Here are some comments and questions from bloggers regarding moral issues that we've addressed on the site:
"My understanding is if abortion is not legalized that will not stop ladies from having abortions but they will still have them in unsafe areas and have terrible reprecussions because of that". A moral response is that a good end doesn't justify evil means. I assume that you are saying that the health and safety of the woman is the good end (result of the action). But, that claim is extremely questionable. I remember watching an interview with a woman who used to work at an abortion facility. One of the things she brought to light was how unsafely abortions are performed in these facilities. Seeing first-hand how terribly the women were treated physically, emotionally, and personally was one of the main reasons she quit working there. Every abortion is unsafe for a woman and has terrible repercussions for her physically, emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, and spiritually.
In my post on Humanae Vitae, I wrote that Pope Paul VI "predicted that at least two things would happen if contraception became widespread: 1)that there would be a vast moral decline in society, and 2)that men would treat women with much less respect and objectify them. He is a prophet on both accounts, unfortunately". An anonymous blogger replied, "I am not here to argue with you but I just don't see how that has to do with contraceptives. Men (not all) had treated their wives like objects thousands of years ago not just today. I agree with the morals in society declining but not because of contraceptives and don't see how".
The best answer that I've found comes from Dr. Janet Smith who has given a great talk called "Contraception: Why Not?" The best thing to do is to listen to her give the talk, and I have a copy of the tape. If not, you can read the text of it at:
If you still have questions, please let me know.
Anon writes, "What about on the other end where couples can't have a child? Is it against our teachings to have artificial insimination?"
Here's the answer from the Church (it comes from the US bishops' web site: www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm). If you need further clarification, please let me know.
"Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose. The teaching of the Magisterium on this point has already been stated. This teaching is not just an expression of particular historical circumstances but is based on the Church's doctrine concerning the connection between the conjugal union and procreation and on a consideration of the personal nature of the conjugal act and of a human procreation. 'In its natural structure, the conjugal act is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation on the part of the husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the proper nature of the act is the expression of the mutual gift which, according to the words of Scripture, brings about union "in one flesh."' Thus moral conscience 'does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined solely either to the facilitating of the natural act or to insuring that the natural act normally performed achieves its proper end.' If the technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit".