Dodaj do ulubionych

Katoliccy uczeni zaorali nauczanie o antykoncepcji

23.09.16, 07:04
www.ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/catholic-churchs-total-ban-contraception-challenged-scholars
Twierdzą, że jest niezgodne z wiedzą naukową. Poniżej podsumowanie ich raportu:

www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/statement-ethics-using-contraceptives/
"Assessment of the Argument from Natural Law
§3. HV’s argument is not supported by the relevant evidence.
§3.1. HV’s argument is that because the biological “laws of conception” reveal that sexual intercourse has a “capacity to transmit life” (HV §13), each and every act of sexual intercourse has a “procreative significance” (HV §12) and “finality” (HV §3), and an “intrinsic relationship” to procreation (HV §11).
This misinterprets the biological evidence. The causal relationship between insemination and, on the other hand, fertilization, implantation, and ultimately procreation, is statistical, not necessary. The vast majority of acts of sexual intercourse do not have the biological “capacity” for procreation, and therefore they cannot have procreation as their “finality” or “significance.”
§3.2. Secondly, it is mistaken to derive a moral prescription directly from a factual description, i.e. a judgment of value (about what morally ought to be) directly from a judgment of fact (about what is).
However, this is what HV does when it infers that people engaging in sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility of procreation from the (incorrect) fact that each and every act of sexual intercourse has a procreative finality.
For the same reason, it is also incorrect to deduce a divine command directly from the existence of a law of nature, contrary to what HV does when asserting that the above mentioned moral prescription is God’s will.
§3.3. The affirmation that human beings may not interfere with the biological laws regulating human reproduction because they have been established by God is in contradiction with observational evidence on how human beings interact with the created order.
As agents of reason, human beings have a unique capacity to intentionally alter the schedule of probabilities inherent in the physical, chemical and biological laws of nature. This is a reality of daily life: for instance, any sort of medical intervention, from something as insignificant as taking pain-killers to something as consequential as performing cardiovascular surgery, affects probabilities – of healing, survival, death, etc. Furthermore, the decision not to intervene in natural processes also affects those probabilities, just as choosing to intervene does.
The moral question is not whether to alter the schedule of probabilities within natural processes, but rather whether, when, and how doing so is conducive to human flourishing and the flourishing of all creation.
§4. Furthermore, it is contradictory to affirm, on the one hand, that as a general principle “sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive [is] intrinsically wrong,” and on the other that it is morally legitimate to practice NFP with the “intention to avoid children and [the] wish to make sure that none will result” (HV §16)."
--
Moje jedynie słuszne poglądy na wszystko
Obserwuj wątek
      • anuszka_ha3.agh.edu.pl Re: Katoliccy uczeni zaorali nauczanie o antykonc 23.09.16, 16:30
        Tak.

        Ciekawi mnie też ten fragment o abortifacient methods. Nie ma bezwzględnego potępienia, tylko jest powiedziane, że należy unikać, chyba że jest proporcjonalny powód, żeby nie. Nawet jeśli mają tu na myśli pigułki, czyli zrównują je z aborcją, to tak czy owak widać, że nie potępiają w czambuł działań przerywających ciążę.

        --
        Moje jedynie słuszne poglądy na wszystko
        • mary_ann Re: Katoliccy uczeni zaorali nauczanie o antykonc 23.09.16, 16:39
          anuszka_ha3.agh.edu.pl napisała:

          > Tak.
          >
          > Ciekawi mnie też ten fragment o abortifacient methods. Nie ma bezwzględnego pot
          > ępienia, tylko jest powiedziane, że należy unikać, chyba że jest proporcjonalny
          > powód, żeby nie. Nawet jeśli mają tu na myśli pigułki, czyli zrównują je z abo
          > rcją, to tak czy owak widać, że nie potępiają w czambuł działań przerywających
          > ciążę.
          >
          Tak, to jest absolutne novum.

Popularne wątki

Nie pamiętasz hasła

lub ?

 

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka