OB/GYNs and birth control?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smiddle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pregnancy is tracked in months, which is a general time frame. A life cannot be created without the sperm cell, so you cannot say that it is a life before fertilization. If that were so, a woman would be naturally having an abortion every month.
No, pregnancy is tracked in weeks. I thought you wanted to be an OB? I assume you are not in any medical training yet.

Indeed, life is created at the moment of fertilization, that is why I said it was contradictory of the medical establishment to date a pregnancy from a woman’s last menstrual period but then claim they are not pregnant until implantation at which they date your pregnancy at 4-5 weeks. Do you see the contradiction?
 
No, pregnancy is tracked in weeks. I thought you wanted to be an OB? I assume you are not in any medical training yet.

Indeed, life is created at the moment of fertilization, that is why I said it was contradictory of the medical establishment to date a pregnancy from a woman’s last menstrual period but then claim they are not pregnant until implantation at which they date your pregnancy at 4-5 weeks. Do you see the contradiction?
Obviously the development of the child is tracked in weeks, since so many changes happen so quickly. I meant that when you ask someone how far along they are, their general response is a month. I go to my mother’s office after class everyday, I would say that I am pretty knowledgeable on the subject.
 
Obviously the development of the child is tracked in weeks, since so many changes happen so quickly. I meant that when you ask someone how far along they are, their general response is a month. I go to my mother’s office after class everyday, I would say that I am pretty knowledgeable on the subject.
Then you should know that in the doctors office they say you are X weeks and X days along. They do not refer to months at all. (Because there a variable number of weeks in the months).
 
Then you should know that in the doctors office they say you are X weeks and X days along. They do not refer to months at all. (Because there a variable number of weeks in the months).
I did not say when you ask them as a healthcare provider, but this is tangential to the point of the post, so I’m just going to end this discussion with you.
 
I did not say when you ask them as a healthcare provider, but this is tangential to the point of the post, so I’m just going to end this discussion with you.
Except that we were talking about the medical community and healthcare, not how people talk in everyday life. :rolleyes:
 
No, you really are confused. That is from the Mayo Clinic, not Webster. If you do not even know what Mayo is, I can only assume that you have no medical training or background.
Of course I know who the Mayo Clinic is. As I stated, the medical community purposely redefine pregnancy to implantation rather than fertilization after they realized that some contraceptives act in this manner in order to avoid the issue.

“Webster”, i.e. shorthand/colloquial for “dictionary definition”.
Once the egg is fertilized, then it is a pregnancy. It would be considered an abortion to terminate that.
That is correct. However, that is not how the medical community defines pregnancy anymore.
You cannot discredit something just because the Church says so and makes up your mind for you. Remember when the Church tried to silence those who said that the the Earth revolved around the sun?
NOW who is confused. The Church did no such thing.
 
I am comfortable with providing temporary forms of contraception (the pill, IUDs, etc.), but I would never do anything to permanently prevent someone from creating a child. I would rather someone wait until they are married and be ready to have a child than to have a baby out of wedlock and have an impure child.
An impure child? I’ve heard of impure acts but that is a new one…we all have original sin but saying “impure” is a stretch. A child, no matter the state of the parents’ souls, is always a blessing.

God bless you…I really hope you can learn to put the true teachings of the Church above all earthly things, including your mother’s ideas. Birth control is opposed to Catholic teaching. Period.
 
The Church made regretable mistakes in the matters involving Galileo and Copernicus. But these were not matters of dogma nor moral teaching. These were not matters of authoratiative teaching.

We believe that the Church has authority to teach on matters of morality; the faithful are bound to follow the Church’s teaching on matters of faith and morals. No matter how the medical community defines pregancy, abortion, and such terms, we have definite direction from Mother Church to protect life from the moment of fertilisation. Birth control that may be abortifacient…that may prevent a fertilised egg from implanting…presents a great problem and is incompatible with Church teaching.

