The real reason for abortion and contraception

[St_Francis]

That is even worse. A “legal right” is arbitrary. And I am not interested in arbitrary definitions. Stealing is stealing, and sometimes it can be justifed, other times it cannot. So much for “if X is wrong in one time, it is wrong every time”. This is just as nonsensical as the reverse would be: “if X is right one time, it is right every time”. Both of these stances would be idiotic.

From the standpoint of moral theology, things need to be well-defined. If I take my daughter’s bile from her because she left it out, that is taking without the owner’s permission, but who (besides some extreme libertaians) would call it stealing? They wouldn’t. Why? Because some acts which follow your definition are *not *stealing.

However, to get back to the original point, which is that contraception is wrong. Contraception is intrinsically wrong in that the act contains within itself wrongness. And, since there is an alternative, there is no need to even try to justify the act.

 

[mwok]

That is even worse. A “legal right” is arbitrary. And I am not interested in arbitrary definitions. Stealing is stealing, and sometimes it can be justifed, other times it cannot. So much for “if X is wrong in one time, it is wrong every time”. This is just as nonsensical as the reverse would be: “if X is right one time, it is right every time”. Both of these stances would be idiotic.

Your theory that sometimes stealing can be justified so it must not be wrong all the time, is flawed. Stealing bread to feed your starving children is still wrong, however, letting your children starve to death is worse so choose the lesser of the two wrongs.

 

[Serious]

From the standpoint of moral theology, things need to be well-defined.

Many things cannot be well-defined. One man’s mildly interesting movie (for example) is another man’s filty and disgusting pornography. It cannot be defined.

If I take my daughter’s bile from her because she left it out, that is taking without the owner’s permission, but who (besides some extreme libertaians) would call it stealing? They wouldn’t. Why? Because some acts which follow your definition are *not *stealing.

It depends on your daughter’s age. As long as she is a child, she does not have the same rights as an adult.

However, to get back to the original point, which is that contraception is wrong. Contraception is intrinsically wrong in that the act contains within itself wrongness.

I keep hearing this all the time. But there is no justification for it. You cannot justify it on the grounds that it hurts someone. It is the act of two consenting people, and what they do in the privacy of their home is no one else’s business. The only moral code one needs is: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. If an act does not hurt someone else, then the act cannot be considered “wrong” or immoral.

Before someone brings up the infamous example from Germany where one person gave permission to another, and agreed to be killed and eaten - yes, that act was consensual and as such it was their business.

And, since there is an alternative, there is no need to even try to justify the act.

There is great saying about the alternative. It runs: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is chastity”.

 

[mwok]

I keep hearing this all the time. But there is no justification for it. You cannot justify it on the grounds that it hurts someone. It is the act of two consenting people, and what they do in the privacy of their home is no one else’s business. The only moral code one needs is: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. If an act does not hurt someone else, then the act cannot be considered “wrong” or immoral.

And who is to decide what hurts?

 

[St_Francis]

Many things cannot be well-defined. One man’s mildly interesting movie (for example) is another man’s filty and disgusting pornography. It cannot be defined.

It depends on your daughter’s age. As long as she is a child, she does not have the same rights as an adult.

OK: My 9-year-old daughter leaves her bike out for the gazillionth time and I take it and give it to a girl down the street.

Or

The kid next door takes my daughter’s bike and gives it to the same girl.

My daughter calls the police. In the first case, the police officer laughs and tells her not to call when no crime has been committed. In the second, he takes a report and goes to talk with the people involved.

And yet each situation falls under your definition.

The thing is that your definition is insufficient. I did not justifiably steal my daughter’s bike while the neighbor’s boy UNjustifiably stole the bike. I did not steal the bike and the boy did steal the bike.

I keep hearing this all the time. But there is no justification for it. You cannot justify it on the grounds that it hurts someone. It is the act of two consenting people, and what they do in the privacy of their home is no one else’s business. The only moral code one needs is: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. If an act does not hurt someone else, then the act cannot be considered “wrong” or immoral.

Yes, under your definition of right and wrong, many things which The Church teaches are immoral are not considered wrong. This is because the definitions of right and wrong are different. I cannot prove by your standards that contraception is wrong; your cannot prove by my definition that contraception is all right.

There is great saying about the alternative. It runs: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is chastity”.

