(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.
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.