Eucharist and contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dugtrio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But we are disagreeing over definitions and not science. We seem to all agree on the science here.
 
ratio1 said:
But we are disagreeing over definitions and not science. We seem to all agree on the science here.
Click to expand...
But the definition is the science. It’s why the science is correct, though. And it’s not obscure knowledge. I learned this in high school health class 28 years ago. No kidding.
 
Last edited:
LittleFlower said:
I think @Tatum doesn’t get it, and many here don’t know the difference. It’s what they have been taught, and bad or non-existent sexual health education doesn’t make it an easy task.

Many believe that the Pill is abortifacient. Trying to change that belief, morals aside, is an uphill battle.
Click to expand...
I believe the Pill inhibits the very likely implantation of fertilised eggs - do you?
I believe the Church teaches that such consequences are called “abortifacient” - do you?
I believe that to freely choose to take the Pill intending to do the above is immoral - do you?

Yes, this is what I have been taught.
I don’t understand why you, also a loyal Catholic, have a problem with that.
 
No that is correct. Hormonal contraceptives are always wrong in Catholicism!
 
Tatum said:
I believe the Pill inhibits the very likely implantation of fertilised eggs - do you?
I believe the Church teaches that such consequences are called “abortifacient” - do you?
I believe that to freely choose to take the Pill intending to do the above is immoral - do you?
Click to expand...
The funny thing is we agree on that.

The pill does inhibit implantation.
The Church does say it’s abortifacient.
Freely taking the pill for contraception is immoral.

Not one single soul (for the nth time) has disputed any of this.

What is in dispute is that the pill does not cause abortions (and it shouldn’t be in dispute, because it doesn’t do that - otherwise women wouldn’t get pregnant while taking it, and they do).
 
ratio1 said:
People just have different definitions of abortion.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a personal definition. It’s a correct one. I’ve not invented this nor formulated it on my own.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Tatum said:
I believe the Pill inhibits the very likely implantation of fertilised eggs - do you?
I believe the Church teaches that such consequences are called “abortifacient” - do you?
I believe that to freely choose to take the Pill intending to do the above is immoral - do you?

Yes, this is what I have been taught.
I don’t understand why you, also a loyal Catholic, have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Pill if not used correctly, and an egg is released and is fertilised, will most likely result in not being implanted. Do you believe that NSAIDs also prevent implantation and are also therefore risky to take for the same reasons?

I do not believe that the Church says that the mechanism described above is abortifacient. Because then the Church and it’s bishops would not say that it is, under certain circumstances, okay for raped women to use Plan B. See the link I posted. Do you think that a raped woman using NSAIDs in large doses and it also prevents implantation is committing a sin?

I do believe that you can immorally use the Pill.

I have a problem with people confusing the abortion pill with OCPs. Mate, it’s not hard.
 
So why do you disagree with MCH1’s moral proposition?

Noone here cares about the nicities of how the medical profession might care to redefine how Catholics define the medicine. We all know what MCH1 was saying.
 
Tatum said:
So why do you disagree with MCH1’s moral proposition?

Noone here cares about the nicities of how the medical profession might care to redefine how Catholics define the medicine. We all know what MCH1 was saying.
Click to expand...
I never disagreed with his moral proposition.

I merely said the pill can’t and doesn’t abort.

Again - again - I have never once said contraception is morally licit.

Why the attitude? “No one here cares about the niceties of the medical profession might care to redefine how Catholics define the medicine”.

I’m not redefining a thing actually.
 
Last edited:
Tatum said:
Is NFP contraceptive then?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. So is being overweight, smoking, and using NSAIDs. If you are doing these knowingly with the intent to not get pregnant. 😉

I guess, I might have just a wider definition of what is contraceptive. One that a lot of people might take issue with.

But, I also understand the medical necessity for things like OCPs like migraines, etc. And NSAIDs. And ablation.
 
No one is disputing this.
The church often has different definitions to secular society. I’ve already gave the example of marriage.
 
ratio1 said:
The church often has different definitions to secular society. I’ve already gave the example of marriage.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference in that and saying the pill aborts, though. One is a moral stance, and the other is just objective fact.
 
Last edited:
I think the issue is that terming the blocking of implantation as “contraception” is misleading.

In a moral sense (and really, a medical one too if “contraception” means preventing conception) blocking conception is different from blocking implantation. One is preventing human life from commencing and the other is preventing human life from continuing to live. It is important to draw a distinction which I suppose is where the Church’s use of “abortion” comes into play, since it is still killing.
 
Last edited:
I just don’t get why you two want to equate apples and oranges. You are both right in you respective fruits. But you two are just talking about different ideas here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top