D
DeniseNY
Guest
She certainly does not need me to respond for her. I am merely expressing my opinion regarding her standing as a CAF member.
- Status
P
Pup7
Guest
No one’s overlooked the fact that you’ve disregarded most of what I’ve posted.
And I’ve answered your questions. Most of them many, many times over.
Thanks, @DeniseNY.
And I’ve answered your questions. Most of them many, many times over.
Thanks, @DeniseNY.
T
Tatum
Guest
For those Catholics actually interested in being informed as to where this Catholico/medical debate is at then the following 2017 article summarises things fairly well.
www.clmagazine.org
I am happy to discuss the issues with rational contributors.
What is becoming apparent is that most US bishops are behind the medical times and if they followed the now clear ethical principles Rome has enunciated in more recent times PlanB would be wholly banned from use by Catholics.
The Plan B controversy - Celebrate Life Magazine
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article addresses a specific question regarding whether Catholic hospitals should administer Plan B in rape cases based on the scientific evidence regarding how the drug works. The discussion does not in any way imply that contraceptives are or can be morally licit. The...
www.clmagazine.org
I am happy to discuss the issues with rational contributors.
What is becoming apparent is that most US bishops are behind the medical times and if they followed the now clear ethical principles Rome has enunciated in more recent times PlanB would be wholly banned from use by Catholics.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
So this IS your thought process, and not that of the Church - officially declared or not.
Also - the entire time I was under the impression we were talking about ME and MY lack of Catholic sensibility by your assessment in even thinking it was okay to give. Wow. Come to find out it was about your thought on it being given to anyone on the earth who’s Catholic. I wasn’t talking about just administering to Catholics. I was under the impression you took umbrage with me knowing there were instances it was okay for Catholics to administer it to anyone, based on the Catholic provider’s own beliefs.
You’ve now pointed out that you knew the entire time that Church leaders believe it is okay under certain circumstances to give and receive it. But you cast aspersions on the leadership and dedication and understanding of my priests. Wow.
Suspicions confirmed. Thanks and have a blessed day.
Last edited:
T
Tatum
Guest
It doesn’t matter what you call it medically.
The Church considers it immoral to intentionally hinder implantation for the same reason it is immoral to unattach an implanted embryo.
The name of this immoral intended act, in both cases, is defined as “abortion.”
Ethics is about intended human acts not physical medical scenarios.
Last edited:
T
Tatum
Guest
The issue is not the person but the credibility of the views on this thread re rape and the Church’s position/principles re best ethical practise after the event.
Last edited:
T
Tatum
Guest
The issue is surely not whether the Church has a list of answers on every different drug scenario or presentation at an A&E ward. The issue is one of some limited set of principles to be applied by hospital ethics committees in their own hospital rules (rather than applied ad hoc by counsellors and frontline medical staff).
In this discussion there are therefore various levels of application:
(a) the principles supplied by the Catholic Magisterium - which are clear and few debate (it is unclear whether that is true of all Catholics on this thread).
(b) the application of those principles by various Catholic Ethics Committees whether Conferences of Bishops, Diocesan medical Associations or individual Catholic Hospitals and their own ethics committees.
[c] The duty of Catholic professionals at non Catholic medical institutions.
However the top level Catholic principles are clear even if various advice/drug/test procedures at other levels vary.
The Catholic principle is that a fertilised egg, even before implantation, is to be treated as any fully human person be it implanted embryo, new born baby or the elderly dying.
Consequently any drug that stops ovulation (and hence fertilisation) or kills sperm is acceptable in a rape case. What is never acceptable is administration of a drug that prevents implantation when a fertilised egg is likely to be present.
There are clearly grey areas here in practise. It is difficult to know if a fertilised egg is present when the applied drugs are applied - especially if those drugs not only have contraceptive effect but also contra-implantation effect.
That does not mean there is not a duty to reasonably try and determine this if contra-implantation drugs are to be administered.
