'Morning-after' pill available to minors without rx

[spectrm]

Fetus means ‘little one’ in Latin.
Little what?
Little baby is the proper term. Or little human if you like.

I know full well what fetus means in Latin, but I speak English, and in English, fetus means ‘a pre-born’ of any species. A human fetus would then be a ‘pre-born human’ just as a pig fetus would be a ‘pre-born pig’. For all your knowledge of latin, your syntax fails you, huh?

Actually according to rabbonic scholars - the Hebrew word for abortions is the same Hebrew word for Giants.
They say the English translation of the ‘time of the giants’ in Genesis during the time of Noah is an error and the actual word is aborted fetuses.

I’ve never head this before, so I’ll have to check into it. I’ll admit, it sounds kosher enough. This would shoot the young earther’s in the foot, though, so it’s not likely it’ll hit the mainstream in any case. Btw - the spelling is ‘rabbinic’.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I know full well what fetus means in Latin, but I speak English, and in English, fetus means ‘a pre-born’ of any species. A human fetus would then be a ‘pre-born human’ just as a pig fetus would be a ‘pre-born pig’. For all your knowledge of latin, your syntax fails you, huh?

I’ve never head this before, so I’ll have to check into it. I’ll admit, it sounds kosher enough. This would shoot the young earther’s in the foot, though, so it’s not likely it’ll hit the mainstream in any case. Btw - the spelling is ‘rabbinic’.

In that case - Latin is not English and therefore you shouldn’t technically be using it outside of how it was originally meant, and not as a term to define a lump or mass.

Fetus is a Latin word and you cannot change the meaning of another language even if you speak English.

BUT if you wish to translate it into English - then correctly it is ‘Little One.’ Regardless of how some have maligned the language.

And I hope you do look into the Hebrew.

“America’s Rabbi” Warns: "Enormous, Humanic and Historic Upheaval …
Jun 25, 2007 … “In Hebrew,” explained the Rabbi there is “one word for giants (and) aborted fetuses.” Comparing the time of Noah to the current day, the Rabbi said, …

*.Key to interpreting the Bible (the Old Testament) suggests the Rabbi, is the Hebrew language. In that language, he notes, the Bible tells that in the time just before the flood there were aborted babies. “Everyone is familiar with that section just before the flood, of giants,” said Rabbi Lapin. “The King James translation refers to these people as giants - one thing, in the Hebrew, it becomes immediately very clear is that what we really are talking about is aborted people, aborted fetuses.”

“In Hebrew,” explained the Rabbi** there is “one word for giants (and) aborted fetuses.”** Comparing the time of Noah to the current day, the Rabbi said, “Babies that are aborted eventually bring about a culture of death that destroys society.”
*

 

[spectrm]

In that case - Latin is not English and therefore you shouldn’t technically be using it outside of how it was originally meant, and not as a term to define a lump or mass.

Fetus is a Latin word and you cannot change the meaning of another language even if you speak English.

BUT if you wish to translate it into English - then correctly it is ‘Little One.’ Regardless of how some have maligned the language.

Regardless of it’s use and meaning in Latin, it has been adopted into the English language. The funny thing about linguistics is that, since it’s a human derived concept, it changes, evolves, devolves, merges, adopts and abandons. The word ‘fetus’ was brought into the language to fill a particular role (we already have the words ‘little’ and ‘one’, and English standards dictate the use of these two independent concepts in tandem to convey their singular concept of ‘one that is little’. The word ‘fetus’, then, is used to fill the role of the word ‘pre-born’ in the scientific and academic discourse (though it finds the same purpose in common language). Find a definition of ‘fetus’ (even a Latin one) that particularly specifies ‘human’ and you’ll have an argument - though it would be no more relevant to the topic, so thanks for the semantic digression.

There was no malignment - that is what the word means in common use as it is ALSO and English word.

And I hope you do look into the Hebrew.

…

I certainly will - especially as I know the Chinese word of for ‘exposure’ (as in ‘left out to exposure’) and ‘abortion’ are identical as well. Abortion, for obvious reasons, has lent itself to euphemism. To wit, if a normal family gave birth to a ‘giant’, they would likely ‘abort’, or ‘leave out to exposure’ to save the humiliation and difficulties in raising such a child, especially in a far less hospitible social environment.

