A
Aleii
Guest
That I already responded to. As well, I’ve already posted my references by priests and respected apologists. I kind of feel like I’m just repeating myself at this point.
- Status
A
aaronlgates
Guest
It appears it’s just you and me again!
Oh well. No worries. Over time perhaps others will come to contribute.
Take it easy Aleii and have a nice weekend!
Aaron
A
Aleii
Guest
you as well
H
hasikelee
Guest
If all your nurse P or doctor has to offer in the face of those symptoms is COCs, please, please, find more medical professionals to assist you! This is a fine example to make the point of my last post. Doctors are overprescribing birth control pills instead of getting to the bottom of the issue.
Combination oral contraceptives do not have abortive side effects. They were created with the purpose of 1) to prevent ovulation and 2) to prevent the new human from connecting to the mother and living. This wasn’t an accident. Furthermore, this then brings many questions to bear: such as, why not just choose a birth control pill that is NOT a COC?
Many, many other therapies, hormonal replacement therapies, surgeries, etc exist. Please take charge of your health and research various options! Relief from pain and healing is possible for many women.
Again, why the requirement to take a COC? Single-hormonal BCPs such as Provera or Progestegin can be MUCH more helpful in alleviating painful symptoms.
I chose to respond to your post because of this above quote. This is terribly, terribly misleading and incorrect. An abortion is a deliberate attempt to kill a pre-born human. A miscarriage is a natural death of the pre-born human where the mother is unable to stop it or unaware of it happening.
Again, it is not new medical information that combination oral contraceptives were created with a specific purpose in mind. People were getting pregnant on birth control pills and this was a problem, so synthetic hormones had to be added to prevent the human from surviving. This brings up the success rate of the BCP.
Again, I urge you to look into various medical institutions and organizations for cutting edge therapies, new medical treatments and doctors with second opinions. I am sure there are others on this forum who can direct you to organizations completely committed to women’s health issues. Please don’t give up in finding a healthy, safe therapy for you and your existing or future children.
T
TMC
Guest
It’s easy to apply rigid and formulaic rules to other people. The Church is not so rigid. This is the kind of decision that has to be made case-by-case by a couple and their spiritual advisor, not something that can be declared moral or immoral in a blanket manner by anyone here.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I think there are a few points on both sides going unacknowledged.
In reading the Apologists, Michelle Arnolds post is exemplerary in showing how perspective taints the decision being made.
The problem isn’t solved by going to see a single priest confessor.
I could use explicit antecedant, but I will simply say that my experience shows that many priests have the same difficulty interpreting what a person coming to ask advice is actually saying.
(No, I am not just speaking about myself being difficult to undersand – tho that would be a funny comeback!)
So general statements from Apologists, whether priestly or not – are perhaps easy targets to take out of context. But the subtlety of double effect, or choosing the lesser evil (colloquially), makes it well worth discussing – because this is how even the good are lead astray.
Take for example the end of Michelle Arnolds answer:
Clearly, though, Michelle doesn’t think this way – yet here she is quoting an argument which I could take as “If they are dying anyway – what difference does reducing the chance of their survival make?”
But I think what she is really trying to say is that the church hasn’t been able to find a clear way to express the proper teaching either way yet – and so is remaining silent rather than committing to what may be in error.
Her point (I think) is that every sexual act whether contracepting or not poses a risk to the future fetus. But I do know that Michelle was uncertain of how much the “pill” affected the statistic.
( I am uncertain too – but I do understand that non-cocktail doses of the pill and depo are not usually abortaficient for they suppress ovulation. I also could be wrong… I am not a doctor; and even if I were I haven’t personally verified the studies. )
However, I do know that the “cocktail” doses of hormones were researched specifically to abort – and this was in practice even before RU486 was developed specifically to cause abortions. So the “pill” can be used in multiple ways – not all of which MIchelle was addressing in her comments.
Consider the case of an infertile couple – what if they are infertile because the fetus simply can’t implant? A genetic defect, or hormonal deficiency in one of the spouses might make it such that all their children are miscarried – those hormones are required to keep the baby alive. Yet I wouldn’t argue that the children are any less human because they die – nor that increasing the odds of thier death is a good thing.
But an infertile couple may be ignorantly doomed to miscarry every child they conceive, yet that can’t be a sin. Nor do I accuse God of willing this – it is simply the nature of there being truth, law, order, and freedom. Of being incarnate.
