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

[edwest2]

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.

That last idea took 40 years to develop. Catholics should take the time to learn and then apply Church teaching. Both are a problem morally and intellectually. If you can’t control your sexual desires - ask yourself - why not?

Sex should be limited to marriage. That is the Catholic Answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Funny ( in a tragic way).

It appears that to many people, morality is both relative (can be ‘different things to different people’) and that it is ‘divorced’ from any sort of religion/ God.

The same people who sneer at having to abide by “Catholic rules” have no problem abiding by their state or government laws. . .which laws, of course, have their ultimate roots in religious law. In fact almost every society with the exception of very ‘recent’ ones such as communist societies has based its laws on those which took their base from religion. Even the earliest ‘Golden Rule’ type of laws did not arise from a ‘secular’ government but from the religious leaders in that society. . .from the dawn of history and before then. All that we know of history shows that the ‘priests’ or religious leaders sought their laws not on the basis of what ‘society’ deemed was ‘needed’, but on the "natural law’ written on the heart, whereby we ‘know’ whether something is ‘fair’, even if by following that ‘fairness’ we ourselves are deprived of something we want or desire.

 

[hellopeople]

So?

So…you shouldn’t enforce your morals on others.

 

[hellopeople]

That last idea took 40 years to develop. Catholics should take the time to learn and then apply Church teaching. Both are a problem morally and intellectually. If you can’t control your sexual desires - ask yourself - why not?

Many people would counter that question with “Why should I keep sex to marriage?”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m not trying to ‘force’ my morals on others; conversely, nobody has a right to ‘force’ their morals onto me.

And the person insisting that morals are relative, that Catholics have ‘one set’ and non-Catholics another, are forcing their morals onto me.

Can’t have it all ways. Either there is just ‘one set’ of morals. . .or there is no such thing as ‘morals’.

Because you can’t have contradictory things both be true.

There has to be ‘one set’ of morals for all human beings. . .not one set for group A and a totally different one for group B.

If you have ‘different sets’. . . .where did you get the moral in the first place, eh?

If something is moral for X hundred or thousand years for all humanity, then becomes only a ‘religious moral’ for some but only OPTIONAL for all others for X hundred or thousand years, then becomes still further a ‘religious moral’ for some, an ‘option’ for some, and an absolute ‘no-no’ for others. . .and all three things are considered perfectly ‘moral’ and correct even though they totally contradict each other. . .you don’t have morality, you have anarchy.

If you tell me that an individual gets to decide what is moral for himself, that person is not making a moral judgment at all. He or she is making a ‘choice of convenience.’

And if you tell me that society gets to decide what is moral for its citizens, I’d like you to explain Nazi Germany or Communist China or the Taliban. According to their members, they made and make perfectly moral and legitimate choices. But most of the rest of the world disagrees. Isn’t that a tad hypocritical? If these groups (and others) are transgressing some ‘higher’ moral law than their particular societal one, where did that law come from? And why is it all right for us in AD 2010 to disregard other laws and claim that unlike Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the Taliban, OUR transgression of moral law really IS legitimate, but theirs is not?

 

[hellopeople]

I’m not trying to ‘force’ my morals on others; conversely, nobody has a right to ‘force’ their morals onto me.

And the person insisting that morals are relative, that Catholics have ‘one set’ and non-Catholics another, are forcing their morals onto me.

Can’t have it all ways. Either there is just ‘one set’ of morals. . .or there is no such thing as ‘morals’.

Because you can’t have contradictory things both be true.

There has to be ‘one set’ of morals for all human beings. . .not one set for group A and a totally different one for group B.

If you have ‘different sets’. . . .where did you get the moral in the first place, eh?

If something is moral for X hundred or thousand years for all humanity, then becomes only a ‘religious moral’ for some but only OPTIONAL for all others for X hundred or thousand years, then becomes still further a ‘religious moral’ for some, an ‘option’ for some, and an absolute ‘no-no’ for others. . .and all three things are considered perfectly ‘moral’ and correct even though they totally contradict each other. . .you don’t have morality, you have anarchy.

If you tell me that an individual gets to decide what is moral for himself, that person is not making a moral judgment at all. He or she is making a ‘choice of convenience.’

