Eucharist and contraception

[Pup7]

Your book. That’s what I’m talking about. It says the exact same thing both of us are saying.

That’s not the same post you asked for clarification on a few minutes ago.

You’re talking in circles.

 

[Tatum]

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

Pup7 this yes, no yes stuff is somewhat schizophrenic.
I suggest most of us are here ultimately to debate ethics rather than secular medics.
If you want to debate objectively and helpfully on a Catholic forum I suggest you go with the Church’s medical and moral definitions. To insist otherwise is as confusing and as futile as speaking double Dutch in a market place - you will not be understood and will influence few, I am sure that is not why you are putting time in here.

 

[Pup7]

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.

The tubal will burst and kill the mother. And quite painfully. Is that what you want? Death for everyone?

We can’t move it to the uterus. That doesn’t work that way. I might “only” be an RN but I have enough knowledge and experience to know that’s not possible, or they’d do it. We don’t have artificial uteruses yet, either.

What else would you suggest other than surgical treatment - or death for all parties involved?

 

[Tatum]

Tatum:

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.

The tubal will burst and kill the mother. And quite painfully. Is that what you want? Death for everyone?

I am discussing the principle of PODE with frdystairs.
Your comments are off topic sorry.

 

[Pup7]

I am discussing the principle of PODE with frdystairs.
Your comments are off topic sorry.

I’m commenting on an open forum. Not a private conversation.

My comments are valid, dead on topic, and you’ve decided you don’t like them, likely because they’re accurate.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7 this yes, no yes stuff is somewhat schizophrenic.
I suggest most of us are here ultimately to debate ethics rather than secular medics.
If you want to debate objectively and helpfully on a Catholic forum I suggest you go with the Church’s medical and moral definitions. To insist otherwise is as confusing and as futile as speaking double Dutch in a market place - you will not be understood and will influence few, I am sure that is not why you are putting time in here.

Flagged. I have no mental illness.

If you want to debate fairly you’ll stop that.

 

[Pup7]

If you want to debate objectively and helpfully on a Catholic forum I suggest you go with the Church’s medical and moral definitions. To insist otherwise is as confusing and as futile as speaking double Dutch in a market place - you will not be understood and will influence few, I am sure that is not why you are putting time in here.

I suggest you take comments as they’re offered over attempting to meter someone’s responses and tell them to tell you what you’d like to hear. To insist otherwise just damages your credibility. I’ve been understood by many and have received many messages to the contrary, so what you’re asserting just isn’t the case.

You’re attempting to place yourself above the CAF constituency, actually. You’re not superior to everyone else here. No one is.

I’m going to bed. It’s 2240 in the PNW and I have to get up early in the AM.

 

[Tatum]

This is the statement I addressed:

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

Indeed, I still do not see the relevance or what it is you are trying to say.

The point I make is that we do not need to concern ourselves with how the zygote may or may not mature. The fact that it will very likely die is not the basis for the accept ability of removing it.
Why would you think I am saying that and why would you make this comment?

 

[Pup7]

The point I make is that we do not need to concern ourselves with how the zygote may or may not mature. The fact that it will very likely die is not the basis for the accept ability of removing it.
Why would you think I am saying that and why would you make this comment?

Read the quote. It’s pretty self explanatory.

You said: Even if a zygote cannot go to full term we still cannot directly kill innocent life.

I responded that at the zygote stage, we can’t make that call regardless, so that really doesn’t matter.

You’re hung up on strange stuff (to me, anyway).

 

[Pup7]

It’s almost 2300 here. It’s bedtime. Good night, Tatum.

 

[thistle]

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

Plan B is NOT permitted by the Church. I already quoted from the official Papal document.

 

[Tatum]

I didn’t say you had mental illness.
I said your statement above is a logical contradiction:
Lets repeat it:

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

Which what most normal people would understand by saying " this yes, no yes stuff is somewhat schizophrenic."

 

[Tatum]

You said: Even if a zygote cannot go to full term we still cannot directly kill innocent life.

I responded that at the zygote stage, we can’t make that call regardless, so that really doesn’t matter.

You’re hung up on strange stuff (to me, anyway).

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

 

[Tatum]

Sorry? The quotes in my post are yours are they not? (#271)

The concerning bit is where you say:

The pill blocks pregnancy. Otherwise what you are saying is if it wasn’t abortifacient it would be OK to use … which is why its considered immoral, by both stopping ovulation and by potentially inhibiting implantation.

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. Just reread the post - which you did not reply to.

 

[Tatum]

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).

 

[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 see value in such [fertilisation] tests at the time of writing?

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?

 

[Tatum]

If the method is permitted, the medical definitions AND the Church definitions actually don’t matter in the end. Not one whit.

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.

 

[Tatum]

For those interested the following terms seem to be gaining currency:

Contraceptive: a drug preventing the joining of the sperm with the egg.
Interceptive: a drug acting against survival of the zygote as it travels down the fallopian tube.
Contragestive: if it makes implantation difficult or impossible.
Abortifacient: if it disrupts a previously implanted embryo.

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

 

[Tatum]

the pill is not abortifacient.

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.

 

[Pup7]

Which what most normal people would understand by saying " this yes, no yes stuff is somewhat schizophrenic."

No, you’ve just implied that I am abnormal. Why?

Let’s repeat it (why all the condescension?).

What I said was what I know to be true. Then I said, yes, this is what the Church teaches.

It teaches that what I said IS abortion, when it isn’t.

Can we be adults now, and stop being so demeaning?

Plan B is NOT permitted by the Church. I already quoted from the official Papal document.

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