Well, that’s grotestesque and nauseating.

 

[Serious]

OK: My 9-year-old daughter leaves her bike out for the gazillionth time and I take it and give it to a girl down the street.

Or

The kid next door takes my daughter’s bike and gives it to the same girl.

My daughter calls the police. In the first case, the police officer laughs and tells her not to call when no crime has been committed. In the second, he takes a report and goes to talk with the people involved.

And yet each situation falls under your definition.

The thing is that your definition is insufficient. I did not justifiably steal my daughter’s bike while the neighbor’s boy UNjustifiably stole the bike. I did not steal the bike and the boy did steal the bike.

Well, at least I know now what you meant. In the first post you mistyped “bike” and it came out as “bile”… so I was confused. The relationship between you and your daughter is fundamentally different than the relationship between the neighboring kid and your daughter. You, as a parent have different rights vis-a-vis your daughter than the neighbor does (whether it is a kid or an adult). And, of course kids still do not have the same rights as adults. You example is faulty. Let’s not waste more time on it.

Yes, under your definition of right and wrong, many things which The Church teaches are immoral are not considered wrong. This is because the definitions of right and wrong are different. I cannot prove by your standards that contraception is wrong; your cannot prove by my definition that contraception is all right.

Now this is definitely the case. The interesting thing is that my defintion is also your definition in MOST cases. You just take exception when it comes to questions of sexuality. And those exceptions cannot be justified rationally. Here is an analogy: “fishing was developed to gather food. However, there are people, who go fishing as a sport, who throw back the fish they caught. You could argue that these people “pervert” the meaning of fishing, because they do not use the fish for what was “intended” to be used - namely as food, only as an entertainment”.

Well, that’s grotestesque and nauseating.

Our sense of humor is obviously different.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, at least I know now what you meant. In the first post you mistyped “bike” and it came out as “bile”… so I was confused. The relationship between you and your daughter is fundamentally different than the relationship between the neighboring kid and your daughter. You, as a parent have different rights vis-a-vis your daughter than the neighbor does (whether it is a kid or an adult). And, of course kids still do not have the same rights as adults. You example is faulty. Let’s not waste more time on it.

Oh, I can see how that would be confusing; I’m sorry. I’m using an iPod and don’t always catch my errors.

Now this is definitely the case. The interesting thing is that my defintion is also your definition in MOST cases. You just take exception when it comes to questions of sexuality. And those exceptions cannot be justified rationally. Here is an analogy: “fishing was developed to gather food. However, there are people, who go fishing as a sport, who throw back the fish they caught. You could argue that these people “pervert” the meaning of fishing, because they do not use the fish for what was “intended” to be used - namely as food, only as an entertainment”.

For us, there is natural knowledge and revealed knowledge. The first relates to what people who consider reality as it is can figure out as it is based on cause and effect. We see that stealing causes problems in society, so we see that it is bad and discourage that activity. We see that unrestrained sexual activity causes problems in society, and we discourage that. We see that punching people in the nose causes problems in society, we discourage that.

Now, the reason that the deviation you speak of occurs is that your basis of morality is a recent libertarian innovation specifically adapted to the desire for unrestrained sexual activity, so of *course *that is going to be the case.

Unfortunately, your premise is wrong: unrestrained sexual activity *does *cause harm to others, as does people who both agree to form an eat and be-eaten pair. Society is harmed when this type of behavor is permitted, and individuals are harmed even though they enter into these activities voluntarily.

Our sense of humor is obviously different.

Apparently so.

 

[Serious]

For us, there is natural knowledge and revealed knowledge. The first relates to what people who consider reality as it is can figure out as it is based on cause and effect. We see that stealing causes problems in society, so we see that it is bad and discourage that activity. We see that unrestrained sexual activity causes problems in society, and we discourage that. We see that punching people in the nose causes problems in society, we discourage that.

Do you deliberately misunderstand what I am saying? Contraception does not equal unrestrained sexual activity. To equate it with people punching others in the nose is not just nonsensical but almost vulgar.

Unfortunately, your premise is wrong: unrestrained sexual activity *does *cause harm to others, as does people who both agree to form an eat and be-eaten pair. Society is harmed when this type of behavor is permitted, and individuals are harmed even though they enter into these activities voluntarily.