And if you tell me that society gets to decide what is moral for its citizens, I’d like you to explain Nazi Germany or Communist China or the Taliban. According to their members, they made and make perfectly moral and legitimate choices. But most of the rest of the world disagrees. Isn’t that a tad hypocritical? If these groups (and others) are transgressing some ‘higher’ moral law than their particular societal one, where did that law come from? And why is it all right for us in AD 2010 to disregard other laws and claim that unlike Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the Taliban, OUR transgression of moral law really IS legitimate, but theirs is not?

Some Christian thinkers definitely believed in some sort of moral relativity. I believe it was augustine that said that Abraham and others lived during a different time so having multiple wives and concubines was not a bad thing.

 

[edwest2]

Many people would counter that question with “Why should I keep sex to marriage?”

100% guarantee for not getting STDs.

Second, the other human being in the relationship deserves the utmost respect and love, and should not be treated as a temporary solution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m not trying to ‘force’ my morals on others; conversely, nobody has a right to ‘force’ their morals onto me.

And the person insisting that morals are relative, that Catholics have ‘one set’ and non-Catholics another, are forcing their morals onto me.

Can’t have it all ways. Either there is just ‘one set’ of morals. . .or there is no such thing as ‘morals’.

Because you can’t have contradictory things both be true.

There has to be ‘one set’ of morals for all human beings. . .not one set for group A and a totally different one for group B.

If you have ‘different sets’. . . .where did you get the moral in the first place, eh?

If something is moral for X hundred or thousand years for all humanity, then becomes only a ‘religious moral’ for some but only OPTIONAL for all others for X hundred or thousand years, then becomes still further a ‘religious moral’ for some, an ‘option’ for some, and an absolute ‘no-no’ for others. . .and all three things are considered perfectly ‘moral’ and correct even though they totally contradict each other. . .you don’t have morality, you have anarchy.

If you tell me that an individual gets to decide what is moral for himself, that person is not making a moral judgment at all. He or she is making a ‘choice of convenience.’

And if you tell me that society gets to decide what is moral for its citizens, I’d like you to explain Nazi Germany or Communist China or the Taliban. According to their members, they made and make perfectly moral and legitimate choices. But most of the rest of the world disagrees. Isn’t that a tad hypocritical? If these groups (and others) are transgressing some ‘higher’ moral law than their particular societal one, where did that law come from? And why is it all right for us in AD 2010 to disregard other laws and claim that unlike Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the Taliban, OUR transgression of moral law really IS legitimate, but theirs is not?

Obviously, some people come here to say morality is whatever I decide it is.

Nazi Germany is an excellent example. The Race Laws the nazis enacted alone are a good example.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rence]

I’m not trying to ‘force’ my morals on others; conversely, nobody has a right to ‘force’ their morals onto me.
And the person insisting that morals are relative, that Catholics have ‘one set’ and non-Catholics another, are forcing their morals onto me.

**I don’t really understand why the decision of your neighbor to use ABC would be forcing their morals onto you. You are still free to either use them or not use them. Can you explain why that would restrict you from having your morals? And can you explain why non-Christians have to conform to Catholic teachings when they don’t believe in them?
**

Can’t have it all ways. Either there is just ‘one set’ of morals. . .or there is no such thing as ‘morals’.
Because you can’t have contradictory things both be true.
There has to be ‘one set’ of morals for all human beings. . .not one set for group A and a totally different one for group B.

**So who gets to decide which morals should be in effect? the Jewish? the Protestants? the Muslims? The Catholic? The Athiest? Everyone thinks their morals are the correct ones. This is how they choose to live. So how can one force their denomination’s rules onto people who have different standards? You say that someone having the choice to use ABCs violates your right to freedom, how? I’m sorry, I really don’t get it. If the non-practicing whoever down the street uses ABCs, how does that effect you, when you in fact can choose whether to use them or not? And if the rules of one religion sets the standard whereby everyone has to live, what about the other religions? The world doesn’t just comprise Catholics, Muslims, Jews and Pagans anymore. There are more choices out there now, and do not people have the right to follow whatever religion, or no religion that they want? And how does one religion being followed affect your personal choice to follow Catholicism when you are not required to follow their lead?

