Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

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 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: So, what about barrier methods? Do those show a disregard for human life? I admit hormonal cont...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:

So, what about barrier methods? Do those show a disregard for human life? I admit hormonal contraception pushes the envelope as it is unclear how often, if ever, it really acts as an abortifacient, and if it does, is that the same as abortion? Obviously, the better idea is just not to use it - but when it comes to the larger pro-life movement, I respectfully disagree in that I see it as creating an uncessary distraction since it is always going to remain legal.

Now in the case of barrier methods, those are clearly just contraceptives. Are they still the moral equivalent of abortion? Yes, married couples should just use NFP. But, if protestants were ok with barrier methods and decided to come out against the pill, would we then just agree to disagree on contraception and focus our attention on speaking out against abortion?

--hide--

Patrick barrier methods are in no way abortifacient, the act to prevent the conception in the first place by keeping all the parts apart from each other so to speak. The methods that should be included in the abortion debate are all abortificients and these include the pill as well as nuva rings and most importantly intrauterine devises both with and without hormones, as these all cause the death of the embryo by prohibiting from implanting in the uterine lining.

If you consider life beginning at conception which is the moment of fertilization and the moment when an entirely new creation is born then yes these are the same as the abortion of a six week or twelve week or sixteen week pregnancy. there is no difference, interrupting the development at two or three days is no different than interrupting it at sixteen weeks.

Apr 11th 2013 new

If your talking about a purely political perspective for the goal of banning abortion you may have a point.

But from a fully Catholic perspective we are trying to fight agains the whole contraceptive mentality of which abortion is a violent branch. But you have the broken families, divorce, and all sorts of emotional havoc that recreational sex has caused. Pro life isn't just necessarily being against abortion but about protecting the complete dignity of all humans born and unborn.


And when I think about how many Catholics and christians don't think contraception is wrong is even more reason why we should promote the theology behind what we believe.

Apr 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Joseph-903200 said: If your talking about a purely political perspective for the goal of banning abortion you may ha...
(Quote) Joseph-903200 said:

If your talking about a purely political perspective for the goal of banning abortion you may have a point.

But from a fully Catholic perspective we are trying to fight agains the whole contraceptive mentality of which abortion is a violent branch. But you have the broken families, divorce, and all sorts of emotional havoc that recreational sex has caused. Pro life isn't just necessarily being against abortion but about protecting the complete dignity of all humans born and unborn.


And when I think about how many Catholics and christians don't think contraception is wrong is even more reason why we should promote the theology behind what we believe.

--hide--

Well said Joseph.

Apr 12th 2013 new

(Quote) Lauren-927923 said: Patrick barrier methods are in no way abortifacient, the act to prevent the conception ...
(Quote) Lauren-927923 said:

Patrick barrier methods are in no way abortifacient, the act to prevent the conception in the first place by keeping all the parts apart from each other so to speak. The methods that should be included in the abortion debate are all abortificients and these include the pill as well as nuva rings and most importantly intrauterine devises both with and without hormones, as these all cause the death of the embryo by prohibiting from implanting in the uterine lining.

If you consider life beginning at conception which is the moment of fertilization and the moment when an entirely new creation is born then yes these are the same as the abortion of a six week or twelve week or sixteen week pregnancy. there is no difference, interrupting the development at two or three days is no different than interrupting it at sixteen weeks.

--hide--



I would disagree somewhat in that the later an abortion is performed, the more gruesome the procedure is and the more potential suffering the baby has to endure. Both early term and later term abortions are both murder, but like some murders, some are more brutal and horrific in nature. I think with hormonal contraception is it a morally grey area for some people in that they feel they are simply trying to prevent a pregnancy - rather than cause an abortion. It is unclear how often the pill actually acts as an abortifacient. Also, there are some people who feel that life doesn't really begin until implantation. I think they are mistaken but I try to understand their perspective.

I have always seen contraception as more of a "catholic" issue in that very few non-catholics see anything wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the negative side effects of the pill with non catholics. As for me, I just try to focus more of my attention on abortion as I feel that is something that catholics and protestants can both equally condemn and seek to outlaw. If you could look at the thread on facebook - you would see how divisive contraception is in the the pro-life movement. I just want us all to get along.

Apr 12th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: I would disagree somewhat in that the later an abortion is performed, the more grue...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:




I would disagree somewhat in that the later an abortion is performed, the more gruesome the procedure is and the more potential suffering the baby has to endure. Both early term and later term abortions are both murder, but like some murders, some are more brutal and horrific in nature. I think with hormonal contraception is it a morally grey area for some people in that they feel they are simply trying to prevent a pregnancy - rather than cause an abortion. It is unclear how often the pill actually acts as an abortifacient. Also, there are some people who feel that life doesn't really begin until implantation. I think they are mistaken but I try to understand their perspective.

I have always seen contraception as more of a "catholic" issue in that very few non-catholics see anything wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the negative side effects of the pill with non catholics. As for me, I just try to focus more of my attention on abortion as I feel that is something that catholics and protestants can both equally condemn and seek to outlaw. If you could look at the thread on facebook - you would see how divisive contraception is in the the pro-life movement. I just want us all to get along.

--hide--

Hi Patrick,

I understand your concern. Whether or not the pill's tertiary function of creating an inhospitable womb thus preventing the implantation of an embryo is or is not measurable, the fact is that is its function, that in itself makes it inappropriate for us. I only partially agree regarding the gruesomeness of abortion, even very early term losses can be exceptionally horrific. Hormonal brth control is a catholic problem today but contraception period was a Christian matter until the 1930 Lambeth Conference permitted it where there was a serious moral reason to limit or abstain from children and where abstinence itself was not possible, and its acceptance has continued to increase since that point.

