you’re looking for.

Hey. It’s Friday night. You’re all bored. Nothing else to do. Right? It’s legal, right?

Then, when the illegal drugs that all your friends told you won’t cause any problems start affecting your body or you get addicted, then what? Easy answer: we’ll just pump all that drug enforcement money into treatment. But… you just went through hell, and wasted a lot of time, being high. That approach was better?

I propose avoiding all illegal drugs.

Peace,
Ed

There is a decent argument for the legalization of drugs to be honest. The amount of drugs used in amsterdam (where it is legal) is about the same as the amount of drugs used in places where it is illegal (like america).

 

[edwest2]

I propose educating people in the art of self-control.

If people consider themselves to be reasonable then they will not need condoms or anything else. They can avoid unwanted babies and unwanted STDs 100% Guaranteed by not having sex.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rence]

But if they didn’t agree, it would be okay to legalise murder? Were Jim Crow laws okay where the majority agreed they were?

**You can’t compare murder to taking ABCs. The analogy doesn’t work. Murder is illegal in every place I can think of. It’s pretty much a no brainer. If ABCs were a no brainer, they’d be illegal everywhere and it would be indisputable, like murder. **

Malta is an island south of Italy. The point is that Malta is far more catholic than where you live, the restrictions on abortion apparently haven’t driven great numbers of people away from the Catholic Church.

**Malta is not the U.S. **

Not forcing people to be Catholic or believe in Him. That is of questionable morality. Just banning certain immoral things. There is nothing immoral about banning certain immoral things. Are you telling me that He honestly doesn’t like it when we enforce Exodus 20:13, or Exodus 20:15?
**
It is immoral to ban laws solely based on religion if it infringes on the rights of others, especially those who have no inclination at all to follow said religion. For example, I would consider it immoral for a woman to be forced by law to cover all but her eyes when in public, yet that is a religious law that muslims swear by and have made part of their common law in muslim governed countries. I, however, find it repugnant and thank God that I live in the US and am not subject to other religion’s laws, whether they want to convert me or force me to believe, or not.**

Yes, but you’re not answering my point. Is it only okay for it to be illegal because it’s illegal? Let’s say Somalia. You’re right. Let’s say we somehow establish a government in Somalia. We have to write some basic laws. At first, murder is not illegal because we haven’t written the basic laws. Should we make murder illegal? I’m not asking about whether it is illegal, I’m asking, given the choice, should it be illegal?

**I answered that above. Murder does not apply in this context. Murder does not apply to ABCs, condoms or premarital sex for that matter. Making it apply to ABCs is purely a religious notion, not a universal one. You can argue about it until you’re blue in the face, if a person doesn’t believe that ABCs or condoms or premarital sex is wrong, it’s unlikely you’re going to convince them. And until you do, it would be wrong to make them live by your rules when it infringes on their rights. Your religious convictions are not the same as others’.

I’m sorry that you don’t agree with me. But you know, I respect your opinion. You have the right to your opinion, and you have the right to live your life by the guidelines that you believe in**. But so does your neighbor. And that’s the great thing about living in this country: We have the right to freedom of religion, and no religion as well. As long as people aren’t breaking the civil laws, they are entitled to express those freedoms. And I am very very grateful for that.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

don’t know where you were trying to go with this analogy, but it makes absolutely no sense to me. I stand by my earlier comments.

You don’t know people who will do x if drugs are legalised, therefore it’s not a concern. When applied to other situations, it leads to “You don’t know people who will do x if murder is legalised, therefore it’s not a concern”.

and if you had a vote asking if birth control hindered the preservation of marriage and human dignity, society would vote that it didn’t hinder those things.

If society voted against the laws of physics it wouldn’t make those any less valid either.

You can’t compare murder to taking ABCs. The analogy doesn’t work. Murder is illegal in every place I can think of. It’s pretty much a no brainer. If ABCs were a no brainer, they’d be illegal everywhere and it would be indisputable, like murder.

I told you I’m not asking about whether murder is illegal, I’m asking if it should be. If every country in the world outlawed Christianity, that wouldn’t mean it should be outlawed. If every country in the world legalised murder, that doesn’t mean it should be legalised. I wasn’t asking about whether it is, I’m asking whether it should be. I can, however, think of places where murder is legal, as long as the victim isn’t born yet.

Malta is not the U.S.

No, Malta is not the US. The point is that having Catholic laws doesn’t drive people away from the Catholic Church. Why would it be different in the US?

It is immoral to ban laws solely based on religion if it infringes on the rights of others, especially those who have no inclination at all to follow said religion.

Why? Can you show me where in the bible or in the catechism it says this?

For example, I would consider it immoral for a woman to be forced by law to cover all but her eyes when in public, yet that is a religious law that muslims swear by and have made part of their common law in muslim governed countries.

Yes, that probably would be immoral, but that’s not a Catholic law.

I, however, find it repugnant and thank God that I live in the US and am not subject to other religion’s laws, whether they want to convert me or force me to believe, or not.

Yes you are. You’re subject to Exodus 20:13 and 20:15. You can’t marry more than one person, because of religiously motivated laws. You can’t keep slaves, thank religious people again.

I

answered that above. Murder does not apply in this context. Murder does not apply to ABCs, condoms or premarital sex for that matter. Making it apply to ABCs is purely a religious notion, not a universal one. You can argue about it until you’re blue in the face, if a person doesn’t believe that ABCs or condoms or premarital sex is wrong, it’s unlikely you’re going to convince them. And until you do, it would be wrong to make them live by your rules when it infringes on their rights. Your religious convictions are not the same as others’.

Person x doesn’t believe an act is wrong, therefore you can’t stop them. Correct? When applied to other acts, this means the 13th ammendment is wrong, those laws against, I have to use it again, murder are wrong, and those laws against theft are wrong. I know you’re going to say murder is different, but why? What makes it different if I don’t believe it’s wrong?

I’m sorry that you don’t agree with me. But you know, I respect your opinion. You have the right to your opinion, and you have the right to live your life by the guidelines that you believe in. But so does your neighbor. And that’s the great thing about living in this country: We have the right to freedom of religion, and no religion as well. As long as people aren’t breaking the civil laws, they are entitled to express those freedoms. And I am very very grateful for that.

This whole thread is about whether we should change those civil laws. You act as if the civil laws are unchangeable or set the standard instead of reflect them.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I think that it is worth going, as the Church has often told the faithful, to St. Thomas for the answer on this.

Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. Thus from the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold, there follows this good–that our very enemies bear witness to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the observance of their rites.

On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous.

newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

If St. Thomas saw circumstances where tolerating as great an evil as prostitution was permissible, I think it is reasonable to assume there might be circumstances where we might tolerate ABC. If somehow Catholics were able to make ABC illegal it would have negative consequences that would far outweigh any benefit.

 

[Rence]

I told you I’m not asking about whether murder is illegal, I’m asking if it should be.

**By asking me if it should be, are you asking for my opinion? If so, yes, IMHO, murder should be illegal. **

No, Malta is not the US. The point is that having Catholic laws doesn’t drive people away from the Catholic Church. Why would it be different in the US?

**It does drive people away, not everybody, but it does. **

Quote:
It is immoral to ban laws solely based on religion if it infringes on the rights of others, especially those who have no inclination at all to follow said religion.
Why? Can you show me where in the bible or in the catechism it says this?

That’s the point. It wouldn’t be in the catechism. Why would it be? The whole point is that religious laws shouldn’t infringe on the rights of those who don’t practice that faith…so why should an atheist’s or a non-catholic/non-Christian’s freedoms be approved of in the Catechism? Why are you directing me there when it’s not going to be there? The catechism applies to Catholics.

Yes, that probably would be immoral, but that’s not a Catholic law. Yes you are. You’re subject to Exodus 20:13 and 20:15. You can’t marry more than one person, because of religiously motivated laws. You can’t keep slaves, thank religious people again.

Polygamy is against the law. So is slavery. You can say I’m subject to God’s laws regarding those issues, however, they are also illegal where I live.