From what I understand from the above pages of replies, there are two sets of people here: 1) those who want the Catholic Church to rule and regulate the laws of the earth, and 2) those who want the freedom to choose without the interference of a religion. Am I to understand you want the rules of the Church to govern all peoples everywhere?**

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Because, Rence, any time that one permits falsehood to be presented as truth, all humanity is ‘hurt’. Truth is always better than falsehood, isn’t it?

There isn’t a question of whether “Catholics” should rule, or atheists, as though there are a lot of ‘conflicting little moralities’ from which to choose. Right there by presenting this as ‘truth’ people are trying to remove the truth before even ‘starting.’

You see, just because I haven’t had an abortion doesn’t mean that I don’t suffer when any other woman has an abortion. I do.

"Every man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind’.

Forty years ago abortion was illegal. Now 40 years now millions of children have been killed. MILLIONS, Rence. Millions of babies torn into pieces, scalded by saline, hacked away and thrown away like garbage.

Millions of women who were lied to, coerced, and manipulated into cooperation with the death of their children.

And that isn’t forcing immoral actions onto me? By God, Rence, it is.

Evil is evil no matter how many call it good.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

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

It may be considered a right but that does not make it a right. Abortion is just the killing of a minority group. If people considered killing any other minority, such as jews, a right, that wouldn’t make it a right either.

So…you shouldn’t enforce your morals on others.

Why not? History will show it’s worked in the past. From the South in the 1860s to Germany in the 1940s to, indirectly, Russia in the 1990s, it’s worked.

Some Christian thinkers definitely believed in some sort of moral relativity. I believe it was augustine that said that Abraham and others lived during a different time so having multiple wives and concubines was not a bad thing.

That is not moral relativism. That was what was permitted by God at the time.

So who gets to decide which morals should be in effect? the Jewish? the Protestants? the Muslims? The Catholic? The Athiest?

The Catholic, of course.

Everyone thinks their morals are the correct ones. This is how they choose to live. So how can one force their denomination’s rules onto people who have different standards?

Sometimes it’s necessary. Have you ever heard of the 13th ammendment?

And if the rules of one religion sets the standard whereby everyone has to live, what about the other religions? The world doesn’t just comprise Catholics, Muslims, Jews and Pagans anymore. There are more choices out there now, and do not people have the right to follow whatever religion, or no religion that they want?

Within reason. If my religion dictates polygamy, for instance, no.

From what I understand from the above pages of replies, there are two sets of people here: 1) those who want the Catholic Church to rule and regulate the laws of the earth, and 2) those who want the freedom to choose without the interference of a religion. Am I to understand you want the rules of the Church to govern all peoples everywhere?

Some basic rules.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Because, Rence, any time that one permits falsehood to be presented as truth, all humanity is ‘hurt’. Truth is always better than falsehood, isn’t it?

There isn’t a question of whether “Catholics” should rule, or atheists, as though there are a lot of ‘conflicting little moralities’ from which to choose. Right there by presenting this as ‘truth’ people are trying to remove the truth before even ‘starting.’

You see, just because I haven’t had an abortion doesn’t mean that I don’t suffer when any other woman has an abortion. I do.

"Every man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind’.

Forty years ago abortion was illegal. Now 40 years now millions of children have been killed. MILLIONS, Rence. Millions of babies torn into pieces, scalded by saline, hacked away and thrown away like garbage.

Millions of women who were lied to, coerced, and manipulated into cooperation with the death of their children.

And that isn’t forcing immoral actions onto me? By God, Rence, it is.

Evil is evil no matter how many call it good.

Millions of babies torn into pieces, scalded by saline, hacked away and thrown away like garbage What you refer to here is the third trimester abortion. The pill prevents the fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus. There is not yet any baby to be torn, scalded or hacked. . There’s a world of difference between the killing of a 6 month old fetus and the prevention of an egg implanting in the uterus.

Also, I have a question for consideration: Couldn’t the pill and vaccuum aspiration abortion (up to 12 weeks, which acounts for 90% of all abortions according to WebMD) be covered under the principle of double-effect? In other words, a woman takes the pill because she doesn’t want an egg to implant in her uterus. The egg thens leaves her body with her monthly flow. She is not directly killing it; just removing it. It’s death is a side-effect caused by it’s inability to survive on its own. In the case of vaccuum aspiration, a woman misses her period and wants to induce a period. Induction of her period has the side effect of removing the embryo along with the flow.

