Eucharist and contraception

[Pup7]

Pup7 I am simply drawing your attention to contradictions in your expressed views.
You are making statement’s on a Catholic forum that materially contradict Church Teaching.

The pill, by your own expressed understanding of the terms, is indeed abortifacient - though you keep saying it isn’t because you refuse to concede the Church’s definition of “abortion”.

I won’t concede to something that isn’t accurate. But I can state it where I want. Folks are free to agree or disagree.

There is no contradiction in what I’ve said.

If you believe I am mistaken in my understanding of the Church’s definition of “abortion” then by all means correct me with a quote from a Catholic authority.

Your understanding of what the Church says is flawless. I understand that as well. I’m not daft. But that’s not what an abortion actually is.

There is no need to get upset. Noone is attacking you - only challenging your understanding of Catholic definitions and Catholic teaching.

I’m also not upset. I think you think I should be, but I’m not. To keep insisting I am is just a bit silly (and it’s a bit like telling someone to calm down when they’re perfectly fine). I understand what the Church says. My education says that’s not accurate. My understanding doesn’t require challenging in the least.

 

[Tatum]

I don’t get this sorry.
The issue is deciding to use a pill if one believes/knows it will very likely cause a fertilised egg not to implant.

The issue is not primarily the medical reality but what one perceives to be the reality when chooses to swallow the pill. Morality is primarily about intent.

 

[LittleFlower]

Yep, so where does one draw the line to what is considered contraception or contraceptive?

It’s a very perplexing question.

Also if there is a medical need that is addressed by NSAIDs or the Pill (such as endometriosis or migraines) then you are allowed to use them.

Can you have endometrial ablation when you’re quite early pregnant and lose the pregnancy if you have a medical need to and it is not an intended effect? Pretty certain the answer is yes, because it is about intent.

If you have cancer, and you are pregnant and the medication makes you miscarry, the intent wasn’t to abort a baby.

 

[Pup7]

Then provide a relevant quote please

I’m telling you what I’ve been told by clergy when I’ve asked. I can’t quote any such thing, and I know I can’t. But I know what I’ve been told by clergy.

 

[QwertyGirl]

If you believe I am mistaken in my understanding of the Church’s definition of “abortion” then by all means correct me with a quote from a Catholic authority.

I think the problem here is a straight matter of semantics. The word “abortion” isn’t an ambiguous word used to describe a concept. It is a medical term with a very clear definintion. The Church may or may not use the in place of a concept description. If it does, then that isn’t accurate and it should revise the language it uses.

The Church teaches destruction of an ovum plus sperm union and beyond is the taking of a human life. @Pup7 makes the point that it is not truly an abortion if implantation hasn’t taken place. No pregnancy has occurred.

@Pup7 does not imply that it is moral to destroy an “ovum plus sperm” creation.

The problem here is that the Church uses the word “abortion” to cover a situation that technically isn’t an abortion. Words do matter, and they should work on getting this right so there is no confusion in what is meant.

 

[Pup7]

Can you have endometrial ablation when you’re quite early pregnant and lose the pregnancy if you have a medical need to and it is not an intended effect? Pretty certain the answer is yes, because it is about intent.

Here’s another one: ablation can and has been known to sterilize.

My biggest point is that this is not a cut and dry issue. By avoiding the topic, the Church only makes it worse. There’s plenty of polls to suggest that an overwhelming majority of Catholics disagree with the whole birth control teaching, so it’s time for the Church to address it head on instead of leaving it to situations like this. It’s unfair to pretty much everyone.

 

[Tatum]

Exactly my point…your “argument” is sand based so excuse me if I cannot accept your proffered “argument” on that particular point if you have no clear backing for it.

 

[LittleFlower]

Here’s another one: ablation can and has been known to sterilize.

Yep, also know that. But if that is what is needed to treat a medical issue, then it has a medical necessity. I know plenty of older women in menopause who have had to have it, and I know younger women who have needed it to.

Sometimes, the journey takes you some place else, where you may not be able to have children.

My biggest point is that this is not a cut and dry issue. By avoiding the topic, the Church only makes it worse. There’s plenty of polls to suggest that an overwhelming majority of Catholics disagree with the whole birth control teaching, so it’s time for the Church to address it head on instead of leaving it to situations like this. It’s unfair to pretty much everyone.

Yes!! I agree with this. Also there are so many men who have no idea what it is like to be a woman, or how our bodies work, and they know everything.

 

[Pup7]

Exactly my point…your “argument” is sand based so excuse me if I cannot accept your proffered “argument” on that particular point if you have no clear backing for it.

You don’t have to accept it and that’s fair. I lose nothing either way. But I know what I was told, and I was told it was because rape is a crime and there’s nothing unitive about it. I can’t quote it and it’s probably not written down anywhere. It’s been said on CAF as well in another thread, so I took that to mean that the information I received was accurate.

There’s no argument from me.

 

[QwertyGirl]

My biggest point is that this is not a cut and dry issue. By avoiding the topic, the Church only makes it worse. There’s plenty of polls to suggest that an overwhelming majority of Catholics disagree with the whole birth control teaching, so it’s time for the Church to address it head on instead of leaving it to situations like this. It’s unfair to pretty much everyone.

Agreed. We are at a point in time where technology exists to know things that weren’t known even 50 years ago. There has been leaps and bounds, medically speaking, in the understanding of how the female human body works, and how reproduction works in general. The Church’s teachings are far too vague, and the point in time has been reached where this issue needs to be readdressed. It isn’t as simple (or as black and white) as it was once thought to be. I think that is why many people struggle with this Church teaching.

