Catholic Bioethics Center examines Connecticut Plan B legislation, HLI calls for reversal of bishops’ decision

  • Thread starter Thread starter skeetor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God help us. I still have faith that if this could, in fact, result in a chemical abortion that Rome will respond swiftly and clearly.
I can’t imagine our Holy Father not acting on this. Let’s pray for him.

God help us, and God help the Catholic Church in this country. We are a faithless lot.
 
1ke said:
And, the second question is if ovulation is occuring or has just occurred, and the endometrium is already established, could EC really alter the endometrium to the point of inhibiting implantation in such a *short *time. The pill alters the endometrium, but that is by long term action not by one dose.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s why the inserts in BC Pill packs tell you to use a “backup” method for awhile at the beginning. Because it’s not going to do anything against a pregnancy for a bit.

I don’t see how it could be an abortion if there’s no egg to fertilize. I agree that life begins at conception, but life takes egg + sperm. If there’s no egg for the sperm to fertilize, there’s no chance of life, and so no taking of it.

If you’re saying it’s wrong to suppress the egg because every effort must be taken to allow it to be fertilized, that sounds it would be a sin to avoid sex during fertile periods and I know that’s not what the church teaches.
 
May God provide leadership in the Catholic Church in this mostly Godless country of ours.

Praying that Pope Benedict XVI makes this a priority and quickly.
 
Does Rome know about this, and if it doesn’t, shouldn’t it ?

What weak leadership we have now from some Bishops, while the sheep cry out.
 
I’m wondering, from the standpoint of pure logic, if this could open the way for the pill itself being “legal”? I’m just wondering if this is theoretically possible given these bishop’s logic…
 
1ke said:
Plan B in the context of rape is not contraception, it self defense against the attacker. Catholic teaching has consistently held that a woman may defend herself against an attacker and possible pregnancy.

She may not abort a conceived child, of course.

Yes, there is much controversy over the mechanisms of Plan B. And, the statement is correct-- the Church has not *definitively *ruled on this subject.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response. Can you tell me what is the purpose of Plan B?

Thanks
 
Even if in some bizzaro universe Plan B is not an abortifacient, it is still contraception.

I think we need to contact the Curia as well as the individual bishops. This is evil pure and simple.

While America is a nation of laws, it is high time that someone stand up and loudly proclaim they will not follow an immoral law.
 
So what does this mean? Isn’t the Church conforming just a little bit slower than the rest? The idea that the Church doesn’t change and give in to societal pressure and ideology is obviously a fallacy. How can the Church allow abortion and still be “The Church”?
 
lukewarm said:
So what does this mean? Isn’t the Church conforming just a little bit slower than the rest? The idea that the Church doesn’t change and give in to societal pressure and ideology is obviously a fallacy. How can the Church allow abortion and still be “The Church”?
Click to expand...
It means the ‘human’ side of the Church is just that -human and sinful. Sadly, we have Bishops that apparently are either grossly mis-informed or even worse, grossly weak. I have the utmost confidence in the divine side of The Church because it has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

The Church cannot and will not give in to societal pressure on matters of faith and morals when those pressures contradict Church law. The Bishop’s of Connecticut, while they represent the Church are not 'The Church’ . The Pope in union with the Bishops form the teaching authority that is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. If this is indeed as sinful a decision as it appears to be (I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here) I have confidence that “The Church” will not cave to such pressure and God’s law will prevail.

Again, let us pray for Pope Benedict and all our leaders in Rome - and even our U.S. Bishops that if this is indeed what it appears to be, they will have the courage to correct their brothers in Christ.
 
Folks would do well to remember the lessons of the Arian heresy. At time during that crisis, as many a MOST of the bishops of the world sided with Arius. IIRC, there were even popes that personally tended in that direction. Funny thing is, no pope ever made an ex cathedra statement that was heretical.

Not so funny, actually. Just infallibility, properly defined, doing its job.
 
1ke said:
The attacker is the rapist, and I did not say the woman had any right to do anything to a conceived child, should conception occur.
Click to expand...
Then stop defending her use of a chemical abortifacient.
No, not at all. The odds are infinitely small that she would actually have just ovulated.
Click to expand...
LOL! Try telling the millions of women who have become pregnant through one single act of intercourse that the odds of it happening are “infinitely small”!
If the rape occurs during the pre-ovulatory phase EC can delay ovulation until after the sperm die (they can live about 5 days in fertile mucus). If rape occurs more than 24 hours after ovulation, the viability of the egg is past.
Click to expand...
So, it is morally licit if she has not yet ovulated. The difficulty comes in determining whether she has ovulated as that is not an exact science.
Click to expand...
The difference is that an abortion kills a conceived child.
Click to expand...
Delaying ovulation is ONE possible effect of this product. In some cases ovulation happens anyway despite taking the drug, and the egg is fertilised and the drug then prevents the conceived child from implanting him/herself on the womb wall.
There is definitely a difference. And, the Church has not ruled *definitively *in this area
Click to expand...
It most certainly has. If you think that the Church has never stated that it is immoral to use a chemical contraceptive which has even a chance of causing an abortion, you have got a LOT of reading to catch up on.
so the Bishops are within their authority to do as they have done. Remember, it took the Church over a decade to rule definitively on conception techniques such as IVF.
Click to expand...
?? IIRC the Church ruled definitively on the immorality of IVF at a time when it was only a hypothetical possibility and had not yet been done.
 
Well according to Yahoo News Catholic hospitals in Connecticut are going to be giving ECs to rape victims - regardless of the Church’s anti-contraceptives, anti-abortifascient position. Click here to read more.

Catholig
 
Now we have “so-called” Catholic Hospitals to go with our “so-called” Catholic Colleges and Universities. The only thing Catholic about either is their fund raising.:mad:
 
Joe_Kelley said:
Now we have “so-called” Catholic Hospitals to go with our “so-called” Catholic Colleges and Universities. The only thing Catholic about either is their fund raising.:mad:
Click to expand...
Well, to extend the example, what’s so different about their fund raising?
 
RowBoat said:
Well, to extend the example, what’s so different about their fund raising?
Click to expand...
They suddenly become very Catholic when appealing to Catholics for money. Much like the religious who dig out their habits once a year to make a pitch for the retirement fund.
 
How incredibly sad. Plan B is an abortion pill! Lord have mercy on us all!
 
Lorarose said:
saw this article posted on another discussion…

If this is true, the obvious next question would be…is it moral for a rape victime to prevent ovulation?
Click to expand...
Then you must ask if it is moral for a woman to refrain from consensual sex with her husband when she knows she is fertile?

Let’s say, just for a moment, that there is no possible way whatsoever that Plan B could possibly do ANYTHING to a fertilized egg. Absolutely nothing. All it does is prevent the egg from being released, allowing time for the rapist’s sperm to die. If there’s already an egg, it does nothing, the egg is fertilized, attaches, baby comes to term, everything’s happy and fuzzy and wonderful.

How is it a sin? A baby is not harmed at all by ovulation being suppressed. Are women bound by the church to become pregnant at every opportunity, or be sinning? How would it be different than knowing for sure you are ovulating, and saying, no dear, not tonight?

I sometimes feel as though, in the RCC, a baby does not come from egg + sperm, but somehow is viewed to be contained entirely within the precious sperm - at least this thread shows the flipside for the first time - perhaps the baby is entirely within the egg? Mustn’t stop it from leaving the ovary and meeting up with the rapist’s sperm. THAT would be a sin. The actual rape, probably not so much, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top