cubinity
jesus is; the rest is commentary.
Ah, you mean 'what is the biblical basis'? I don't think that's really a hole in the 'contraception does not necessarily mean every means of birth control' argument since that argument in itself does not take a moral stance, but I could see how you find it crucial to determining whether or not different means of birth control are objectively moral.
I do not practice Sola Scriptura or believe it to be a sound practice at all, so I am not concerned with any biblical basis -- while I do agree that doctrine must not conflict with Scripture, I do not believe that any given thing is necessarily false for its lack of explicit presence in Scripture. That being said, I do not believe that every given thing that has no conflict with Scripture is true, and I only add this glaringly obvious stance of mine to protect myself from strawmen arguments.
Admitting that I don't know what a strawmen argument is, I do appreciate your sentiment. I also appreciate you not being Sola Scriptura.
However, as an American, I have a hard time not linking things back to a single governing document. I suppose for you the Catechisms are in themselves sufficiently such a document. But, I am a Protestant, and therefore, while not being Sola Scriptura, still feel compelled to run any Christian morality past the Scripture for review.
Regardless, I am curious what, exactly, about contraceptives make them objectively immoral. If birth control is justified, then the end result of contraception is obviously not the problem. So, it must be the means.
If the means themselves are immoral, I am curious why they are immoral? Especially if they are supposedly objectively immoral. In other words, if I were to say they were subjectively immoral, I could simply appeal to my constitution/Catechism/sacred text. But, to argue that they are objectively immoral takes a bit of explaining, I suppose.
Let's start with a category of birth control that made the "contraceptive" list, and two that did not.
Blockades like condoms and diaphragms contrasted against Onan's method: why is one moral and the other not? In Onan's method, proximity works as it's own blockade, so why does it make a moral difference when the blockade is latex or spacial?
Blockades like condoms and diaphragms contrasted against sex during infertile periods of time. Biologically, we know that a woman's egg exists from before she is born, so the egg is present even during infertile times. Thus, in this case, the woman's body itself is acting as a blockade against fertilization. So, what makes the moral difference between a flesh blockade and a latex one?
Serious reminder: I'm genuinely asking in order to better flush out your argument. None of my questions are loaded. I am genuinely interested in your answers.
Upvote
0