Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Apr 13th 2013 new

The problem with this discussion is quantifying how often the hormonal contraceptives actually prevent implantation. This is practically impossible to do since it is not practical to carry around a camera in one's fallopian tubes.

That said, there are some "contraceptives" which are considered such low-grade hormonal levels that they do not even effect prevention of ovulation or fertilization, or, as a last-ditch effort, implantation. Hence the supposed "need" for abortion.

To my recollection, St. Augustine mentioned something to the effect that the willingness to prevent nature taking its course in the marriage act is the same willingness to commit murder. Abortion is merely the logical conclusion to a contraceptive culture.

I don't think it is a mistake to bring contraception into the discussion of abortion. In fact, I think that pornography, self-abuse, divorce-and-attempted-remarriage, other acts of adultery, homosexual unions, and fornication all should have their place in the abortion discussion as well. Abortion is a specific manifestation of a culture which worships death and seeks only fleeting pleasures. There is going to be no success in healing that sort of world view without complete agreement (i.e., catholicity) on sexual morality.

Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: The problem with this discussion is quantifying how often the hormonal contraceptives actually ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

The problem with this discussion is quantifying how often the hormonal contraceptives actually prevent implantation. This is practically impossible to do since it is not practical to carry around a camera in one's fallopian tubes.

That said, there are some "contraceptives" which are considered such low-grade hormonal levels that they do not even effect prevention of ovulation or fertilization, or, as a last-ditch effort, implantation. Hence the supposed "need" for abortion.

To my recollection, St. Augustine mentioned something to the effect that the willingness to prevent nature taking its course in the marriage act is the same willingness to commit murder. Abortion is merely the logical conclusion to a contraceptive culture.

I don't think it is a mistake to bring contraception into the discussion of abortion. In fact, I think that pornography, self-abuse, divorce-and-attempted-remarriage, other acts of adultery, homosexual unions, and fornication all should have their place in the abortion discussion as well. Abortion is a specific manifestation of a culture which worships death and seeks only fleeting pleasures. There is going to be no success in healing that sort of world view without complete agreement (i.e., catholicity) on sexual morality.

--hide--


Yes, we are all sinners - but those all things that are going be legal. Abortion, God willing, won't be. I am aware that planned parenthood has been known for giving ineffective birth control so yes, they could make money off abortion. I don't know how many women who use contraception would get abortions if it didn't work - shame on those that would. It would be better obviously if women would practice abstinence to simply avoid pregnancy but how realistic is that to expect on a massive level - I don't know. If it were possible to bring back a 1950's mentality to sex, children, dating, etc.... we'd all be better off as nation - but sometimes you just gotta know what battles to pick.

Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: again, the point of my post was NOT whether or not the pill or even barrier methods are...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:



again, the point of my post was NOT whether or not the pill or even barrier methods are accepetable... I accept the church's teaching so I don't need people to keep trying to convince me....

my point is the larger pro-life movement....I just think arguing over contracpetion creates a civil war when protties and catholics should be working together to speak out against and outlaw abortion... I think the pro-abortion movement loves contracpetion because of how it divides those on the pro-life side

--hide--


Lots of great points above. There's no question both are grave sins (but if we were to die in mortal sin based on either of those, I doubt it makes a difference how many times or how "bad" that mortal sin is...we're stuck for eternity).


Maybe we should look at the issue more as "how to approach" each act rather than "should we focus on one or the other" based on a perception of gravity. I agree with Patrick that contraception can't be approached from legal perspective at this point in history (except for our protection against the Health Care Mandate, i.e. legalizing our right to conscious and against mandated covereage of contraceptive/abortifacient agents). Abortion still can and should be. This is largely due to the lack of information, understanding of society. But if we cap the endpoint (abortion), the logical consequence would be a return to couples taking less risk in casual relationships (in many cases this includes contraception).


While abortion can and should be fought in the public arena, the issue of contraception requires much more "personal witness" and smaller-scale conversation and conversion. We can and should engage our fellow Catholic and non-Catholic friends. If those friends disagree with theological premises, remember that approach through scientific truth (health consequences, breast cancer rates, depression, etc.) may be more effective and can lead people to religious Truth/conversion. Additionally, as converted parents reinstill values of personal responsibility and raise children who can break the cycle of "self-entitlement," future minds and lives will be more open and available to "hear" the theology of the Church.


So, all in all, I don't think it's a matter of one or the other; it seems a matter of "how" to fight each.


Is anyone familiar with the book Fatherless by Brian J. Gail? Based on the attention and opinions in this Forum, you may enjoy Gail's fictional account of the contraception industry (the book also follows the rise of cable television and the degradation of family values)!

Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: Yes, we are all sinners - but those all things that are going be legal. Abortion, God w...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:



Yes, we are all sinners - but those all things that are going be legal. Abortion, God willing, won't be. I am aware that planned parenthood has been known for giving ineffective birth control so yes, they could make money off abortion. I don't know how many women who use contraception would get abortions if it didn't work - shame on those that would. It would be better obviously if women would practice abstinence to simply avoid pregnancy but how realistic is that to expect on a massive level - I don't know. If it were possible to bring back a 1950's mentality to sex, children, dating, etc.... we'd all be better off as nation - but sometimes you just gotta know what battles to pick.

--hide--


Abortion already is practiced with the protection of the law...and without being able actually to quantify how often hormonal contraceptives actually cause a woman to abort, but knowing that abortion is possible to happen each time she ovulates and engages in the marriage act while using hormonal contraceptives, one could argue that contraceptives are really no different from abortion in that sense.

Which really is the worse woman:

1) The one, who, with full knowledge and consent of the will aborts one to five children in her life?
or
2) The one, who, in the pursuit of preventing her children from ever being conceived, aborts twelve children per year in ignorance?

