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

[Lady_D_I]

That is not necessarily true. It depends on your perspective. The Church states that human life starts at conception. One groups says conception starts when the fertilized egg is implanted. Other claim that conception starts when the fertilized egg divides the first time. Still others say that conception occurs at the instant of fertilization.

Actually, that has noting to do with what I am sharing. I believe human life begins at fertilization (which is Church teaching), but I do not KNOW for fact that Plan B prevents implantation. It may be an abortifacient but this is not a fact. It may prevent implantation; therefore, it is a potential abortifacient. It is not an absolute fact. There is no direct evidence (thankfully) to support this, and the indirect evidence is questionable.

The FDA has determined that it is possible that Plan B can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. To the groups who believe that conception occurs before implantation, that would make it possible for Plan B to be an abortifacient in some cases.

I stated in a previous post this is not scientfic evidence. Are you familiar with the “evidence” the prescribing information is based on? I am. I also stated I understand labeling of contraceptives,etc., which is why the FDA approved prescribing information is not conclusive to me. The prescribing information states, “it is possible that Plan B may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)”, which is a theory. Notice the words possible and may also work.

BTW, the FDA determined DES was safe and would prevent miscarriage. As as DES daughter, I assure you this was not the case. If my mother’s physician has been practicing EBM (evidence based medicine), I may not have been exposed to this drug. That is why ongoing evaluation is imperative. That is why current evidence is vital in providing safe care.

With all that said, potential or absolute abortifacient does not matter when discussing contraception, because contraception is intrinsically evil. However, I do understand the importance of this point for rape victims and EC.

That was the purpose of steppenwolf1218 highlighting the quote from the FDA.

I was asking why the entire post was quoted with this added
“From one of the articles you posted:” I thought perhaps there was more to the post.

 

[Lady_D_I]

The fact that a new human life starts at the moment that a human ovum cell unites with a human sperm cell is a basic biological fact, which does not depend on anyone’s perspective or religious belief.

I never questioned this. Let me make this clear… human life begins at fertilization. Just because I state there is no direct evidence that Plan B is an abortifacient has nothing to do with when life begins. It is based on the lack of evidence that Plan B prevents implantation.

 

[Petergee]

I never questioned this. Let me make this clear… human life begins at fertilization. Just because I state there is no direct evidence that Plan B is an abortifacient has nothing to do with when life begins.

sorry, I was actually replying to rpp but i must have mistyped something with the quote function.

It is based on the lack of evidence that Plan B prevents implantation.

Lack of absolute proof perhaps, but not “lack of evidence”. At the very least, there is a definite and far from negligible **possibility **, in each and every case, that “Plan B” may kill a living human being by preventing implantation. So based on the “deerhunter principle”, it is immoral to take “Plan B” under any circumstances.

 

[Lady_D_I]

sorry, I was actually replying to rpp but i must have mistyped something with the quote function.

No apology necessary. I just wanted to clarify since some people assume I believe something that I don’t.

Lack of absolute proof perhaps

There is no direct evidence for good reason. This article describes why there is no direct evidence regarding OC, which would apply to EC: The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment.

not “lack of evidence”. At the very least, there is a definite and far from negligible **possibility **, in each and every case, that “Plan B” may kill a living human being by preventing implantation.

Well, I would like to review the evidence. As I stated earlier, I have reviewed the medical literature and am familair with the labeling of Plan B. I haven’t found much but maybe someone here has something besides the prescribing information or the Kahlenborn, Stanford, & Larimore (2002) article.

 

[rpp]

rpp;2834592:

The fact that a new human life starts at the moment that a human ovum cell unites with a human sperm cell is a basic biological fact, which does not depend on anyone’s perspective or religious belief. Not only has the Church constantly endorsed this fact since it was first scientifically proven beyond all reasonable doubt about 200 years ago, but this fact was stated in all secular biological textbooks up until the 1970s.

Then about 1970 it was shown that part of the effect of the oral contraceptive “Pill” is to prevent an embryo (not a “fertilised egg”, by that time we have an embryo with dozens of cells already starting to differentiate and comprising a human body with a defined front, back left, right, top and bottom) implanting onto his/her mother’s womb wall, instead of merely suppressing ovulation as had been previously claimed. The “Pill” proponents since then have attempted, with some success (although not among embryologists, the scientists who actually study embryos) to redefine “conception” as beginning at implantation, not at fertilisation. Utterly illogical. What is an embryo in the period between fertilisation and implantation, if not a new and unique conceived human being? Even the otherwise horrible pro-abortionist and pro-infanticide “Professor” Peter Singer, unlike other pro-abortionists, is honest enough to admit the fact that a new unique human being is created when an ovum unites with a sperm.