This is a real question not an argument-starter. I have read about the principle of double effect here at CAF and it is why the Church allows pregnant women to have surgeries that result, as a side-effect, in the destruction of the embryo or fetus.

 

[Rence]

Also, I have a question for consideration: Couldn’t the pill and vaccuum aspiration abortion (up to 12 weeks, which acounts for 90% of all abortions according to WebMD) be covered under the principle of double-effect? In other words, a woman takes the pill because she doesn’t want an egg to implant in her uterus. The egg thens leaves her body with her monthly flow. She is not directly killing it; just removing it. It’s death is a side-effect caused by it’s inability to survive on its own. In the case of vaccuum aspiration, a woman misses her period and wants to induce a period. Induction of her period has the side effect of removing the embryo along with the flow.

This is a real question not an argument-starter. I have read about the principle of double effect here at CAF and it is why the Church allows pregnant women to have surgeries that result, as a side-effect, in the destruction of the embryo or fetus.

No way, SugarMagnolia (love that name! ) this does not fall under the principle of double effect at all. The Catholic Church teaches that from the moment of conception, a soul is involved. You’re confused by the medical community, which doesn’t consider a woman preganant until implantation. Which, if you stand back and look at the whole picture within it’s context, it makes sense: medically, when when you go to your doctor for prenatal care, she/he can’t treat you until you’re confirmed pregnant, which is confirmed by HCG levels and that happens after implantation. But given that the Church teaches that a soul enters that lil blob of cells at the moment of conception, that means that termination at any point is sinful. This is why the Catholics on this forum are so opposed to ABCs. It’s not just because they want to be rigid and stubborn. There’s a very good reason according to the teachings of the Church.

The only example I can think of for double effect is when a woman, directed by her physician, is taking ABCs for a medical reason such as fibroids, ovarian cycsts, irregular/painful/almost-hemorrhagic periods. She can take ABCs for medical reasons, that falls within the teachings of double effect. I can’t think of another example, since I’m just a struggling/still learning Catholic myself. But the more seasoned folks on the board can come up with more examples for you

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

Something I read in Freakonomics, I didn’t make it up.

I don’t see why it’s so surprising to you that fewer poor people raised by single teenage mothers would mean less crime.

pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

From the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

The also said, “But one need not oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds to feel shaken by the notion of a private sadness being converted into a public good.” Of course, they go on to affix a value to body parts and relate 100 fetus equal to 1 newborn. The topic comes up a few times and in this part covers a few pages, in which you can see that their logic is faulty and slanted. They quote Bouza, too, who said abortion “arguably the only effective crime-prevention device adopted in this nation since the late 1960’s”. There a many, many variables that were ignored and times changed rapidly during the period they reviewed. I remember.

This book was written as a gimmick to sell the book, rather than a serious work on economics. The goal was to make economics fun and interesting. It worked. I didn’t find it all that interesting, just silly and vapid. You might want to find a more respected source.

NEVERTHELESS this is Eugenics and certainly headed in that direction and even if it were true (which it is not) it still doesn’t justify killing our offspring. If you want to follow that logic, I suppose you’d like us to kill juvenile delinquents; since they’re only going to grow up to be criminals anyway. acchh nvrmnd don’t answer that.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Millions of babies torn into pieces, scalded by saline, hacked away and thrown away like garbage What you refer to here is the third trimester abortion. The pill prevents the fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus. There is not yet any baby to be torn, scalded or hacked. There’s a world of difference between the killing of a 6 month old fetus and the prevention of an egg implanting in the uterus.

No, a fertilized egg is a newly conceived living human being. A new person exists from the moment of conception. A fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, IS a baby and there is no difference between killing a 6 month old fetus and preventing a newly conceived human from being implanted in the womb.