Since I did not advocate “unrestrained” activities (sexual or otherwise) your opposition is like knocking on an open door.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Why aren’t women always fertile like men?

Exactly. Thank you. I wonder if the argument parties even caught this. I almost missed it. But of course this is of paramount importance in the design of human complimentary system. Do you suppose our creator might know how many people there should be more readily than his creations?

 

[St_Francis]

Do you deliberately misunderstand what I am saying? Contraception does not equal unrestrained sexual activity. To equate it with people punching others in the nose is not just nonsensical but almost vulgar.

Since I did not advocate “unrestrained” activities (sexual or otherwise) your opposition is like knocking on an open door.

Oh, I must apologize! I thought it was you who wrote this:

…I keep hearing this all the time. But there is no justification for it. You cannot justify it on the grounds that it hurts someone. It is the act of two consenting people, and what they do in the privacy of their home is no one else’s business. The only moral code one needs is: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. If an act does not hurt someone else, then the act cannot be considered “wrong” or immoral.

Before someone brings up the infamous example from Germany where one person gave permission to another, and agreed to be killed and eaten - yes, that act was consensual and as such it was their business. . .

and since there is nothing in there which would in any way restrict sexual activity, and since the statement even considers that someone killing and eating a consenting person to be all right that unrestrained sexual activity, as long as it was consensual, would be no problem!

 

[St_Francis]

Do you deliberately misunderstand what I am saying? Contraception does not equal unrestrained sexual activity.

Maybe not for every person, but overall, ontraception removes one of the most potent barriers against having sex when a woman does not want to have a child, and the acceptance of contraception within a society seems to cause that society to relax its standards as well.

I am old enough to have seen many of the changes society has gone through since these changes took hold, and they have not been for the good. The rates of illegitimacy and children living in poverty alone cause a lot of misery and turmoil, and the ease of divorce has led to lots of broken families with consequent difficulties for all involved.

People’s decisions to have sex used to be restrained, to have a boundary, by the connection between the activity and the start of new life. It was not a recreational pastime as it is now for many and as it portrayed in the media, it was starting a family.

To equate it with people punching others in the nose is not just nonsensical but almost vulgar.

I was listing some of the things which cause problems in society, not equating them.

Since I did not advocate “unrestrained” activities (sexual or otherwise) your opposition is like knocking on an open door.

The availability of contraception causes people to have sex they otherwise would not engage in. Thus we have much more sexual activity outside of marriage than we would otherwise. This is unrestrained sex–sex which is not restrained by the very clear boundary of marriage, not to mention what one can see in the media, in high schools, in bars, etc.

I am surprised by your indignation against my mention of unrestrained sexual activity–there is no basis in your definition of morality on which to base any disapproval.

 

[Serious]

Maybe not for every person, but overall, ontraception removes one of the most potent barriers against having sex when a woman does not want to have a child, and the acceptance of contraception within a society seems to cause that society to relax its standards as well.

Before the efficient ways of artificial contraception was around, less effective ways have been practised since time immemorial.

I am old enough to have seen many of the changes society has gone through since these changes took hold, and they have not been for the good. The rates of illegitimacy and children living in poverty alone cause a lot of misery and turmoil, and the ease of divorce has led to lots of broken families with consequent difficulties for all involved.

Those were also around in every age. As a matter of fact, society is much better nowadays. Who would want to go back to the Victorian era, where the males had mistresses and the women had fun with the gardeners? The sex was just as rampant as today, but the attitude was more hypocritical. Children were put to work at the age of six. Is that the era you are missing?

People’s decisions to have sex used to be restrained, to have a boundary, by the connection between the activity and the start of new life. It was not a recreational pastime as it is now for many and as it portrayed in the media, it was starting a family.

This never happened. The sex was there, it was just not visible.

I am surprised by your indignation against my mention of unrestrained sexual activity–there is no basis in your definition of morality on which to base any disapproval.

There was no indignation. My moral code is very simple and I already quoted it. But being permissive toward the freedom of others does not mean approval. The optimal behavior in every aspect of life is a balance between the freedom and self-restraint. The fact that it is not immoral to indulge in eating too much food does not make it desirable to stuff onself “to the brim”.

 

[St_Francis]

Before the efficient ways of artificial contraception was around, less effective ways have been practised since time immemorial.

