I'm NEVER upset when someone actually AGREES with me. I may be surprised, nay SHOCKED in some cases...but not ticked off. :lol:

:thumb:

 

By no means am I expert on birth control, but I do think there is a difference between the preventive birth control and the "morning after" contraceptive. I'm not sure how the preventive birth control could be compared to murder?

 

I can see where you see the difference, but to me both show a major disrespect for the sanctity of life. Both the morning-after pill and preventive birth control share the same quality- they both exist solely to prevent new life from occuring. Whether it is before or after is irrelevant to me. The greatest gift we have from God (aside from when he gave us His Son) was life. Using human means to prevent it from happening naturally (this ties in to abortion, birth control, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc.) is an injustice to Him and His Love.

Don't be silly, cover your willy!!!! :thumb:

How about this question: If we say that life begins at conception, when exactly does conception begin? Is it the moment of fertilization, or is it when the fertilized egg actually implants itself? Or do the living sperm and egg cells before fertalization constitute life, and thier prevention or destruction or removal constitute an anti-life stance/action?

How about this question: If we say that life begins at conception, when exactly does conception begin? Is it the moment of fertilization, or is it when the fertilized egg actually implants itself? Or do the living sperm and egg cells before fertalization constitute life, and thier prevention or destruction or removal constitute an anti-life stance/action?

That's a good question. Someone with a better basis in science will give you an answer (aka- I am going to not address your post, and talk about whatever I want )

 

For me, while I realize the science of reproduction, I view life, childbirth, etc. as a miracle and a gift from God. In life issues (such as ones discussed above) I think the most moral and ethical answers are based on showing respect for the gift of Life. Which is why I find things such as artificial birth control- which exist primarily to prevent life- to be morally offensive.

How about this question: If we say that life begins at conception, when exactly does conception begin? Is it the moment of fertilization, or is it when the fertilized egg actually implants itself? Or do the living sperm and egg cells before fertalization constitute life, and thier prevention or destruction or removal constitute an anti-life stance/action?

 

 

Regarding the bolded...

 

Abstinence prevents a uniting of sperm and egg, so is that anti-life too? Obviously, nobody is going to take that argument. Just trying look at that logic from another angle...

 

And for me personally, though I consider myself very much pro-life, I see no reason why the prevention of fertilization (through whatever means) is any different than abstaining. Both methods prevent the uniting of an egg and sperm. It is not until a fertilized egg (at any stage of development) is intentionally removed that I find such action to be morally wrong.

Regarding the bolded...

 

Abstinence prevents a uniting of sperm and egg, so is that anti-life too? Obviously, nobody is going to take that argument. Just trying look at that logic from another angle...

 

And for me personally, though I consider myself very much pro-life, I see no reason why the prevention of fertilization (through whatever means) is any different than abstaining. Both methods prevent the uniting of an egg and sperm. It is not until a fertilized egg (at any stage of development) is intentionally removed that I find such action to be morally wrong.

 

To my knowledge, there is no Christian denomination around today that will tell you that abstinence within the marital union is a good idea. In fact, most would probably tell you that the coming together of man and woman in the physical act of love is a necessary part of marriage. Abstinence is for those not yet married and those in dedicated non-marital vocations (i.e. priests, nuns, etc.).

 

Since sex outside of marriage is sinful in itself, then any question of whether abstinence is a dedicated decision to prevent life seems to be undone by circumstance. On the other hand, at least within the Catholic viewpoint, since having sex within marriage is a part of the marriage bond and ordinarily necessary for the creation of life, abstinence between married partners may well constitute a moral wrong (and the pre-Vatican II Church in which Natural Family Planning was non-existent would probably agree).

To my knowledge, there is no Christian denomination around today that will tell you that abstinence within the marital union is a good idea. In fact, most would probably tell you that the coming together of man and woman in the physical act of love is a necessary part of marriage. Abstinence is for those not yet married and those in dedicated non-marital vocations (i.e. priests, nuns, etc.).

 

Since sex outside of marriage is sinful in itself, then any question of whether abstinence is a dedicated decision to prevent life seems to be undone by circumstance. On the other hand, at least within the Catholic viewpoint, since having sex within marriage is a part of the marriage bond and ordinarily necessary for the creation of life, abstinence between married partners may well constitute a moral wrong (and the pre-Vatican II Church in which Natural Family Planning was non-existent would probably agree).

