Eucharist and contraception

[Pup7]

At least I was only being tongue in cheek/rhetorical re my “priests on the fly” expression.

You were being pointed, and to insist otherwise just makes you look even less reputable.

But as I say, and indeed own, the point was Pup7 has never really made serious professional ethical enquiry into this matter with the necessary experts or Magisterial writings.

If she had she would never, as a committed Catholic, have come out with the statements she has.
Given her confidence and status as a self-stated health professional in this area she has an obligation to be better informed on things Catholic than she is.

You quoted the stance I’ve taken as a teaching. LOL. Nice try.

But if we want to be heard as a committed Catholic professional allegedly espousing the views of the Church one must be open and submit to objective scrutiny.

There’s scrutiny and then there’s rude. You’ve been rude.

A number of well educated Catholics here have done that and found Pup7 somewhat wanting.
Its not personal, its not emotional its just fact. And easily checked against Vatican statements.

Actually you provided proof that what I’ve said and what I was told is good to go. A number of well educated Catholics from your book did that for us.

 

[Pup7]

The point is that Pup7 was originally working from the principle, it seems, that directly intending to interfere with the implantation of a fertilised egg is not abortion and somehow makes use of such contraceptive medicine’s acceptable.

Interfering with implantation isn’t abortion. Not medically. It’s not. Yes, that is what the Church teaches.

What I haven’t said is that contraceptives are licit. Not once.

And even the Church has said - by your own citation - that Plan B can indeed be acceptable in the aftermath of a rape. You ignored that post by ratio1, though; I guess because it didn’t agree with your agenda.

Then you yourself stated this:

I believe PlanB is acceptable if it only involves sperm incapacitation or inhibits ovulation.

Plan B only inhibits sperm by creating an inhospitable environment. It can’t issue a grand sweep and stop sperm. That’s not how it works. But it’s awesome that you admitted that there are indeed instances where Plan B is acceptable. The only other thing I’m guilty of having is a pharmacological knowledge of how Plan B actually works. And you’re right - it can inhibit ovulation, which makes it contraceptive, but it’s one that given the circumstances under which we’re discussing its administration, the Church has said it’s okay. And rightfully so, as there is nothing unitive about the violent act of rape.

Your attempts to continue to slander my character smack of desperation. I hope you have a blessed day.

 

[Tatum]

Tatum: PlanB cannot be supported (for use by Catholics who care) if the medication involved is known to prevent implantation of a fertilised egg and one believes fertilisation has likely taken place.

Pup7 try and dispassionately discuss the topic rather than take every comment personally simply because you are offended that others challenge your understanding of Catholic principles and Catholic definitions.

So back to the issue:

inconceivable that implantation occurs within the first hours of a rape.

Can you explain why you think this is relevant to my point?

 

[Tatum]

Tatum:

(Even if a zygote cannot go to full term we still cannot directly kill innocent life).

We have no way of knowing if an implanted zygote can mature or not. We’re not that good yet.

How is that relevant to my point that a fertilised egg implanted in the fallopian tube has just as much right to life as an embryo implanted in utero?

 

[Pup7]

Can you explain why you think this is relevant to my point?

Yep.

Implantation hasn’t happened in the couple of hours post rape when a woman presents to the ED. Biologically impossible. Implantation can take a week.

Pup7 try and dispassionately discuss the topic rather than take every comment personally simply because you are offended that others challenge your understanding of Catholic principles and Catholic definitions.

Tatum try and stop contradicting yourself and attempting to make a point by slandering the character of the person you purport to want to converse with.

LOL you’re not challenging my understanding of a thing. I have no idea why you insist you are - other than what seems to be a need to feel superior to me. You’re not, I can assure you. Just as I am not superior to you.

I know what the Catholic definitions are. And I know what basic biology says. How I choose to reconcile the two has literally zip to do with you personally, though you seem to believe it does.

 

[Pup7]

How is that relevant to my point that a fertilised egg implanted in the fallopian tube has just as much right to life as an embryo implanted in utero?

We have no way of knowing if ANY implanted zygote is capable of maturing or not. I don’t care where it implants - we don’t know about a zygote. We can’t tell when it’s implanted. We can’t even see it right after it implants. It’s the size of the thickness of a human hair. And technically after a few days it’s no longer a zygote. I’ve heard it called an embryo as early as day three or four, as by day three it’s eight cells and not two.

 

[Pup7]

How is that relevant to my point that a fertilised egg implanted in the fallopian tube has just as much right to life as an embryo implanted in utero?