True; the Church has prohibited the use of birth control since Her inception, therefore it’s pretty clear that it was always around. But it was not as reliable as the Pill was purported to be when it first came out.

Those were also around in every age. As a matter of fact, society is much better nowadays. Who would want to go back to the Victorian era, where the males had mistresses and the women had fun with the gardeners? The sex was just as rampant as today, but the attitude was more hypocritical. Children were put to work at the age of six. Is that the era you are missing?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But guess what? Families were still protected then. Do you think that what we have now is an improvement *in that area? *Do you think that single teenage mothers trying to raise children on their own is a *good *idea?

As to children being put to work at the age of 6 (and younger, why didn’t you say 3?), that was completely aside from the sexual mores of the times, being related to economic factors rather than sexual.

You call what the Victorians did hypocritical. I say, first, it was less frequent than it is now, and secondly, yes, people did preach what they had difficulty practicing, but at least they held the ideal and *tried *to attain it. Now everyone agrees that anything goes–are they any happier for that?

This never happened. The sex was there, it was just not visible.

I never claimed that there was a perfect time when no one sinned. It’s simply that at that time, they sinned *less *in the area of sexual activity.

Look at the rates of illegitimacy: 5.3/1,000 in 1960; 38.6/1,000 in 2005. It more than septupled. The rates of suicide, bahavioral problems, criminality, all are higher among children raised in single-parent homes than in two-parent homes–it’s not like raising children alone is a piece of cake. (This is not to say that mothers cannot raise good children, it’s just that it is *much *harder when a mother has to fill both roles.)

The problem is that sinning in the area of sexual activity *produces great harm to other individual, and to society. *This goes against your definition of morality that two people can do what they want as long as they both consent and it causes no harm to those outside the pair.

There was no indignation. My moral code is very simple and I already quoted it. But being permissive toward the freedom of others does not mean approval. The optimal behavior in every aspect of life is a balance between the freedom and self-restraint. The fact that it is not immoral to indulge in eating too much food does not make it desirable to stuff onself “to the brim”.

My point is that your definition of morality is flawed because it does allow for things which you seem to think are bad, and when applied to areas of sexual morality doesn’t work the way you seem to think it does.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include – which should include abstinence education and teaching the children – teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include – it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.** But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby**. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

~ President Obama

It’s a sad day when our nation’s own President feels that children are a punishment. It is also a sad day when our nation’s President chooses to trample on the first Amendment of the Constitution. He is not above the Law, and he does not have the say to make his own law that goes against it:

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or** prohibiting the free exercise thereof;** or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice also how being PUNISHED connects a baby with an STD. Nice connection, right? A baby is a disease which can be prevented through contraception, and cured through abortion. That is the mentality of people who do not believe in God.

 

[maryjk]

A baby is a disease which can be prevented through contraception, and cured through abortion. That is the mentality of people who do not believe in God.

There has got to be a better way to state that. Only because I know a number of people that don’t believe in God, but also don’t believe fertility is a disease or that pregnancy is a condition to be cured. My husband, faithful user of NFP, for one.

 

[Nate13]

“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include – which should include abstinence education and teaching the children – teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include – it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

~ President Obama

When it comes specifically to robbery, the most important prevention is education, which should include – which should include abstinence education (not stealing at all) and teaching the children – teaching children, you know, that robbery is not something casual. But it should also include – it should also include other, you know, information about how to steal without hurting anybody because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with getting hurt stealing or hurting someone else while stealing something. I don’t want them punished with killing someone or getting killed themselves at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.

 

[JimG]

Anyone who believes that the sexual revolution—including especially the widespread availability and acceptance of contraception—has not changed society for the worse, needs to read the actual data, which has been accumulating for decades now. That can be found in this book. You can read the introduction for free here.

 

[Serious]

True; the Church has prohibited the use of birth control since Her inception, therefore it’s pretty clear that it was always around. But it was not as reliable as the Pill was purported to be when it first came out.

And people practised it, because it made sense to them. No one wishes to breed like mice, to get a new child every 9 months. They want a few children, properly spaced, so they can give good care to them. (In those societies where human labor is/was the cheapest one, and life expectancy was short, yes people had many children to make sure that at least a few of them will survive. That is not the kind of society we look upon as “ideal”.)

