I
interestedman
Guest
Contraception is intrinsically evil according to Catholicism. So why don’t Catholics look to ban it? They think that gay marriage should be outlawed, so why not contraception? Why the double standard?
- Status
R
Rence
Guest
I don’t know where you’ve been but many people here on CAF lump contraception with abortion and try to clause that into their efforts to have abortion banned. I think you just haven’t been hanging out on CAF long enough to have seen those particular posts but they pop up quite frequently so you will see them soon enough.
As to Catholics looking to have it banned legally, remember that the US represents many cultures and religions and the Catholic religion is the only religion with such strict rules regarding artificial birth control. Most other religions allow it in many different circumstances. Our laws in this country are not to be based on the teachings of any one religion. We don’t have a national religion. By passing some law to outlaw all artificial birth control, the law would dictate to people of all religions to follow Catholic laws, and this country won’t have that. So it’s really a losing battle.
J
JimG
Guest
It’s true that in the U.S., the Catholic Church is probably the “only religion with such strict rules,” but that is a historically rather recent phenomenon. All of the Protestant reformers agreed with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception, and up until 1930, every Protestant denomination in the U.S. had exactly the same position on contraception as the Catholic Church. So, for 2,000 years of Catholicism and 400 years of Protestantism, Christian teaching was always that it is morally wrong.
But the Anglicans caved on the issue in 1930, and the dominoes began to fall. As they did so, marriage became disconnected from its heretofore primary purpose of forming new families and raising children. The results have been disastrous. For a look at the documentation of just how disastrous they have been, I recommend this book:
A
april32010
Guest
we should.
R
Rence
Guest
I think we can agree that old habits die hard, whether they’re good or bad ones. It took a long time to free slaves too. It took a long time for women to be allowed access to a solid education too. And it took a long time for women to hold jobs that they hold now. It took a long time to establish laws on child labor. And it took a long time to establish laws to make hazardous work environments safer. Heck it took ‘a long time’ for healthcare providers to use gloves and improve cleanliness so that people didn’t die of infection instead of their underlying conditions. So to someone who uses contraception, the arguement that up until 1930 ‘everyone’ thought ABCs was wrong is kind of irrelevant.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Why not ban anything that’s sinful? Probably because we have freedom in America and our civil laws should not be subject to any religious teachings.
I think pornography is extremely destructive to the family, divorce is abhorrent and contraception in any form is wrong. And I think trying to outlaw any of those things would be a grave injury to our rights as Americans. If you narrow the field to “contraceptives that act as abortifacients,” then yes, I think those should be illegal because they kill human life. But anything else should absolutely be legal. We have freedom of religion, and furthermore, we have the freedom to sin.
I think pornography is extremely destructive to the family, divorce is abhorrent and contraception in any form is wrong. And I think trying to outlaw any of those things would be a grave injury to our rights as Americans. If you narrow the field to “contraceptives that act as abortifacients,” then yes, I think those should be illegal because they kill human life. But anything else should absolutely be legal. We have freedom of religion, and furthermore, we have the freedom to sin.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
I would argue that we need to take it one step at a time. I agree that we -should-, but at this point, I don’t think we -can-. We need to focus our attention on getting abortion banned, and remove contraceptive riders from these attempts. There are many people who are pro contraception and anti-abortion. If we just focus on abortion for now we’ll have a greater chance at succeeding.
Then, once abortion is banned, we can turn our attention to contraception, and demonstrate the horrendous negative affect it’s had on society.
If contraceptives did not harm society, the church likely wouldn’t oppose them. However, as we’ve seen since the widespread acceptance of contraceptives, it does have an extremely negative impact on society (divorce, infidelity, etc.). It is for this reason that it should be outlawed, not because the church is opposed to it.
Then, once abortion is banned, we can turn our attention to contraception, and demonstrate the horrendous negative affect it’s had on society.
We are not trying to deny people their freedom of choice. People can always choose. There will always be a black-market for things such as this. Drugs are banned because they have a detrimental affect on society as a whole. By demonstrating this affect with contraceptives, and leaving religion out of it, we could effectively have it banned as well.
