Asymmetrical Information

Your point of difference number 3: birth control is low-probability, and non-specific. An abortion prevents the highly-likely birth of a single, specific child; birth control prevents the possible birth of millions of potential combinations of sperm and egg, all of which have an extremely low probability of being born. also affects the moral calculus regarding "birth control" which prevents implantation of fertilized ova, and abortions very early in pregnancy. The odds that a fertilized ovum will not implant, in a state of nature, is fairly high, perhaps greater than 50%, and the number of miscarriages in the first 7 weeks of pregnancy is fairly high, too. (It's conjectured that many instances of late or skipped periods are actually cases where pregnancy occurred, but the body "rejected" the fetus early on.)

What's the difference between abortion and birth control?

Very little, according to the Catholic Church.

I've got to disagree with you there, Jane.

The Catholic church disapproves of both, but the two wrongs are not nearly of a similar caliber.

Check out what the Catechism has to say about abortion:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

Contrast that with the tangential, absolutely-no-fire-and-brimstone wording on birth control:

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.[90] Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation...

To say that there is little difference between abortion and birth control, according to the Catholic church, is like saying that there's no difference in the eyes of the government between a torture-murder and signing your IRS tax form as "Mickey Mouse", because both are against the law.

What's the difference between abortion and birth control? Very little, according to the Catholic Church.

That's actually only true of birth control methods that could result in flushing a fertilized egg. The Church condems barrier methods because they can errode respect for life and one's marriage. The result, a ban, is the same for both but the reasoning is very different.

I'm going to take a deep breath here, and plunge in. The logical extension of the Catholic Church's stand on birth control is far reaching, insulting to so many special-interest groups, and demanding the deepest trust and faith. By being "open to life" in the marital embrace (right there, it has to be between a man and a woman who are married) one puts one's faith in God's will and trust that one's mate will be true to the lifelong commitment of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. This means the unselfish human act of total responsibility for the mate and offspring...(no illegitimacy,no surrogates , no abuse, no adultery, no divorce...) To thwart the will of God by chemical or barrier is a sin, as is fertilization by means other than actual sexual intercourse (...again, only male to female, no unclaimed people waiting around in-vitro, no selective abortions ...) "Timing" (the more modern method than most think of) is allowed as a method for limiting or spacing a family, not being a sin if the reasons are righteous and not selfish (that only the couple themselves can prayerfully and honestly decide). Once a baby is conceived, it would be considered murder to abort it, a simple and plain-forward concept.

At the risk of sounding trite, we do know where babies come from. Abortion in some form has been around since ancient times, but has the practice ever been so open and widespread (proportionally) as it is now? Access to the procedure must be greater. Has the "need" been so great before in history? (Should we ask that pillar of salt over there?) ...Interesting times we live in...will our ethics aver be able to catch up with us?

I asked a Jesuit once why his church made such a fuss about birth control; abortion and divorce I could understand, but birth control? Oh, he said, ever since the Reformation we've been afraid of being outnumbered.

Gotta go with the others who see a major difference between the Church's treatment of birth control and abortion.

At it's heart, the Church's teaching on artificial BC treats it like bulimia (seriously). BC is an attempt by men and women to have the pleasure of sex without dealing with the natural consequences. Like any other sin, this leads to a concentration on personal pleasure at the expense of a relationship with God. You might say that it's unrealistic to expect people to refrain from it, but this is a Church that sees all people's ulitmate vocation to become saints. It is not one to make excuses for people.

Abortion is the premeditated taking of an innocent human life. An entirely more serious thing.

Your two examples aren't quite logically equivalent. In the first case, the overweight man is (for whatever reason) standing on a train track, and can have some reasonable expectation of getting hit by a train. If he isn't, he should consider himself lucky. In the second case, he's as innocent and uninvolved as you are.

From a purely utilitarian calculation, they may be the same, but there's more to ethics than utilitarianism. It would be a noble thing in the second case for him to choose to sacrifice himself to save the five others, but that doesn't justify your using him as a tool in order to do so.

OK, a different point to raise... "Most second- and third- trimester fetuses feel pain"

Which means, if we are humane, that the fetus would receive an anaethesia before performing procedure. But if we do that, then we're admitting your point.

So it is much easier to ignore reality and pretend it is simply a bundle of cells (per your earlier post).

Thank you for posting these. There are no simple answers, but pretending there are is morally repugnant.

If abortion is illegal every miscarriage will need to be treated as a murder investigation.

Women will need to be watched.

Continuous video taping might be a good idea.

I have more to say in the comments here.

That fat guy on the track is actually quite similar to the "lesser evil" defense in crim law. Taking active measures that would kill one and save 5 is a step over from diverting your car to hit the pedestrian instead of hitting the mother with the baby carriage (since you are involuntarily in that position, as opposed to actually pushing Mr. Behemoth), but I daresay you could find a sympathetic jury, especially in Oregon.

Thank you, Jane. For your thoughtful and insightful posts, I thank you. Amba does have two beautiful rants at Ambivablog you should take a peek at- basically on the same page and very personal.

Being Catholic and having learned to be mature in what that means, my husband and I use no BC except a laid back NFP (no thermometer :)) I never really know if I'm pregnant or not- which would totally freak out the save the planet dudes, but it's how i live. I take sex seriously(and still enjoy myself very much).

I've heard some conservatives call abortion the Sacrament of the Left. I agree whole-heartedly. They get what they need and have great Faith in it. Maybe you could write and tell us how much $$$$ Planned Parenthood makes in the marketing of BC and abortion? They aren't non-profit. How much $$$$ is given by the gov't? Tax-payer funded abortions. Maybe if abortion was illegal, this $$$$ could be used to help raise these *unwanted* children?

I also wonder of the desensitizing of women after 32 yrs of being given the *right* to abortion and the belief that they can do to their own bodies as they wish. What once may have been a difficult and painful decision really is no different to many then the removal of an appendix (regardless of infection). Disattachment.

Yes Jane --- the Catholic Church sees abortion as much, much worse than birth control (with the caveat that any method of birth control that works by destroying a conceptus counts as an abortifacient).

One proof: Deliberately procuring, performing, or collaborating in an abortion results in automatic excommunication. To be re-admitted to communion one must repent and confess not just to any priest, but to the bishop.

Committing an act of contraception is a more "ordinary" sort of sin... confession to a regular priest is sufficient.

Most second- and third- trimester fetuses feel pain.

Actually, the vast majority of second-trimester (week 12 through week 24, say) fetuses lack the brain structures necessary to feel any pain at all, according to most neurologists who have studied the question. There's an outside chance that a 24-week old fetus might feel pain, but even that is stretching it.

On the other hand, the vast majority of abortions take place before the 20th week. So it's quite correct to say that, in the vast majority of cases, abortion causes the fetus no pain.

Comments are Closed.