If it is seriously unreasonable to try and detect/discern this then it may be acceptable to administer such a drug. Also, if ovulation is not detected it will also be reasonable to administer this drug.
But the real question is whether it is unreasonable to attempt to discern if ovulation has occurred.
Its a serious duty to try if it is reasonable.
That is for the ethical committee of the said medical institution to determine.
It appears Catholic hospitals have a very serious obligation to do so (which may include making it cheap for the patient concerned).
In short the ethical principles seem clear, it is the practical side that is not.
What is concerning is that some Catholics on this thread materially appear to assert:
(a) its a black and white issue in practise
(b) it is never immoral to apply drugs that inhibit implantation of a fertilised egg at any time.
Last edited:
F
fredystairs
Guest
Respectfully, regardless of the terminology, if implantation is prevented, the result of the blocking of the implantation is that a human person dies. This per Donum Vitae. (Post 353)
Blessings
P
Pup7
Guest
And medically speaking, if that occurs, it isn’t abortion because abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy, and a pregnancy doesn’t start until the egg implants.
That was my point. Medically, it is not abortion.
Nowhere in this thread have I denied what you’re saying nor have I implied otherwise, I promise you.
What’s going to happen is people will continuously pull quotes out of context, not follow the thread, and not get that at the point this statement was made I was being asked medically to clarify what the drug actually does. And medically speaking, that is what it does.
The medical definition of abortion is termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy begins at implantation. By a medical definition, a woman is not pregnant until that point.
Nowhere have I said this is what the Church says. Just throwing that out there just in case.
Last edited:
M
Maximilian75
Guest
‘Mimicking what the body naturally does’ is quite a nice euphemism for ‘dislodging and flushing out the tiny human being with a soul that was just created by causing an unnatural shedding of the uterus, causing said human to die’…
P
Pup7
Guest
That isn’t how birth control pills or even Plan B work. Otherwise women couldn’t get pregnant while taking them, and they can. That’s also why you can’t take Plan B after a specific amount of time - because it cannot do that.
Birth control pills cannot undo implantation. That’s way beyond their means.
It’s fine to talk about Church teaching and even pharmacology, but there’s no need to say things that aren’t accurate, and that isn’t accurate. The only pill that can “undo” implantation is RU-486, and even it isn’t always effective (which is horrible beyond words).
When the inventor of the Pill said it mimics what the body does, it “tricks” the body into thinking it is pregnant by elevating hormone levels and suppressing ovulation in the first place.
Birth control pills cannot undo implantation. That’s way beyond their means.
It’s fine to talk about Church teaching and even pharmacology, but there’s no need to say things that aren’t accurate, and that isn’t accurate. The only pill that can “undo” implantation is RU-486, and even it isn’t always effective (which is horrible beyond words).
When the inventor of the Pill said it mimics what the body does, it “tricks” the body into thinking it is pregnant by elevating hormone levels and suppressing ovulation in the first place.
Last edited:
T
Tatum
Guest
Indeed, research into PlanB in the last decade demonstrates its contra-implantation effect is far more powerful than its anti ovulatory (ie contraceptive) effect and it is this which makes it so effective at preventing pregnancy.
That is, it is now believed that in the majority of cases it prevents pregnancy by flushing out the fertilised egg which is very unlikely to implant.
If the research is correct then Magisterial ethical principles force us to conclude that the use of PlanB is objectively immoral under all circumstances. Yet in the USA, according to my brief research, only a minority of Catholic Medical Ethics Associations are willing to discuss and accordingly implement these now apparently well established findings.
Its curious.
That is, it is now believed that in the majority of cases it prevents pregnancy by flushing out the fertilised egg which is very unlikely to implant.
If the research is correct then Magisterial ethical principles force us to conclude that the use of PlanB is objectively immoral under all circumstances. Yet in the USA, according to my brief research, only a minority of Catholic Medical Ethics Associations are willing to discuss and accordingly implement these now apparently well established findings.
Its curious.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Owww…just like happens naturally in something like 80% of initial pregnancies! Where are the funeral Masses for those millions of dead babies? Where are their graves?