This is a common phenomenon in language (and further proof of its tendency to morph).

 

[WarriorAngel]

hli.org/seminarians_eastern_orthodoxy_contraception.html

Early Church - Evils of Contraception

Earliest Ecumenical Councils and Synods had to deal with the problem of abortion and contraception. The Fathers of those Councils were unequivocal in their condemnation
"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees." [Synod in Ancyra can. XXI (**A.D. 314)]
"Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty of murder." [Council in Trullo can. XCI. (**A.D. 692)]
“Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not.” [Can. II of St. Basil the Great]
In A.D. 191 St. Clement of Alexandria referred to Onan’s evil act:
*“He broke the law of coitus.” He went on to explain that “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.” *
Origen — theologian of the early 3rd century Alexandrian Church — refuted pagan philosopher Celsus by reference to God’s people in the Old Testament
*“nor were there among them women who sold their beauty to anyone who wished to have sexual intercourse without offspring, and to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation.” *
In the early Church it was clear that to have sexual intercourse without being open to offspring was to commit an evil act.

In A.D. 307 the Latin philosopher and apologist, Lactantius Firmianus, attested to the Christian belief that abstinence is the only licit means of limiting family size. He spoke of those who
*"…complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power… or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife… the genital [generating] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring…" *
In A.D. 375, the Greek theologian St. Epiphanius of Salamis wrote against those who:
*"…exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, **but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption." ***
St. John Chrysostum, the 4th century Patriarch of Constantinople. In a homily he preached in 391 A.D., this illustrious Father of the Church condemned both contraception and abortion:
“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well… Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?.. Yet such turpitude… the matter still seems indifferent to many men; even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. **Against her are these innumerable tricks”. **
In another homily, St. John Chrysostom went on to say:
"The procreation of children in marriage is the ‘heritage’ and ‘reward’ of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into 'one flesh’ (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the 'sacrament of love.’"

 

[spectrm]

@WarriorAngel:
I would quote, but your insistence on using color precludes any form of feasible edit.

For one, I find it interesting that a person who believes god has a will and it is enacted regardless of peoples actions finds a problem with any form of preventative measure…clearly god knew it would happen and that this particular instance would be prevented…but I digress.

Contraception is not murder by any definition I know. I understand it’s against catholic doctrine, but it’s clearly a dated concept.

What else is dated is the insistence that all sex be for procreation. Countless studies have shown the importance of sex in maintaining an emotionally fullfilling relationship. To think that each relationship-building act of intimacy is either to produce offspring or is lust is silly. And what of all of our other monogamous sexual encounters that yield no offspring, even when there’s intent? Should god be blamed for preventing the creation of a life? And what of women who cannot conceive? Are they to go their entire life without intimacy? Should we only have relations when the woman is ovulating, as well, for fear of being in sin? What if I can’t measure the temperature difference during her ovulation? Am I guilty of sin by ignorance (distinct from indifference)?

The fact is, many of these rules were first conceptualized and enacted in an environment that wasn’t very sterile and also demanded a lot of a persons energies to be devoted to physical labors (such as procuring food and shelter). Shellfish and swine are non-kosher, not because they are actually sinful to consume, but because neither holds up well while walking through the desert, and pigs are considered filthy by many cultures, but not for spiritual reasons. There are sects that use the same type of ‘testimony’ you quote to forbid any form of physical contact between male and female unless it’s for reproductive intercourse.

I find the quote “Better in the belly of a whore than on the belly of a bride” disturbing at best.

You walk the line of a fanatic, and it’s dangerous line to walk. Be careful you don’t fall the wrong way.

 

[WarriorAngel]

@WarriorAngel:
I would quote, but your insistence on using color precludes any form of feasible edit.

For one, I find it interesting that a person who believes god has a will and it is enacted regardless of peoples actions finds a problem with any form of preventative measure…clearly god knew it would happen and that this particular instance would be prevented…but I digress.

No idea where you get the idea that God usurps our free will, but we do have free will.
Of course - that free will often tramples on God’s Will and so He will allow us to fall into our devices of sin…which leads to catastrophies when we exclude Him.

Contraception is not murder by any definition I know. I understand it’s against catholic doctrine, but it’s clearly a dated concept.

God doesn’t change regardless if satan tells us we need to ‘get with it…’ the modern times.
God is faithful even if we are not.