I think ABC should be illegal for environmental reasons. Most of these female hormones are being passed through women and into our water supplies. They are not removed during water treatment. There are sufficient female hormones in the water now to cause male fish to turn female. This is having a devastating effect of fish populations, on which we depend for food. In addition, everyone is consuming these female hormones in their drinking water; babies, little boys, little girls, adult men and women. It is having a deleterious effect on all of us, not just those who choose to take them.

 

[angelerulastiel]

Also, I have a question for consideration: Couldn’t the pill and vaccuum aspiration abortion (up to 12 weeks, which acounts for 90% of all abortions according to WebMD) be covered under the principle of double-effect? In other words, a woman takes the pill because she doesn’t want an egg to implant in her uterus. The egg thens leaves her body with her monthly flow. She is not directly killing it; just removing it. It’s death is a side-effect caused by it’s inability to survive on its own. In the case of vaccuum aspiration, a woman misses her period and wants to induce a period. Induction of her period has the side effect of removing the embryo along with the flow.

This is a real question not an argument-starter. I have read about the principle of double effect here at CAF and it is why the Church allows pregnant women to have surgeries that result, as a side-effect, in the destruction of the embryo or fetus.

I don’t think it would fall under double effect. The point of taking it there is to end the pregnancy. Double effect comes into play when you are trying to treat a condition in the mother, but an unfortunate side-effect causes harm to the baby. Such as if the mother were discovered to have cancer. Assuming it is bad enough she couldn’t wait to start treatment until after the child’s birth, the mother could legitimately start radiation therapy to treat her disease, even though it will likely kill the baby.

If the intent is to treat a condition then you can have the procedure, take the meds, etc. If the intent is to end the pregnancy, prevent implantation, or kill the child then that is not a legitimate use.

As to the topic. It doesn’t matter whether or not abortion is prohibited in the Catholic church. The “fetus” is a human being. Should anyone have the right to end someone else’s life because they are inconvenient? That’s murder, which is against the law. Sometimes under the law the death “fetuses” are already considered murder. In some areas if anyone other than the mother ends the child’s life (especially if the mother’s life was ended as well) it is considered murder. No one is trying to take away a woman’s right, we just want to protect the child’s right to life.

I think that right to life trumps right to convenience.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

No, a fertilized egg is a newly conceived living human being. A new person exists from the moment of conception. A fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, IS a baby and there is no difference between killing a 6 month old fetus and preventing a newly conceived human from being implanted in the womb.

I think a woman who had a miscarriage of a 6 month fetus would disagree with you. Many women have their eggs fertilized and the egg doesn’t implant and it comes out of their bodies without them ever knowing fertilization occurred. Would you tell a woman who lost a 6 month fetus that her loss is no greater than that of a women who didn’t even know a ferilized egg was in ther period?

I think ABC should be illegal for environmental reasons. Most of these female hormones are being passed through women and into our water supplies. They are not removed during water treatment. There are sufficient female hormones in the water now to cause male fish to turn female. This is having a devastating effect of fish populations, on which we depend for food. In addition, everyone is consuming these female hormones in their drinking water; babies, little boys, little girls, adult men and women. It is having a deleterious effect on all of us, not just those who choose to take them.

A condom does not have any hormones.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

So…you shouldn’t enforce your morals on others.

I would say that those who insist that offspring should be killed for convenience of the mother are most certainly FORCING their morals on both the dead offspring and those of us in society who believe this damages society as a whole.

Who is really doing the forcing here?

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

It may be considered a right but that does not make it a right. Abortion is just the killing of a minority group. If people considered killing any other minority, such as jews, a right, that wouldn’t make it a right either.

A Why not? History will show it’s worked in the past. From the South in the 1860s to Germany in the 1940s to, indirectly, Russia in the 1990s, it’s worked.

*This doesn’t make it right, it only shows the depth humans will go in their arrogance.
*
So who gets to decide which morals should be in effect? the Jewish? the Protestants? the Muslims? The Catholic? The Athiest?
*
Protecting the unborn is the humane, decent thing to do. As Catholics, our beliefs demand that we speak up for the lives of the unborn, just as Catholics spoke out for freedom of those slaves and hid those Jewish people from the Nazi’s.
*
Catholics don’t have the corner on being Pro-Life, why do people keep saying it is about Catholic morals?

 

[mamabear3]

what matters is that doing these things hurt your soul.