If contraceptives did not harm society, the church likely wouldn’t oppose them. However, as we’ve seen since the widespread acceptance of contraceptives, it does have an extremely negative impact on society (divorce, infidelity, etc.). It is for this reason that it should be outlawed, not because the church is opposed to it.
A
Andre1000
Guest
There are many legal sins that we should fight. But most gave up.
J
JimG
Guest
Well, there were laws in place restricting the sale of contraceptives. Usually you could only buy condoms, for example, at the pharmacy counter.
Naturally, those laws were tossed out by the Supreme Court, following its habit of remaking the Constitution into the image of the current society, to save everybody the trouble of passing constitutional amendments.
T
thewanderer
Guest
For me its because the reasons I think that there shouldn’t be legal ssm are not based on the idea that it is immoral. Not everyone who is against changing the definition of legal marriage to include homosexual relationships is simply acting out of bias because of their religious beliefs. There are secular arguments and reasons to be against it.
D
datritle
Guest
no…we shouldn’t. Where would we draw the line? masturbation is a sin, so we need to outlaw that? taking the lords name in vain, let’s outlaw that too. We have the FREEDOM given to us from God to choose to do good, and to forsake evil. if it’s not a choice, we are just robots.
T
thewanderer
Guest
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Masturbation and misusing the Lord’s name tends to only harm the individual, not the society. Contraceptives, on the other hand, harm society as a whole, which is why they should be outlawed. it’s the same as narcotics, prostitution, etc. These things are not illegal because the church opposes them, they are illegal because they harm society. Contraceptives should not be treated any differently.
D
datritle
Guest
INDEED!
S
Sebrina
Guest
I feel that since God gave us all free will, who are we to take free will from others? I’m not saying that certain things shouldn’t be outlawed. There are plenty of things that are against the law and I’m for that. But a lot of us are allowed to own guns. It doesn’t mean we should kill. In most states we are allowed to abort babies, but it doesn’t mean we should.
It’s a fine line between wanting our beliefs to be upheld both secular and religious, but it’s quite another to make all mortal sins unlawful, then we’re getting into Taliban territory.
It’s a fine line between wanting our beliefs to be upheld both secular and religious, but it’s quite another to make all mortal sins unlawful, then we’re getting into Taliban territory.
F
fix
Guest
It was illegal not that long ago. One of the problems with a ban is that some medication can be used for more than contraception. Certain devices are another matter.
A
Andre1000
Guest
But then we should stop abusing the word “Catholic” in the argumentation.
J
JRKH
Guest
I think that there needs to be a clarification of terms…
That which prevents conception need not be banned. That which permits conception but prevents implantation - or promotes spontaneous abortion is, in Catholic thinking, killing an innocent child and thus should be banned.
One Contra-cepts (prevents conception) the other does not…
Peace
James
That which prevents conception need not be banned. That which permits conception but prevents implantation - or promotes spontaneous abortion is, in Catholic thinking, killing an innocent child and thus should be banned.
One Contra-cepts (prevents conception) the other does not…
Peace
James
F
fix
Guest
Even those medications may have other uses.
J
JimG
Guest
I argue that contraception is different than those other things because it destroys the heart and soul of marriage. As marriage declines, so does the family. As family declines, so does civilization. (And having destroyed the heart and soul of marriage through contraception, widespread acceptance of abortion came to be accepted as well. Destroy marriage, kill children.)
Contraception enabled the sexual revolution, and the results of that have been disastrous for family and civilization. Mary Eberstadt’s book (“Adam and Eve After the Pill,”) simply lays out the disastrous statistics.
Or for a more long term look at what happens to civilizations when the family structure is destroyed, read “Family and Civilization,” by Carle Zimmerman.
Of course, no one is interested in the lessons of the past. They want to do what they want to do. If they drag civilization down with them, too bad. I hope I don’t live long enough to see the worst of the results.
- Status