But I do sympathize with Aaronlgates about the alternative method being a duty when such is possible. I also am very uneasy about the comparing of the weight of the different “sins”. But I do think that in a forum setting, working out specific cases – rather than generalities is better at preventing miscommunication. Aaron has been working on the issue of “what is the value of life” vs. “the maimed life” and this I think is a very strong point.
I also would like to note, that doctors are sued (even irrationally sometimes, othertimes NOT) when maimed children come into the world – so that in the unethical (and severely tempted) secular world, sometimes abortion may seem like a better gamble in self defense. Utilitarianism.
In reading the Apologists, Michelle Arnolds post is exemplerary in showing how perspective taints the decision being made.
The problem isn’t solved by going to see a single priest confessor.
I could use explicit antecedant, but I will simply say that my experience shows that many priests have the same difficulty interpreting what a person coming to ask advice is actually saying.
(No, I am not just speaking about myself being difficult to undersand – tho that would be a funny comeback!)
So general statements from Apologists, whether priestly or not – are perhaps easy targets to take out of context. But the subtlety of double effect, or choosing the lesser evil (colloquially), makes it well worth discussing – because this is how even the good are lead astray.
Take for example the end of Michelle Arnolds answer:
I am struck first how this statistic is often used by abortion proponents to say the life isn’t “worth” anything yet.
Clearly, though, Michelle doesn’t think this way – yet here she is quoting an argument which I could take as “If they are dying anyway – what difference does reducing the chance of their survival make?”
But I think what she is really trying to say is that the church hasn’t been able to find a clear way to express the proper teaching either way yet – and so is remaining silent rather than committing to what may be in error.
Her point (I think) is that every sexual act whether contracepting or not poses a risk to the future fetus. But I do know that Michelle was uncertain of how much the “pill” affected the statistic.
( I am uncertain too – but I do understand that non-cocktail doses of the pill and depo are not usually abortaficient for they suppress ovulation. I also could be wrong… I am not a doctor; and even if I were I haven’t personally verified the studies. )
However, I do know that the “cocktail” doses of hormones were researched specifically to abort – and this was in practice even before RU486 was developed specifically to cause abortions. So the “pill” can be used in multiple ways – not all of which MIchelle was addressing in her comments.
Consider the case of an infertile couple – what if they are infertile because the fetus simply can’t implant? A genetic defect, or hormonal deficiency in one of the spouses might make it such that all their children are miscarried – those hormones are required to keep the baby alive. Yet I wouldn’t argue that the children are any less human because they die – nor that increasing the odds of thier death is a good thing.
But an infertile couple may be ignorantly doomed to miscarry every child they conceive, yet that can’t be a sin. Nor do I accuse God of willing this – it is simply the nature of there being truth, law, order, and freedom. Of being incarnate.
But I do sympathize with Aaronlgates about the alternative method being a duty when such is possible. I also am very uneasy about the comparing of the weight of the different “sins”. But I do think that in a forum setting, working out specific cases – rather than generalities is better at preventing miscommunication. Aaron has been working on the issue of “what is the value of life” vs. “the maimed life” and this I think is a very strong point.
I also would like to note, that doctors are sued (even irrationally sometimes, othertimes NOT) when maimed children come into the world – so that in the unethical (and severely tempted) secular world, sometimes abortion may seem like a better gamble in self defense. Utilitarianism.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Aaron, I admire your zeal, and I might even agree technically with your statement, but I will to broaden the perspective a bit. “We” as baptized have been given “death”, and through the resurrection we are now also children of God (not just servants), and we are also children of the promise.
We have not “earned” anything, but we do deserve what God has promised because of what he has already given must be Glorified not put to shame. So, technically, Lord give us not what we have deserved, but what you have promised.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Yes, and if he didn’t get it the first or second time, something new definitely needs to be added to clarify the problem. Quoting apologists can be easy ventriloquism… 
H
hasikelee
Guest
Bingo!
I remember take a class at a med university where the guest speaker really hit the spot on this one. He was advising us on insurance methods and how to protect ourselves financially and career-wise from lawsuits. Early termination of the pre-born human was openly promoted as a simple and cheap alternative to a lawsuit or possible complications post-delivery.The liability of a doctor is greviously confused in our country, and sadly, many doctors cave into a desire to simply protect themselves without regard to a patient’s health, or even life.
- Status