Eucharist and contraception

[Pup7]

This may be the nub of the question.
But nobody knows what you mean because we don’t know which of your dually held definitions of “abortion” (and hence abortifacient) you are using. Can you clarify?

And are you talking about the drug used in rape treatment or simply the contraceptive pill used by Catholic couples? I don’t know about you but I am speaking of rape treatment drugs.

Then your reading comprehension is abhorrently low level.

For the nth time - the pill is NOT an abortifacient. It cannot be, it is impossible. As I have said in other posts, if it were an abortifacient, women would never become pregnant while taking it.

You ALSO know that not once have I said that OCPs are licit. You know very well I am talking about Plan B.

I’m truly over your attitude at this point. It needs to stop.

 

[Pup7]

The Church considers the last three as generically “abortifacient”.

Those terms aren’t “gaining currency”. They’ve been around for years. Literally years.

 

[Pup7]

Can you quote a Magisterial source that unconditionally approves “PlanB”?

Perhaps I am mistaken but what you will in fact find is that certain distinctions are made and only if those distinctions are respected would PlanB be acceptable.

I am willing to be corrected if you can provide such a source.

I am completely and utterly bored by the constant repeating of myself.

For the billionth time…we are talking about Plan B administered after rape.

We are not talking about OCPs in general, nor any other type of contraception.

I’m actually going to mute this thread, because it has reached the point of utter ridiculousness.

You have not responded to this one. You refer to it as “my book”.
Are we to presume you have never read it until now?

No, you’re not reading posts.

Your GOOGLE BOOK YOU POSTED is the book I’m referencing, not that. Go back through the thread and reread the posts.

You’re to presume whatever it is you want, since no matter what I tell you, you seem to not read anything I write, continue to condescend (or attempt to), and continue to attempt to trap me in some inconsistency. You’re failing at the last one, and as you have nothing new to contribute, this conversation is clearly over.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

Where have I denied it?

Great, so you accept that there may be test procedures that can be useful immediately after rape to detect whether fertilisation has occurred - just as “my book” assumes?

For example are you aware of this test protocol. If it is positive then PlanB is considered immoral:

If the woman is midcycle or in the early postovulatory phase by menstrual history or a positive urinary LH, or if she has a negative urinary LH with a serum progesterone level greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than 6.0 ng/ml—then Plan B is not given.

PlanB has come under attack in recent years due to new findings re contragestive properties of the drug used (ie it inhibits implantation).

That’s not a test protocol. That is a pregnancy test! Furthermore, it’s a quantitative urinalysis for LH, not a qualitative. You’re acting as though nothing is done except handing her the pill. She does pee in a cup - because that’s part of the administrative protocol. If it’s negative, that’s it. End of the line - she’s asked if she wants Plan B. These hormones will not show up as a result of pregnancy from the rape. It means either she waited too long to report it or she was pregnant at the time the crime was committed. In an ED, they’re going to go off a qualitative urine because it’s quick and accurate and they’re not going to waste time. If the quanl is negative, they then consent for Plan B. But there’s no dramatic investigation to see if she’s released an egg.

It’s not given because at that point she is pregnant. You don’t give it if she’s pregnant for one very simple reason that I have stated over and over and over again.

At that point Plan B would not work. Why do you not understand that those hormones are not detectable just hours after a rape, which is when an overwhelming number of victims present to an emergency room? Which is also when we’ve been talking about the administration of Plan B? Not days later. Hours.

Here’s the kicker: the reason it wouldn’t work is it is not an abortifacient. It won’t abort an existing pregnancy.

You just post random things from books that you clearly do not understand and are taking well out of context. You’re so bent on attempting to trap me in some imagined web or lie or inconsistency that you’re just posting stuff at random because it seems to support whatever your thought is on pregnancy and how it happens.

Do you know what LH is? Wikipedia would be a far better source for you.

How about rewording it so we can understand what it is you are trying to say. As it stands its not Catholic teaching at all.

How about not metering the responses of others, and trying to get them to word things in ways you’d like them worded? You know, my dad never talked to me like that.

You’ve hit a brick wall, you’re repeating yourself, the conversation is over.