And–as I’ve said before and will probably say another million times–if you sincerely (underlined) want to stop abortions, then you have it in your power to stop the conditions that cause a large percentage of abortions: poor women just can’t afford another baby. Vote for politicians who will support live births–by offering free pre-natal care, free OB/GYN care, free pre-school day care, free after-school care, monthly payments for each child until they turn 18, etc. etc. That would reduce abortions substantially.
Too expensive for “the richest country in the world”? Probably. Yet almost every other developed country does exactly that. And you know what? Their abortion rates are lower! Magic.
Last edited:
M
Maximilian75
Guest
My bad concerning the biology of the matter.
I call myself Republican, but grudgingly so, because they’re pro-life, but really don’t help out mothers.
Oh, absolutely.
I call myself Republican, but grudgingly so, because they’re pro-life, but really don’t help out mothers.
I feel like this could be really easily abused, but I get your general sentiment and agree.
P
Pup7
Guest
What your article - which is a literature review and not a study - states isn’t that at all. I’ve read and downloaded it.
Peck and Velez conducted a literature review of studies on Plan B’s ingredients (not just ‘Plan B’ per se) from about 1995 through 2010 and drew a conclusion. They didn’t do their own research. They didn’t design a study. Literature reviews are legitimate, but they’re not scientific research. They’re a review of recent findings.
They drew no experimental conclusions, only made recommendations. What you’re asserting they said isn’t what they said at all.
The article is legit (and the fact that I found it interesting may blow your mind) but not for the reasons you state.
Last edited:
T
Tatum
Guest
How strange, I surveyed many sources in presenting this summary of where current medical opinion seems to be.
If you positively deny the validity of such research please present your supporting research to the contrary with links and a summary of what you believe to be the medical evidence re PlanB drugs.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
And still you’re not reading what I’ve said, are you?
I’m not repeating myself. You need to read what people write and stop assuming you know just by someone responding.
The literature review you posted regarding the recommendations made in 2013 for the issue to be reinvestigated by Catholic leadership…from the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. That is a lit review, not independent research.
Good grief. Nowhere did I say the research it reviewed wasn’t legitimate. The article is not independent published research. It’s a lit review. It is legitimate - they’re done all the time - but it’s not independent new research. That’s not what a literature review is.
I’m not repeating myself. You need to read what people write and stop assuming you know just by someone responding.
The literature review you posted regarding the recommendations made in 2013 for the issue to be reinvestigated by Catholic leadership…from the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. That is a lit review, not independent research.
Good grief. Nowhere did I say the research it reviewed wasn’t legitimate. The article is not independent published research. It’s a lit review. It is legitimate - they’re done all the time - but it’s not independent new research. That’s not what a literature review is.
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
P
Pup7
Guest
There are people here in the States who would say our current welfare system does the same thing.
I’m not agreeing with their view, just saying some would say that.
I’m not agreeing with their view, just saying some would say that.
P
Pup7
Guest
Try not to (attempt to) be so condescending. I’m not your child; please don’t speak to me like I am.
Your incessant attempts to twist my words are laughable. I’ve not contradicted anything.
My saying that I don’t disagree with the research in no way means I agree with this statement, so don’t try to twist my words into fitting your definitions of what you want to hear:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I’m in no way forced to conclude anything, I haven’t agreed with that, and I can’t.
For the second time, what are you talking about when you say I’m contradictory? With what? About what? Answer the question, please. Unless, of course, you can’t, because I’m not.
Your incessant attempts to twist my words are laughable. I’ve not contradicted anything.
My saying that I don’t disagree with the research in no way means I agree with this statement, so don’t try to twist my words into fitting your definitions of what you want to hear:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I’m in no way forced to conclude anything, I haven’t agreed with that, and I can’t.
For the second time, what are you talking about when you say I’m contradictory? With what? About what? Answer the question, please. Unless, of course, you can’t, because I’m not.
- Status