I mean no disrespect. Nor am I, like so many other others, trying to bait you…

But…

Huh?

 

[Petergee]

I mean no disrespect. Nor am I, like so many other others, trying to bait you…

But…

Huh?

What part of what I said did you not understand?

 

[rpp]

What part of what I said did you not understand?

Since your second paragraph only had three sentences, and I have a small brain, I had trouble figuring out the point you were trying to make. If you could just restate it with shorter sentences, using words with fewer syllables, that would be great. It will make it easier for people like me who did not graduate from college to understand.

Again I mean no disrespect. It is clear you are trying to make an important point, I just could not figure out exactly what you were saying.

 

[Petergee]

Sorry, I got carried away with my train of thought. I’ll try again.

1. It is quite incorrect to talk about “a fertilised egg” implanting on the womb wall. After conception the fertilised egg divides and multiplies many times over several days before he/she is ready to implant. By that time s/he is an embryo with dozens of cells which are already starting to differentiate into different types of cell (skin cells, nerve cells, muscle cells etc). S/he has a specific bodily orientation, i.e. one side is left, one is right, one side is the friont, one is the back, one end is the head end and one is the bottom end, and this human body will remain in the same spatial orientation throughout his/her life. All this before s/he begins to implant. So a lot more than just a “fertilised egg”.
2. Then about 1970 it was shown that part of the effect of the oral contraceptive “Pill” is to change the new mother’s womb wall to prevent an embryo implanting onto it. Previously it had been claimed that the “Pill” “works” only by stopping a non-pregnant woman from ovulating. Now it was seen that in some cases the Pill causes early abortions. And it is impossible to predict in which cases this will happen. The same is true of “Plan B”, the other so-called “emergency contraception”.
3. In order to market the “Pill” to women who opposed abortion, the “Pill” proponents since then have attempted, with some success (although not among to redefine “conception” as beginning at implantation, not at fertilisation. They have managed to get this written into some medical textbooks. However embryologists (the doctor/scientists who actually study embryos) are unanimous that conception = fertilisation = the beginning of a new human being = the union of a sperm cell with an ovum cell.
4. This new proposed definition is utterly illogical. What is an embryo in the period between fertilisation and implantation, if not a new and unique conceived human being?

Even the otherwise horrible pro-abortionist and pro-infanticide “Professor” Peter Singer, unlike other pro-abortionists, is honest enough to admit the fact that a new unique human being is created when an ovum unites with a sperm.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, I’m sorry for you and your wife’s problems, but the priests who advised you were incorrect. As the CDF document cited makes clear, tubal ligation is never a moral option.

You will find that in every case, the course of action which the Church teaches is morally sound, is also medically sound. This does not mean that your doctor will necessarily agree that the moral course advised by the Church is medically the best course of action. Doctors, and unfortunately even some priests and occasionally even some bishops, can make mistakes re questions of morality. The Magisterium of the Church does not.

And in reply to the question asked earlier, if my daughter was raped I would do everything in my power to prevent her being administered “Plan B”. Taking a massive dose of synthetic hormone which could well kill my grandchild would only make a very bad situation much worse.

Well sorry but I disagree with your statements here. The Church does not have every medical question answered and in the case of my wife, our priest consulted with experts in the Church on the issue, and their answer was the same, this was a unique situation and done for the health of my wife.

Heck, had we not followed the Church’s teaching, we would never have ended up in the situation we were in, in the first place.

At any rate, my wife had the hysterectomy and the point is history.

Jim

 

[Carolly]

I believe that “pregnancy” within this statement refers to a human zygote having already become attached to the lining within the uterus. It doesn’t address the situation of the human zygote that has started to develop after the egg is fertilized, and is enroute to the uterus or in the uterus but not attached to the wall of the uterus yet. Since Plan B prevents such attachment, this little human will starve to death. Many would justify this as acceptable, as they prefer to refer to him or her as a “cluster of cells”. Please note: I may not be using the term ‘zygote’ correctly here (maybe blastocyte? – my biology is very rusty).