An ectopic can burst and kill the mother and the embryo.

That wasn’t your point at all. How is “a fertilised egg implanted in the fallopian tube” having “just as much right to life as an embryo implanted in utero” relevant to Plan B in the least?

My comment addressed what I quoted. And if you’d deny a woman an ectopic removal I think you need to go talk to a priest about where the Church stands on that issue.

This is the statement I addressed:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Tatum]

It’s not that we won’t do it. We can’t.

Which is why I said “many health officials don’t care to do the tests.”
This is not a universal nor a pejorative statement. The expression doesn’t have to be interpreted as saying they are at fault for not doing so. I simply observe that there is debate over this point and many see no point in doing the tests for the very reasons you avert to.

Nor do I agree that the medical profession is a unified body whose views you personally represent (the word “we” is curious). My own research in this area suggests there is professional debate over the value of fertilisation tests in the first 72 hrs.
I am not so sure at this point that the matter is as cut and dried as you assert re the medical profession on this point of the value of fertilisation tests in making treatment judgements.

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?

 

[Pup7]

Which is why I said “many health officials don’t care to do the tests.”

Tatum - there isn’t one.

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?

Then they can pay for an ultrasound - where you won’t see anything to start with - and they can fork out the cash to cover the rest of the things that NO insurance company will cover because they are not deemed necessary for safe administration of Plan B. They don’t show anything worth knowing in that short time period. It’s basic science.

I am not so sure at this point that the matter is as cut and dried as you assert re the medical profession on this point of the value of fertilisation tests in making treatment judgements.

It has nothing to do with value. It has to do that they will show nothing useful when they’re performed.

Do you agree with its content - which seems to sees values in such tests at the time of writing?

I stand with medicine and reason. Having seen the uterus and what U/S does and does not show, I can tell you you can’t see anything, and you have to think that things that are available at massive referral centers like Duke with highly specialized OB equipment (which costs even more to use, by the way) is NOT available in every emergency room nationwide - any nation, anywhere. Think, tatum. Think broad scale to county hospitals and regional medical centers. They’re not tertiary level referral centers.

They have no way of running highly specialized testing, and insurance will not pay for it anyway in the US.

 

[Tatum]

I liked your post because it made my point for me, and showed that Church teaching indeed backs Plan B in some cases, as mentioned

Pup7 the issue is not whether PlanB is or is not “backed”.
The issue is whether or not you understand the principles whereby a Catholic can judge whether or not, given a presumed medical state of affairs, its use at a particular time or place is legitimate.

I suggest having a good understanding of how the Church defines “abortifacient” and “pregnancy” and why contraceptive use not allowed in a marriage is allowed in a rape situation…is critically important to make that judgement at a given hospital in a given year with a given consensus on particular technical matters by the medical researchers…

 

[Pup7]

Pup7 the issue is not whether PlanB is or is not “backed”.
The issue is whether or not you understand the principles whereby a Catholic can judge whether or not, given a presumed medical state of affairs, its use at a particular time or place is legitimate.

This is the absolute last time I will say this.

Not once have I ever said I am the one making the call. I am an RN, not a doctor, so I cannot prescribe nor make that judgment.

Stop the constant and repetitive attempts at browbeating. I’m not a moron and I have very high reading comprehension skills. I have my whole life.

I understand the principles you’re talking about.

 

[Pup7]

I suggest having a good understanding of how the Church defines “abortifacient” and “pregnancy” and why contraceptive use not allowed in a marriage is allowed in a rape situation…is critically important to make that judgement at a given hospital in a given year with a given consensus on particular technical matters by the medical researchers…

LOL!! You yourself have said Plan B is permitted. Your little book you cited and linked said the same thing. Just stop it. Please.

 

[Tatum]

Trying to define when pregnancy occurs is chasing loopholes. That really doesn’t matter.

I suggest you are quite mistaken when it comes to rape.
Contraception techniques illegitimate in marriage are in fact allowed post rape.

it is also important to understand how the Church defines “pregnancy” (it seems to differ from secular medicine which generally defines it from implantation whereas the Church seems to define it from the moment of fertilisation).

It may be, as Pup7 asserts, that there may be no practical/helpful fertilisation test possible within the first 72 hrs after rape. If that were true then much of the debate about not using chemicals that inhibit implantation (“abortifacients”) would be overcome.

Personally I do not think that medical debate is over. Though I am open to authoritative medical references on this point.

 

[Pup7]

Contraception techniques illegitimate in marriage are in fact allowed post rape.

Then why did you say THIS to me?