I also know that many people are unaware of the abortifacient effect or potential if you would rather of hormonal birth control. Intrauterine devices period are abortifacient. Many people might have no issue with preventing ovulation but would be horrified to think that they caused the loss of a conceived child. Quibbling over when life begins or whether or not we can determine how often the abortifacient effect is brought into play are ways of mitigating or minimizing the impact of the action. The fact is it has that potential and so should be avoided on moral grounds. I might add these same arguments have been had between moral theologians, literally for centuries, as science advances and our understanding of development etc increase and become more refined so do the answers to some of these questions: at one point it was argued quickening was the time of ensoulment, today we know that at the moment of conception an entirely new creation has occurred which by its exquisite design is set to protect itself and develop as it is genetically programmed to do. The corpeus luteum releases hormones to keep the womb from shedding its lining and the placenta takes over after its development. Immediately the embryo is communicating through hormonal connections with the mother. At one time the argument was made that it had to be at least 14 days post conception because up until that time twinning could occur. The fact is twinning can occur from the very first fewe replications and the nearer to the two week mark the higher the incidence of conjoined twins.

It is true that the definition of when life begins is crucial to which camp one will belong to on the issue of the use of abortifacients or the potential for the pill to be abortifacient. If one accepts that life begins at the moment of conception then these methods are not acceptable based on that. If the person rejects conception as the point at which life begins then they can justify the use of abortifacient methods.

This is such a deep, multilayered conversation, for example, we should discuss the contraceptive mentality, the efficacy of means chosen, the responsibilities of both spouses to be involved in this decision, the error of selfishness in the conjugal act, what exactly does openness to life mean. . . etc etc.

We humans are great justifiers and by compartmentalizing these issues instead of viewing them as an integrated and interwoven fabric of thse same issues we allow ourselves to slip into justifying and by decoupling issues from one another we attempt to minimize their severity or impact on the whole. I applaud your desire to see Protestants and Catholics work together to end abortion. there is in my thinking a logical disconnect when we attempt to downplay the potential abortifacient action of artificial hormonal birthcontrol, especially when there are other alternatives which are not morally objectionable or potentially abortifacient. If you accept a moral absolute -- life begins at conception and is sacred and to be protected -- then all actions that jeopardize that are in opposition to the moral absolute and all actions have to be measured against that.

I'm tired it has been a long week so forgive me if that rambles too much. I would also add that all murder is horrific no matter what form it takes. and regardless of what suffering or pain is inflicted in the process.

Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: I would disagree somewhat in that the later an abortion is performed, the more grue...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:




I would disagree somewhat in that the later an abortion is performed, the more gruesome the procedure is and the more potential suffering the baby has to endure. Both early term and later term abortions are both murder, but like some murders, some are more brutal and horrific in nature. I think with hormonal contraception is it a morally grey area for some people in that they feel they are simply trying to prevent a pregnancy - rather than cause an abortion. It is unclear how often the pill actually acts as an abortifacient. Also, there are some people who feel that life doesn't really begin until implantation. I think they are mistaken but I try to understand their perspective.

I have always seen contraception as more of a "catholic" issue in that very few non-catholics see anything wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the negative side effects of the pill with non catholics. As for me, I just try to focus more of my attention on abortion as I feel that is something that catholics and protestants can both equally condemn and seek to outlaw. If you could look at the thread on facebook - you would see how divisive contraception is in the the pro-life movement. I just want us all to get along.

--hide--


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

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--

perhaps you are correct in this Patrick. I don't think I've ever had the conversation with a Protestant but I have had it with lots of Catholics.

Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Lauren-927923 said: perhaps you are correct in this Patrick. I don't think I've ever had the conver...
(Quote) Lauren-927923 said:

perhaps you are correct in this Patrick. I don't think I've ever had the conversation with a Protestant but I have had it with lots of Catholics.

--hide--

To an extent I have to agree with Patrick.

The majority of people who call themselves Catholic believe in Contraception while they are probably against abortion.

If we can't even succeed in convincing Catholics on the Contraception issue, we can hardly expect Protestants and other religions who accept it to listen to us.

So maybe it makes more sense to work with the issue we agree on, while we work on our fellow Catholics on the Contraception issue.

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--

You've set up a false dichotomy: hormonal contraceptives also cause abortions

I saw a very profound statement some time ago: a priest (I wish I could remember who) opined that contraception is worse than abortion because when an abortion occurs the soul of the infant, being free of personal sin, will spend eternity in happiness; contraception thwarts the creation of a soul that should have been.

Apr 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: You've set up a false dichotomy: hormonal contraceptives also cause abortions ...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

You've set up a false dichotomy: hormonal contraceptives also cause abortions

I saw a very profound statement some time ago: a priest (I wish I could remember who) opined that contraception is worse than abortion because when an abortion occurs the soul of the infant, being free of personal sin, will spend eternity in happiness; contraception thwarts the creation of a soul that should have been.

--hide--



I thought I acknowledged that the pill can act as an abortifacient. If that is the priest's opinion, I respect that. When it comes to contraception, we all hav to examine out consciences. For the 10th time, I do NOT support contraception. Although, I would respectfully disagree that the prevention of a creation of life is not on the same moral playing field as murder. But, that is me - whatever others feel, others feel.

Posts 11 - 20 of 27