Oh dear, you believe things are explained simply by repeating the words.

There’s no other way to state it.

I’m out. God bless.

 

[thistle]

That document was written before Plan B even existed, before it was even a thought, so you’ll have to try again.

Plan B is a “morning after pill” which is indeed forbidden by the Church. Any and all morning after solutions are forbidden. It does not have to specify Plan B as the document covers all morning after solutions.
Read the document carefully.

 

[Pup7]

Plan B is a “morning after pill” which is indeed forbidden by the Church. Any and all morning after solutions are forbidden. It does not have to specify Plan B as the document covers all morning after solutions.
Read the document carefully.

There was one morning after solution when that document was written, and that’s RU-486, the actual abortion pill - and it was still experimental at that time.

It’s been established above that there are instances where Plan B is permissible.

You’re not changing anything by repeating yourself.

And please, if your daughter, wife, mother, sister, or friend is raped (and I pray to God that never happens to anyone you know, much less anyone else), please stand in the ED and tell them how it’s God’s will that they become pregnant as a result of the non-unitive, not-about-procreation, not-even-about-sex violent crime of rape. Then come back here and let us know how that experience went for both of you.

 

[thistle]

There was one morning after solution when that document was written, and that’s RU-486, the actual abortion pill - and it was still experimental at that time.

It’s been established above that there are instances where Plan B is permissible.

You’re not changing anything by repeating yourself.

And please, if your daughter, wife, mother, sister, or friend is raped (and I pray to God that never happens to anyone you know, much less anyone else), please stand in the ED and tell them how it’s God’s will that they become pregnant as a result of the non-unitive, not-about-procreation, not-even-about-sex violent crime of rape. Then come back here and let us know how that experience went for both of you.

Plan B is FORBIDDEN by the Church under all circumstances. There is no exception for rape and nor should there be.

 

[Pup7]

Plan B is FORBIDDEN by the Church under all circumstances. There is no exception for rape and nor should there be.

You are wrong, but that’s okay.

You’re allowed to be.

 

[thistle]

You are wrong, but that’s okay.

You’re allowed to be.

You are wrong. You are ignoring DIGNITAS PERSONAE which is the official Church teaching. All morning after solutions are FORBIDDEN. Your view contradicts Church teaching. Get your head out of the sand!!

 

[Pup7]

You are wrong. You are ignoring DIGNITAS PERSONAE which is the official Church teaching. All morning after solutions are FORBIDDEN. Your view contradicts Church teaching. Get your head out of the sand!!

My view is perfectly fine, it’s well within what is permitted, and my head is not in the sand. No need to yell at me. I have not yelled at you.

Accept that I will never agree with you. Screaming will not change that one whit.

Good day.

 

[thistle]

My view is perfectly fine, it’s well within what is permitted, and my head is not in the sand. No need to yell at me. I have not yelled at you.

Good day.

Let me repeat the extract from Dignitas Personae which you are blatantly ignoring.

"23. Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods,[43] it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion."

Do you see the 43 in brackets. This explains what is being referred to:
"The interceptive methods which are best known are the IUD (intrauterine device) and the so-called “morning-after pill.

 

[Pup7]

You can keep posting things, but that doesn’t change basic pharmacology or basic biology.

It also will not change my opinion nor the fact that in the instance of the aftermath of rape and under specific circumstances, as previously discussed, Plan B is permissible.

No one inserts an IUD after rape to prevent pregnancy. No one inserts an IUD to cause an abortion of an implanted embryo, even those using it for contraception. You don’t insert an IUD after the fact. That’s not how that works.

I don’t know why everyone seems to think I need instruction. I can read. I read pretty well, actually - been reading since I was about three. I have pretty high level comprehension skills. I’m not daft. I’m also very well educated, and I know how biology works.

And I know what I’ve been taught, so this browbeating isn’t necessary.

Let’s consider this for a moment.

Donum Vitae, for which Dignitas Personae was written to clarify, was written in 1987. At the time, the only “morning after” pill that existed was in fact RU-486, the actual abortion pill.