Person x doesn’t believe an act is wrong, therefore you can’t stop them. Correct? When applied to other acts, this means the 13th ammendment is wrong, those laws against, I have to use it again, murder are wrong, and those laws against theft are wrong. I know you’re going to say murder is different, but why? What makes it different if I don’t believe it’s wrong?

**I’m sorry, but murder does not apply in the issue of taking ABCs. Your analogy doesn’t fit. Taking ABCs should be, and today is, a woman’s choice. I can’t see it being reversed in my lifetime. The consequences would outweigh any Catholic-based benefits. But you can keep lobbying for it. It’s not only your right, but under Catholic teaching, it’s your responsibility. So keep lobbying for it. **

This whole thread is about whether we should change those civil laws. You act as if the civil laws are unchangeable or set the standard instead of reflect them.

**Of course civil laws are changeable, we’ve all seen them change. The OP asked if ABCs should be outlawed. My answer is, “no”. That’s my opinion. When you ask for opinions, you’re going to get them, whether they agree with your own or not. And while I completely respect your opinion, and agree that you have the absolute right to your opinion, so do I. **

 

[Timbothefiveth]

It does drive people away, not everybody, but it does.

It may drive a few people away, but I think it helps more in the long run. As you can clearly see, Malta is more Catholic than the US and has more Catholic laws. Mexico is more Catholic than the US and has more Catholic laws. If I’m not mistaken, El Salvador is more Catholic than the US and has more Catholic laws. If the person wasn’t going to get an abortion, why would it drive them away anyway?

That’s the point. It wouldn’t be in the catechism. Why would it be? The whole point is that religious laws shouldn’t infringe on the rights of those who don’t practice that faith…so why should an atheist’s or a non-catholic/non-Christian’s freedoms be approved of in the Catechism? Why are you directing me there when it’s not going to be there? The catechism applies to Catholics.

I’m directing you there because you said that it was immoral to make religious laws. If it was, surely it would be mentioned in the Catechism.

Now,

The whole point is that religious laws shouldn’t infringe on the rights of those who don’t practice that faith…so why should an atheist’s or a non-catholic/non-Christian’s freedoms be approved of in the Catechism?

I guess it comes down to this: Is killing your unborn child a right? Is birth control a right?

Polygamy is against the law. So is slavery. You can say I’m subject to God’s laws regarding those issues, however, they are also illegal where I live.

Should they be illegal? If they weren’t, and there are probably places where they aren’t, should we work to make them illegal?

I’m sorry, but murder does not apply in the issue of taking ABCs. Your analogy doesn’t fit.

Why not? Your argument is that we cannot force anyone to obey a moral law they don’t believe in. Not murdering is a moral law some people don’t believe in.

Taking ABCs should be, and today is, a woman’s choice. I can’t see it being reversed in my lifetime. The consequences would outweigh any Catholic-based benefits. But you can keep lobbying for it. It’s not only your right, but under Catholic teaching, it’s your responsibility. So keep lobbying for it.

I’m actually not lobbying for it, because there’s not a good chance of outlawing it right now. However, I would say it’s not a right.

Of course civil laws are changeable, we’ve all seen them change. The OP asked if ABCs should be outlawed. My answer is, “no”. That’s my opinion. When you ask for opinions, you’re going to get them, whether they agree with your own or not. And while I completely respect your opinion, and agree that you have the absolute right to your opinion, so do I.

I asked the question because you keep referring to what is and isn’t illegal.

 

[hellopeople]

Can I just point out that most people do not consider condoms or the pill to be a problem morally. I bet that even most Catholics do not consider them a bad thing.

 

[hellopeople]

Now,
I guess it comes down to this: Is killing your unborn child a right? Is birth control a right?

To the majority of Americans, abortion is a right and to a much greater number of americans, birth control is a right.

 

[estesbob]

Can I just point out that most people do not consider condoms or the pill to be a problem morally. I bet that even most Catholics do not consider them a bad thing.

So?

 

[estesbob]

To the majority of Americans, abortion is a right and to a much greater number of americans, birth control is a right.

Becuase we have allowed the culture of death to permeate are society. Milliions and millions have died becuase of his. it is time for it to stop.