And in the meantime they refuse to practice abstinence or celibacy, because it does NOT make sense to them. There is nothing wrong with not having children and still have fun. Only christianity came up with that idea. And fortunately even most christians reject it.

Do you think that single teenage mothers trying to raise children on their own is a *good *idea?

Of course it is not a good idea. But it only happens when those dumb teens do not use birth control. You cannot condemn a method for what happens if the method is not used.

The problem is that sinning in the area of sexual activity *produces great harm to other individual, and to society. *

I keep hearing that without any justification. You complain about the results of the system when it is NOT used.

 

[St_Francis]

And people practised it, because it made sense to them. No one wishes to breed like mice, to get a new child every 9 months. They want a few children, properly spaced, so they can give good care to them. (In those societies where human labor is/was the cheapest one, and life expectancy was short, yes people had many children to make sure that at least a few of them will survive. That is not the kind of society we look upon as “ideal”.)

I guess I find it rather odd that it is the supposedly “primitive” people who value children and arrange society in a way that children can receive good care. Our society, otoh, does not value children, is not arranged so that children can receive good care, and in fact, having children is made difficult. Yet children are the future of our society–notice the absence of Shakers in our midst.

And in the meantime they refuse to practice abstinence or celibacy, because it does NOT make sense to them. There is nothing wrong with not having children and still have fun. Only [C]hristianity came up with that idea. And fortunately even most christians reject it.

Except that your form of “having fun”-- but apparently not “too much,” whatever that may be in your eyes-- is intimately connected with the generation of the future of society… so there is something wrong with “having fun” and not having children. I don’t see anything fortunate at all about societies having to import people to care for the elderly because those elderly had too few children to take care of them.

Of course it is not a good idea. But it only happens when those dumb teens do not use birth control. You cannot condemn a method for what happens if the method is not used.

OTOH, abc is not all that effective either. This chart is from WHO and shows that even the Pill and implants have an annual 2-9% failure rate. (Note: I see the NFP rate differs from that normally used… here is an article published by WHO which is clearer on the NFP numbers.)

And I can’t say that having an STD is exactly unharmful, and many of the contraceptive methods do not protect against STDs.

I keep hearing that without any justification. You complain about the results of the system when it is NOT used.

Ummmm, I think that Catholics see teen pregnancy as not the worst consequence of teen sexual activity. We do not “complain” about babies, altho we do complain about their being killed in their mothers’ wombs.

We do, however, *note *that there are problems with so many being raised outside of marriage. It is a hardship for the mothers, it enables a perpetual immaturity for men, and it is not the best situation for children.

We see that there is damage to the soul, to the conscience, and to the psyche from sexual activity outside of marriage and detached from the possiblity of conception. Unfortunately, since our society is not terribly interested in the effects of sexual activity apart from economic factors such as STDs and pregnancies. The one study I was able to find shows something of a link but not causality wrt sexual activity and depression.

Addiitonally, when people have access to birth control which they believe to be reliable, they are less likely to abstain from pre- and extra-marital sex. It is not the possibility of a baby’s conception which is the problem here, but the damage to marriage, both individually and collectively.

 

[hazmat]

first of all, I hate it when christians get sucked into the “womans right” false argument when discussing these topics… The “womans right” arguement is a trap and a lie. The real reason behind these two evils that no one talks about and should more is that abortion and contraception eliminate the consequences of fornication and adultery We live in a highly adulterous fornicating world. Really, who supports this stuff but those who want to have umlimited sex partners or married men/women who dont want to get caught. A world where people are told to have sex whenever and with whomever and no wonder the newer generations usually support these things. Shame on you World! The world loves fornication, and dare a pregnancy should stand in the way of some worldly fun. Shame on you, World.!!! Shame on you world, that a baby is slaughtered for the price of fornicating and adulterous parents… Jesus was not and did not beat around the bush to explain something or to rebuke something. Oftentimes he brought shame unto his opponents. When discussing these hot topics we should not let ourselves be spinned into false arguments such womens rights, but not hesitate to speak the real reason behind these issues. Shame works! Calling shame “SHAME” was an effective tool for Jesus.

my two cents
in Christ

fornication and adultery are sins god punishes are they not? surely, man cannot eliminate all consequences if it s gods will to impose consequences.