Dignitas Personae was written in 2008. Plan B did not exist until 2009.

 

[anon10271182]

Yes. To repeat such lies is wicked.

 

[anon10271182]

Let us not defame a sainted pope, even by implication.

 

[QwertyGirl]

You are wrong. You are ignoring DIGNITAS PERSONAE which is the official Church teaching. All morning after solutions are FORBIDDEN. Your view contradicts Church teaching. Get your head out of the sand!!

What if the rape occurs at night, and the victim makes it to the emergency room before daybreak. Is it okay then?

I realize that question is ridiculous. Every bit as ridiculous as you arguing over this. You are wrong.

 

[Tatum]

I am simply asking you to speak in a clear way Pup7.
So lets reset.

Do you accept PlanB (the MA pill) is contraceptive (which is acceptable)?
Do you accept PlanB is has been reasonably demonstrated to be a poor contraceptive (unsuccessful at preventing ovulation in 33-66% of cases)?
Do you accept its also highly interceptive and its success is more likely due not to its contraceptive effects buts its interceptive effects?
Do you then accept therefore that on the balance of evidence it is morally abortifacient to use if this research is medically proven?

 

[Tatum]

Tatum:

The Church considers the last three as generically “abortifacient”.

Those terms aren’t “gaining currency”. They’ve been around for years. Literally years.

I wasn’t writing those definitions for you Pup7 - as per my introduction “For those interested …”

 

[Tatum]

Tatum:

Can you quote a Magisterial source that unconditionally approves “PlanB”?
Perhaps I am mistaken but what you will in fact find is that certain distinctions are made and only if those distinctions are respected would PlanB be acceptable.

I am willing to be corrected if you can provide such a source.

I am completely and utterly bored by the constant repeating of myself.
For the billionth time…we are talking about Plan B administered after rape.

Exactly so. Just as I said above:

I don’t know about you but I am speaking of rape treatment drugs.

So please answer the question…
Can you quote a Magisterial source that unconditionally approves “PlanB” [after rape]?

We are not talking about OCPs in general, nor any other type of contraception.

Whatever do you mean!?
PlanB does have a contraceptive effect - that is the only reason why some Catholic bishops believe PlanB is acceptable.

 

[Tatum]

Tatum:

May I ask if you have ever read the Catholic Ethical Directives and if so when did you study them?
Do you agree with its content - which seems to sees values in such tests at the time of writing?

… Are we to presume you have never read it perhaps until now?

You’re to presume whatever it is you want…

Its a reasonable question to put to you Pup7 as you place yourself here as both a well informed Catholic and a confident medical professional. yet you are coming out with statements that many of us well informed long time Catholics find curiously at odds with official Vatican statements.

Your increasingly red-herring personalised responses and unwillingness to answer this reasonable question can only lead us to conclude you have not been aware of these Directives.

Which would explain why few here seem to be able to find common Catholic position with you re some of your allegedly Catholic views re acceptable principles and practise re treatment after rape.

 

[thistle]

You can keep posting things, but that doesn’t change basic pharmacology or basic biology.

It also will not change my opinion nor the fact that in the instance of the aftermath of rape and under specific circumstances, as previously discussed, Plan B is permissible.

No one inserts an IUD after rape to prevent pregnancy. No one inserts an IUD to cause an abortion of an implanted embryo, even those using it for contraception. You don’t insert an IUD after the fact. That’s not how that works.

I don’t know why everyone seems to think I need instruction. I can read. I read pretty well, actually - been reading since I was about three. I have pretty high level comprehension skills. I’m not daft. I’m also very well educated, and I know how biology works.

And I know what I’ve been taught, so this browbeating isn’t necessary.

Let’s consider this for a moment.

Donum Vitae, for which Dignitas Personae was written to clarify, was written in 1987. At the time, the only “morning after” pill that existed was in fact RU-486, the actual abortion pill.

Dignitas Personae was written in 2008. Plan B did not exist until 2009.

It is irrelevant when Plan B first existed. Plan B is a morning after pill and the Church bans the use of morning after pills.
Use of it by Catholics or support of its use by Catholics contradicts Church teaching.