Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16525Re: Contraception

Expand Messages
  • Ic Neltococayotl
    Oct 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey brave Ben!

      Question:

      "unnatural acts like coitus in vase
      indebitum, even done in the context of marriage."

      What is "coitus in vase indebitum"?

      Natural Law huh? Wonder if vigilantism would find a valid place
      therein...that is when Instituted Law fails to protect those it was
      written to protect...but that is another topic...

      Thanks,

      Edgar



      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "benhartmail"
      <benjamin.hart1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Howdy,
      >
      > Two preliminary remarks before I get to the issue of contraception.
      > First, I am unsure whether this is off-topic for the CRC, but seeing
      > as we can talk about the demise of the RPNA ad nauseum, as well as
      > whether one is a Jesuit or not for taking a slightly different view
      > on the papacy, I figured this one should make it in. If not, Jerry,
      > feel free to delete it.
      >
      > Second, while I am going to send a link to a document written from an
      > explicitly Roman Catholic point of view, I myself am not an RC, nor
      > am I sympathetic with their distinctives. But I do find the below
      > article an interesting piece for discussion which it would do many
      > protestants well to take seriously.
      >
      > That said, I want to suggest that those who are interested in doing
      > so undertake a discussion of this (almost) classic article on
      > contraception by Elizabeth Anscombe. Here is a link to it.
      >
      > http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml
      >
      > I need to write a research paper on this issue for a natural law
      > seminar so I thought some discussion with you all would be
      > profitable. If it would be helpful, I can post a summary of
      > Anscombe's arguments sometime in the next few days for those who are
      > interested but don't have the time to read the whole thing.
      >
      > But to whet your appetite, here's a quick summary: after giving a
      > historical case against contraception, she argues that people who
      > find activities like homosexuality, masturbation, etc. unnatural
      > should also find contraception unnatural. Her reason is that the
      > intentional use of contraception changes the kind of act one engages
      > in, turning it into the kind of act one could have outside of a
      > marriage relationship, one that is intentionally infertile.
      > (However, she maintains that this isn't inconsistent with the rhythm
      > method (obviously keeping in line with RC teaching).) Because all
      > the previously mentioned sexual deviations are deliberately
      > infertile, they are no different than contraceptive copulation.
      > Putting her conclusion another way, the use of contraception would be
      > no different than obviously unnatural acts like coitus in vase
      > indebitum, even done in the context of marriage.
      >
      > Also, for the more ambitious (who have the time), here is a short
      > piece on natural law (seeing as Anscombe cites it in her argument).
      >
      > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
      >
      > I hope that (at least) some of you will find this edifying.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Ben
      >
    • Show all 54 messages in this topic