My view is that the second is the worse woman. The first woman, with her full knowledge can repent of her actions and be reconciled (in this case, have her excommunication lifted) or joined to the Church. The second woman, never knowing for certain that she's murdered anyone, cannot repent of the grave evil which resulted in the murder of her children, but would be haunted by the untold number of souls she's put into hell by depriving them of Holy Baptism.

All of sexual morality ultimately has to be embraced if there is any hope to change public view on any one transgression of it. It's not about returning to a 1950's mindset on what is reserved to marriage alone, but returning to Holy Mother Church.

It IS most realistic to expect CHASTITY en masse.

What you appear to be advocating is trying to pour water into a bucket with a one-square-inch hole in the bottom, by cupfuls. You're going to waste your energy and ultimately end up with an empty bucket since the rate of flow out is vastly quicker than the rate of flow in. If you read Mortalium Animos (an encyclical by Pope Pius XI) you'll see that what you ought to be advocating is entirely a return, on the part of these people you wish to work with, to the Church...and not cherry-picking doctrinal issues on which to unite for secular purposes.

Here is a link:

www.papalencyclicals.net

I wish you all the best in your pursuits.

Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Abortion already is practiced with the protection of the law...and without being able a...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



Abortion already is practiced with the protection of the law...and without being able actually to quantify how often hormonal contraceptives actually cause a woman to abort, but knowing that abortion is possible to happen each time she ovulates and engages in the marriage act while using hormonal contraceptives, one could argue that contraceptives are really no different from abortion in that sense.

Which really is the worse woman:

1) The one, who, with full knowledge and consent of the will aborts one to five children in her life?
or
2) The one, who, in the pursuit of preventing her children from ever being conceived, aborts twelve children per year in ignorance?

My view is that the second is the worse woman. The first woman, with her full knowledge can repent of her actions and be reconciled (in this case, have her excommunication lifted) or joined to the Church. The second woman, never knowing for certain that she's murdered anyone, cannot repent of the grave evil which resulted in the murder of her children, but would be haunted by the untold number of souls she's put into hell by depriving them of Holy Baptism.

All of sexual morality ultimately has to be embraced if there is any hope to change public view on any one transgression of it. It's not about returning to a 1950's mindset on what is reserved to marriage alone, but returning to Holy Mother Church.

It IS most realistic to expect CHASTITY en masse.

What you appear to be advocating is trying to pour water into a bucket with a one-square-inch hole in the bottom, by cupfuls. You're going to waste your energy and ultimately end up with an empty bucket since the rate of flow out is vastly quicker than the rate of flow in. If you read Mortalium Animos (an encyclical by Pope Pius XI) you'll see that what you ought to be advocating is entirely a return, on the part of these people you wish to work with, to the Church...and not cherry-picking doctrinal issues on which to unite for secular purposes.

Here is a link:

www.papalencyclicals.net

I wish you all the best in your pursuits.

--hide--


True - It is a matter of persepctive. If you want to speak out against contracpetion, abortion and/or both. If you believe that use of the pill is no different than abortion - fine. We all have to examine our own consciences. Most people here seem to be looking at this issue from a traditional catholic perspective, which is fine. If you think you can convert the masses taking this approach - go ahead and do that.

My approach is different. Agree to disagree.

Apr 13th 2013 new
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: I was on facebook earlier and a friend posted how she felt that contraception (or atleast hormonal contracept...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:

I was on facebook earlier and a friend posted how she felt that contraception (or atleast hormonal contraception) and abortion are bascially the same thing. As as a 7 for 7 catholic, I basically agree with this in theory, yet disagree in bringing contraception into the larger abortion debate since it is so divisive. Most people are probably aware that most protestant churches accept hormonal contraception, so I feel contraception and abortion are two separate debates. With hormonal contraception, the question is how often does it actually prevent implantation, and if it does, does life begin at conception or implantation, and even if you believe conception (my view and the church view) is the abortifacient aspect of the pill the same as a clear abortion? As someone opposed to the pill, I am not really sure.

So my point is since this is such a divisive issue within the larger pro-life movement, why not focus on larger issues like the abomination of live birth abortion, partial birth abortion and other legislative attempts that have been making progress throughout the country? That seemed like a reasonable argument, but my fb friend was clealy on a crusade and was not interested in dialouge. Here was her response:

"So, how do you decide what lives are important and what lives are not? I don't see how a "pro-life" person does that."

Ouch. I am not sure how she got that idea and why she felt the need to be so abusive - not sure I want her as a friend much longer. She could have
simply continued to disagree me without resorting to such language.

So, do you agree with her or do you agree with me? By simply saying it is mistake to bring contraception into the larger abortion debate, am I guilty of saying "some lives really aren't that important?"

--hide--


i agree...and it seems that catholics teach birth control anyway ...i am forgetting the name that is used.

but when we do separate the 2 morally we need to separate the rhythm method and condoms and other blockage techniques from those contraceptive techniques that actually destroy an embryo.
Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Tom-112790 said: i agree...and it seems that catholics teach birth control anyway ...i am forgetting the name that ...
(Quote) Tom-112790 said:

i agree...and it seems that catholics teach birth control anyway ...i am forgetting the name that is used.

but when we do separate the 2 morally we need to separate the rhythm method and condoms and other blockage techniques from those contraceptive techniques that actually destroy an embryo.
--hide--



you are thinking of NFP. The church is also against barrier methods. I personally don't think barrier methods are THAT bad (definitely better than the pill), but I respect the church teaching and understand why the church teaches against them. The church only sees NFP as acceptable.

Posts 21 - 27 of 27