I suggest having a good understanding of how the Church defines “abortifacient” and “pregnancy” and why contraceptive use not allowed in a marriage is allowed in a rape situation…is critically important to make that judgement at a given hospital in a given year with a given consensus on particular technical matters by the medical researchers…

I’ve said the exact same thing, but I’m wrong. That’s fantastic.

I’m a bad Catholic for saying I believe in Plan B post rape, but you agree with this person and say it’s licit.

That’s rich. Your change in tone from post to post is incredible.

 

[Tatum]

I’d rethink that highlighted phrase if I were you.

When you can accept that prescriptions which are known to inhibit implantation of a fertilised egg are legitimately called “abortifacients” (if used for that purpose) by the Catholic Church…and if successful in doing so results in “abortion” then I agree the objective technical phrase I used would not apply.

But back to the actual issue:

there is nothing wrong with my stance on Plan B. You yourself just said that.

Not sure what you are truing to say here.
Yes, given certain prudential medical judgements PlanB is acceptable.

The issue is whether those prudential judgements are accurate. The medical community does not appear to have consensus on these matters - though you seem to deny this.

Nor have I seen you yet clarify your post above:

Eucharist and contraception Moral Theology

There are difficulties in these propositions which stem from the medicalist approach. So lets deconstruct a little… The pill blocks pregnancy So, given your prior definition of “pregnant” (as implantation of the zygote) do you mean the pill stop’s implantation? I suggest your language is very inaccurate here… I believe the Pill also stops fertilisation by inhibiting release of eggs from the ovaries surely? Therefore the immorality of use of the Pill in married life lies primarily in c…

 

[Pup7]

If the method is permitted, the medical definitions AND the Church definitions actually don’t matter in the end. Not one whit. The rape victim doesn’t care. I know what Plan B does pharmacologically speaking. I also know that in the immediate aftermath of a rape - in that VERY short time, fertilization hasn’t occurred. Neither has implantation.

If it’s licit, the definitions are irrelevant.

 

[Pup7]

When you can accept that prescriptions which are known to inhibit implantation of a fertilised egg are legitimately called “abortifacients” (if used for that purpose) by the Catholic Church…and if successful in doing so results in “abortion” then I agree the objective technical phrase I used would not apply.

When have I denied that they are? LOL I even said they were - because I commented that definition shocked me as I thought the Church would have far more up to date information in the Catechism than that.

I said that medically they’re not. My education says they’re not. You clearly haven’t read one word I’ve typed. Please go back - way back - and check yourself.

Not sure what you are truing to say here.
Yes, given certain prudential medical judgements PlanB is acceptable.

I’m not trying to say a thing except the facts. Plan B is acceptable post rape. There is no way to have “prudential medical judgments” on a thing we cannot see. You can ask the patient when her last period started (first day of her last period) and guess, but that’s not exact. We’re not there to pass medical judgment. You don’t have a full medical history in an emergency room in this country. No one does. Staff are there to care for the patient. It’s not a confessional. It’s an emergency room.

The medical community does not appear to have consensus on these matters - though you seem to deny this.

Where have I denied it? There is NO WAY to confirm - uniformly, across the board, in every medical center in the United States, where available equipment, funding, and insurance varies by mind-boggling degrees - that something the size of the thickness of a human hair has been released from an ovary. Also, you’d need insurance permission to get payment for it, and in the US you need that in advance. It can take days because this isn’t a life or death situation. If you don’t get advance authorization, companies won’t pay. You’re wasting time. You have 72 hours before Plan B is ineffective. This is a REAL ISSUE here. You don’t seem to understand that. Perhaps all the clergy I’ve spoken with on this matter do. You’re likely not even in the US, as evidenced by the “s” instead of “z”. At the very least, you’re not a native American.

Nor have I seen you yet clarify your post above:

Which post? I’m sure I have. I’ve done almost nothing except repeat myself.

 

[Pup7]

That’s your post, not mine.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

What post of mine do you want clarified? That isn’t my post.

 

[Tatum]

I don’t disagree with any of this FS.
I only observe that the PODE is still a debated principle and there is not yet a Catholic consensus on the exact conditions that apply. Aquinas, who invented the principle, held to only three conditions for example.

Re the tubal pregnancy I believe matters are more complicated. The tube is not necessarily diseased. The “disease” is in fact the implanted zygote - there was actually nothing wrong with the tube itself. But this is off topic now.

 

[Tatum]

Actually you provided proof that what I’ve said and what I was told is good to go. A number of well educated Catholics from your book did that for us.

What are you actually talking about?