 

[LittleFlower]

https://www.catholicnews.com/update-vatican-officials-hold-funeral-for-man-who-used-to-live-on-streets-nearby/

Rape “is not an act of unitive love, it is an act of violence (and) the woman has a right to defend herself against this attack,” he said.

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities and a member of the pontifical academy, told Catholic News Service that “you are not violating the teaching on contraception by seeking to stop ovulation or fertilization.”

Another article:

The Emergency Contraception Question: When is it licit and when is it not?

A Feb. 21 decision by German bishops to allow emergency contraception to be administered to victims of sexual assault was a surprise to many Catholics, who saw it perhaps as an opening in the church’s monolithic rejection of contraception. They may have been further surprised when church offic

www.americamagazine.org

 

[Tatum]

Well which culture has the right to impose its definitions on another is probably a moot point QG.
As usual its insoluble because in the end its likely a clash of values.

I am simply opening P7 up to the issue that there is a clash of definitions which she may not have been aware of up until now. Catholics actually live in divided worlds. Its the same in Physics as well as Medicine. We must realise the clash goes deep down into definitions/vocab as well if we are to haromise our schizophrenic professional lives as both loyal Catholics and intelligent men and women of science (I am an engineer). Its a result of the Enlightenment which the Church is still reeling from.

But that aside its fairly easy to avoid the issue of semantics and reveal the clash of values involved by simply avoiding the contentious definitions.

That is, is it immoral to directly choose to use artificial means to stop the implantation of a fertilised egg that would have happened had we not made this decision.

The next question after this is may we do so if we are unsure that fertilisation has taken place - and if we may what sort of time period after rape is acceptable to morally take this risk?

I suggest that is a far more productive path to resolution for a Catholic rather than than trying to assert such pills are not abortifacient.

 

[Pup7]

I don’t get this sorry.
The issue is deciding to use a pill if one believes/knows it will very likely cause a fertilised egg not to implant.

The issue is not primarily the medical reality but what one perceives to be the reality when chooses to swallow the pill. Morality is primarily about intent.

I’ve not refuted nor attempted to refute any of this, not once. Though this statement “the issue is not primarily the medical reality but what one perceives to be the reality when one chooses to swallow the pill” doesn’t make much sense to me.

The medical reality is that the pill puts the ovaries into a dormant state by an artificial means. The perception is that by taking it you’re pretty much unlikely to become pregnant (though it happens, which should confirm it doesn’t cause an abortion - there have been women who have been taking the pill for months and have been pregnant and not known it - if it was abortifacient, they wouldn’t be pregnant). It also creates an environment non-conducive to implantation if a fertilized egg does make it.

People using the pill for contraception are taking it for the medical reality. There’s the intent.

 

[Pup7]

I suggest that is a far more productive path to resolution for a Catholic rather than than trying to assert such pills are not abortifacient.

It’s not an attempt. It’s a fact.

Please explain how women on the Pill become pregnant if pills abort. They have a failure rate for a reason.

 

[LittleFlower]

I suggest that is a far more productive path to resolution for a Catholic rather than than trying to assert such pills are not abortifacient.

But they aren’t and some bishops are aware of this. Please see the links I have posted concerning rape victims.

This is outdated and misinformed thinking.

 

[Pup7]

I am simply opening P7 up to the issue that there is a clash of definitions which she may not have been aware of up until now.

I know about the clash of definitions and have stated that several times - not implicitly, but I have made that clear. You aren’t pointing that out for me - it was done ages ago, the first time I read the Church definition. It literally leapt off the page at me.

 

[Tatum]

P7 the issue is gravity of risk.
Intentionally near-missing someone with a bullet or a car is almost as immoral as directly killing them.
Its called grave negligence.

Doing so with a paper dart is not.

 

[Pup7]

That is, is it immoral to directly choose to use artificial means to stop the implantation of a fertilised egg that would have happened had we not made this decision.

And again - where have I said this isn’t the case? It bugs me that you keep repeating this, because it’s as if you’re trying to state I’ve said this is okay. And I haven’t.

reveal the clash of values involved by simply avoiding the contentious definitions.

I can’t avoid “the contentious definitions” because they’re scientifically and biologically accurate. You’re not “revealing” anything to me at all. As I said, I knew this the first time I read it, and I was a bit surprised.

 

[Pup7]

P7 the issue is gravity of risk.
Intentionally near-missing someone with a bullet or a car is almost as immoral as directly killing them.
Its called grave negligence.

Doing so with a paper dart is not.

I’m going to say this yet again.

Not once anywhere in any post have I said “it’s okay to take the pill because it’s not abortifacient”. It sounds as though you’re attempting to convince yourself of something - either that I’ve said that (which I haven’t), or that it actually isn’t abortifacient. There’s no other reason for you to keep repeating anything related to morality.

Because I’ve not said it. I’ve not said that birth control is morally licit. I have said - and will own - that the Church is misdefining abortion, and attributing outdated medical thought to a current issue, and it’s not fair. Mostly because most eggs never implant on their own, which implies things that seem really unfair related to women and how we work.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I disagree. A definition is just that. How you use it is what matters. That is what I am suggesting leads to ambiguity in the Church. The word “abortion” is a noun. It isn’t an adjective or adverb. It is pretty cut and dried, as to what the true meaning of the word is.