 

Interesting points. I never knew that abstinence within a marriage (a.k.a. natural family planning) was considered morally wrong. The present-day Cathlolic Church does recognize natural family planning as an acceptable form of birth control now, correct?

 

Can you imagine what the world's population would be if even this most natural form of birth control wasn't utilized? YIKES!! :eek:

Regarding the bolded...

 

Abstinence prevents a uniting of sperm and egg, so is that anti-life too? Obviously, nobody is going to take that argument. Just trying look at that logic from another angle...

 

And for me personally, though I consider myself very much pro-life, I see no reason why the prevention of fertilization (through whatever means) is any different than abstaining. Both methods prevent the uniting of an egg and sperm. It is not until a fertilized egg (at any stage of development) is intentionally removed that I find such action to be morally wrong.

 

I have been trying to get discussion on this for a couple of weeks. Oral contraceptives (AKA "the pill") work, in part, by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Does this, in effect, make "the pill" morally wrong and, in reality, the same as abortion?

Interesting points. I never knew that abstinence within a marriage (a.k.a. natural family planning) was considered morally wrong. The present-day Cathlolic Church does recognize natural family planning as an acceptable form of birth control now, correct?

 

Can you imagine what the world's population would be if even this most natural form of birth control wasn't utilized? YIKES!! :eek:

 

Natural Family Planning is not considered morally wrong. Catholics believe that sex serves a purpose beyond pro-creation- the unification of into one flesh- but a condom (or other preventative methods) not only prevent life but also create a physical barrier between the man and woman.

 

NFP is not anti-life because it is using the cycles that God gave us. IMO, if God wanted sex to exist only for pro-creation, he would not have given women cycles in which they are more or less likely to get pregnant- instead they would be fertile at all time.

The present-day Cathlolic Church does recognize natural family planning as an acceptable form of birth control now, correct?

 

Yes. But I'll be the first to admit I know very little about natural family planning or its place within Church teaching.

 

Edit:

 

Thanks, CCH, I needed some better info and you definitely came through.

I have been trying to get discussion on this for a couple of weeks. Oral contraceptives (AKA "the pill") work, in part, by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Does this, in effect, make "the pill" morally wrong and, in reality, the same as abortion?

 

 

In keeping with the strict definition of abortion, I believe that, yes, using oral contraceptives can cause abortions. Now whether that is morally wrong, I guess, would depend on personal values.

In keeping with the strict definition of abortion, I believe that, yes, using oral contraceptives can cause abortions. Now whether that is morally wrong, I guess would just depends on personal values.

 

I understand.

 

I guess what I am getting at, is if you (the general you) believe life begins at conception, and that abortion is wrong because it because it occurs after conception, how can you NOT be against oral contraceptives, that keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall?

I understand.

 

I guess what I am getting at, is if you (the general you) believe life begins at conception, and that abortion is wrong because it because it occurs after conception, how can you NOT be against oral contraceptives, that keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall?

 

 

I honestly have no idea. I question that all the time. I know there are lots of people who are supposedly "pro-life" yet use oral contraceptives. I don't know if they are truly ignorant to how these pills work within a woman's body, or if they choose to deny their values in this instance out of convenience. I'm not exactly sure how someone says life begins at conception, proclaims to be pro-life, and still justifies the use of "the pill" as a personally acceptable form of birth control. Can anyone shed light on this?

I honestly have no idea. I question that all the time. I know there are lots of people who are supposedly "pro-life" yet use oral contraceptives. I don't know if they are truly ignorant to how these pills work within a woman's body, or if they choose to deny their values in this instance out of convenience. I'm not exactly sure how someone says life begins at conception, proclaims to be pro-life, and still justifies the use of "the pill" as a personally acceptable form of birth control. Can anyone shed light on this?

 

 

I think the answer goes back to LBBC's question...which (as I understood it) was that he understood life to begin when the fertilized egg attached to the uterine wall. So, as I understand his position, THAT is the point at which it is considered conception. But, I think science itself backs up the Catholic Church's position that life begins at the moment of fertilization. There is a time between fertilization and the subsequent attachment to the uterine wall in which the fertilized egg is life. The attachment is what ensures continued life, growth and development.