German Catholics allow morning-after pill in rape cases
Quote:WTF indeed.

Are you on drugs?

Quote:  If 10-25% of rape conceptions end in miscarriage

Wait, wait...A miscarriage is a natural event, not caused by people, there is no moral dimension to it, it cannot be part of your moral analysis.  A moral analysis concerns things people do.  Like the weather, an actual miscarriage is a natural phenomenon.  So, big WTF goes here.

Quote:, or even worse, a deliberate abortion, then you have greatly reduced the number of dead babies by avoiding those pregnancies with the licit use of contraception.

Do you not understand what is even being discussed in this thread?  You said:

Quote:The fact is that the Church allows women to use contraceptives for certain health reasons despite the contraceptive and possible miscarriage effects.

So I said "What are the health reasons that justify the use of contraceptives despite the contraceptive and possible miscarriage effects?"

And your response is : Contraception is a valid use of contraceptives despite the contraceptive and possible miscarriage effects because it can prevent miscarriage.

If you don't see how stupid that is, I cannot enlighten you further.  Good day, I will now be asking which color of fishie I have to buy to get a frabhapping ignore button.


Reply
You're treating contraception like an abortificient, while ignoring the fact that contraception will avoid pregnancy to begin with in most cases, thus lowering the number of abortions overall. Sorry that you're confused, but you have been obfuscating Church teaching throughout this thread. 

Those citing Humanae Vitae as being against the use of contraception pills in all cases have not addressed this part:

Humanae Vitae Wrote:Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)
Reply
(03-01-2013, 01:07 AM)PeterII Wrote: You're treating contraception like an abortificient, while ignoring the fact that contraception will avoid pregnancy to begin with in most cases, thus lowering the number of abortions overall. Sorry that you're confused, but you have been obfuscating Church teaching throughout this thread. 

Those citing Humanae Vitae as being against the use of contraception pills in all cases have not addressed this part:

Humanae Vitae Wrote:Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

Thanks for that quote.

However, getting rid of sperm in order to avoid pregnancy is not "therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases", and the "impediment to procreation" is directly intended.

And, the fact that contraception may reduce abortions is in no way a reason to have contraception - whether in cases of rape or otherwise. A good end (avoiding abortion) does not justify an evil means (contraception).
Reply
Quote:You're treating contraception like an abortificient, while ignoring the fact that contraception will avoid pregnancy to begin with in most cases, thus lowering the number of abortions overall.

Finally it comes out.  So, you're a relativist, and that's not Catholic.  Sorry dude. 
Reply
(03-01-2013, 02:27 AM)Burdensome1 Wrote:
Quote:You're treating contraception like an abortificient, while ignoring the fact that contraception will avoid pregnancy to begin with in most cases, thus lowering the number of abortions overall.

Finally it comes out.  So, you're a relativist, and that's not Catholic.  Sorry dude. 
Ahem....
Quote:ST II-II, Q. 64, Art. 7
....
On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life.

I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above
(43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)