What else is dated is the insistence that all sex be for procreation. Countless studies have shown the importance of sex in maintaining an emotionally fullfilling relationship. To think that each relationship-building act of intimacy is either to produce offspring or is lust is silly. And what of all of our other monogamous sexual encounters that yield no offspring, even when there’s intent? Should god be blamed for preventing the creation of a life? And what of women who cannot conceive? Are they to go their entire life without intimacy? Should we only have relations when the woman is ovulating, as well, for fear of being in sin? What if I can’t measure the temperature difference during her ovulation? Am I guilty of sin by ignorance (distinct from indifference)?

This is an example of how our free will tramples God’s Will.
It’s always about what we insist on, what we want…
Seldom does anyone seek out His will, and we wonder why He takes His grace from us.

As for sterlity, all life - let me emphasize that more clearly…
ALL LIFE IS GOD GIVEN.
So if He renders anyone sterile, then it is His will to render them so.
IF He the giver of life, does not give, then we should accept His Will.

The fact is, many of these rules were first conceptualized and enacted in an environment that wasn’t very sterile and also demanded a lot of a persons energies to be devoted to physical labors (such as procuring food and shelter). Shellfish and swine are non-kosher, not because they are actually sinful to consume, but because neither holds up well while walking through the desert, and pigs are considered filthy by many cultures, but not for spiritual reasons. There are sects that use the same type of ‘testimony’ you quote to forbid any form of physical contact between male and female unless it’s for reproductive intercourse.

No - the Church fathers are not saying one thing about cleanliness.
They are saying contraception is murder.
Murder does not change in God’s eyes, no matter who wishes it would.
Murder has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions.
The only condition God cares for - is the soul.
Apparently sin is now acceptable and the fathers clear writings are attempted to be blurred.

I find the quote “Better in the belly of a whore than on the belly of a bride” disturbing at best.

You walk the line of a fanatic, and it’s dangerous line to walk. Be careful you don’t fall the wrong way.

Revelation tells us ‘You are neither hot nor cold and i will spit you out.’
Which means apathy or lukewarmness will be bitter to Him and He will not keep us.

As for that scripture quote - could you give me which verse that would be from.

 

[someoneorother]

Here’s a quote on the subject from another message board: “I don’t understand how you can take a product, that in 5x less strength (regular birth control) requires a prescription, and make it available over the counter…”

I’m not sure if this has been discussed in this thread as I didn’t read every reply, but yeah, it seems very illogical. Is this something that we can write letters to the FDA about to get reversed? If not, then who, if anyone?

Another thing is that not all states outlaw (consensual) sex involving 17 year olds, so the argument could go that if they’re legally okay to be having sex, then they should legally be allowed access to birth control.

Of course birth control is against Catholic teaching, but taking the previous paragraph into account, and you agreed with it’s logic, would you say that this is a special case to rally around?

Personally, I’d refer to the opinion implied in my first paragraph. Plan B, if it’s going to be legal doesn’t make sense to me to be available over the counter since lower-dosed “regular” birth control pills require a prescription.

 

[someoneorother]

Here’s a quote on the subject from another message board: “I don’t understand how you can take a product, that in 5x less strength (regular birth control) requires a prescription, and make it available over the counter…”

I’m not sure if this has been discussed in this thread as I didn’t read every reply, but yeah, it seems very illogical. Is this something that we can write letters to the FDA about to get reversed? If not, then who, if anyone?

Another thing is that not all states outlaw (consensual) sex involving 17 year olds, so the argument could go that if they’re legally okay to be having sex, then they should legally be allowed access to birth control.

Of course birth control is against Catholic teaching, but taking the previous paragraph into account, and you agreed with its logic, would you say that this is a special case to rally around?

Personally, I’d refer to the opinion implied in my first paragraph. Plan B, if it’s going to be legal doesn’t make sense to me to be available over the counter since lower-dosed “regular” birth control pills require a prescription.

 

[WillieWonka]

I know that the athiests think Planned Parenthood is a gift to women and society, but as Christians we know that life begins at conception. We also know that Planned Parenthood fights to keep abortions readily available to women of all ages, even underage girls. What a scourge on our society, not a gift!

Everyone knows the fertilized egg is alive. Christians know it. Atheists know it.