As discussed by others, where there are legitimate medical reasons for such, there is no problem with a Catholic doctor performing hysterectomies or prescribing hormonal treatments (eg the pill). Any Catholic doctor should establish a firm understanding of the principle of double effect and how it relates to medical procedures. The link provided to the national Catholic bio-ethics center is a good place to start.
 
It is a sin to take birth control. I would not be taking it, I would be providing it because not everyone follows the Church and it is not my place to stop them from receiving birth control.
Right, but you, being an apparent member of the Catholic church should know that you should not help people commit mortal sins.

Why would you give someone birth control if you know it to be a mortal sin?

You’re saying okay here take this- its incredibly bad for you and will send you to hell, but what the hell do I care?

Doesn’t sound very Christian of you, smiddle. For them to take it is one thing, but for you to give it to them means you’re saying okay- go ahead.
 
Right, but you, being an apparent member of the Catholic church should know that you should not help people commit mortal sins.

Why would you give someone birth control if you know it to be a mortal sin?

You’re saying okay here take this- its incredibly bad for you and will send you to hell, but what the hell do I care?

Doesn’t sound very Christian of you, smiddle. For them to take it is one thing, but for you to give it to them means you’re saying okay- go ahead.
Drunkenness is a sin, yet they still used alcohol for medicinal purposes in Biblical times, and even up to the prohibition.
 
The Church made regretable mistakes in the matters involving Galileo and Copernicus. But these were not matters of dogma nor moral teaching. These were not matters of authoratiative teaching.

We believe that the Church has authority to teach on matters of morality; the faithful are bound to follow the Church’s teaching on matters of faith and morals. No matter how the medical community defines pregancy, abortion, and such terms, we have definite direction from Mother Church to protect life from the moment of fertilisation. Birth control that may be abortifacient…that may prevent a fertilised egg from implanting…presents a great problem and is incompatible with Church teaching.

As discussed by others, where there are legitimate medical reasons for such, there is no problem with a Catholic doctor performing hysterectomies or prescribing hormonal treatments (eg the pill). Any Catholic doctor should establish a firm understanding of the principle of double effect and how it relates to medical procedures. The link provided to** the national Catholic bio-ethics center is a good place to start.
That is where your ignorance shows; pregnancy and abortion are medical terms, that is why you receive prenatal care. A life is not a life until a zygote is formed. Cells are a matter of science, not a matter of faith. The Church cannot give a definition to something they do not know about, that would be like you or me trying to create a new law of physics.

The pill and IUDs are not abortifacient. Something that is abortifacient is something that works to end a pregnancy. Abortifacient is a scientific term, created by scientists. What authority or expertise does the Church have to that this definition is wrong?

Emergency contraception, like the morning after pill, is abortifacient, which is a form of contraception that I do not agree with.
 
Drunkenness is a sin, yet they still used alcohol for medicinal purposes in Biblical times, and even up to the prohibition.
Doesn’t this erode your point? Would you give alcohol to a drunk that you knew was going to abuse it and harm himself, and continue his sin? I hope not! For the same reasons a doctor should not give artificial female hormones to those who (s)he knows will use them to poison their reproductive system.
 
A life is not a life until a zygote is formed.
Which is at the moment of conception, correct?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

So, then anything which harms this new life would be bad, correct?

Doesn’t the IUD prevent this new life from properly implanting, as nature intended?

Is not a secondary (and desired) effect of most female hormonal contraceptives to impact a change in the uterine lining that makes it less likely, in the case of an actual conception, to implant?
 
It is a sin to take birth control. I would not be taking it, I would be providing it because not everyone follows the Church and it is not my place to stop them from receiving birth control.
It’s a sin to take contraception. It’s a sin to prescribe contraception. It’s a sin to encourage another to take contraception. It’s a sin to act as if contraception was not a moral evil and possibly lead others to sin,. You can’t pick and choose which sin you will support. If you do any of these things you would not be living your life as a faithful Catholic.
 
Which is at the moment of conception, correct?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

So, then anything which harms this new life would be bad, correct?

Doesn’t the IUD prevent this new life from properly implanting, as nature intended?

Is not a secondary (and desired) effect of most female hormonal contraceptives to impact a change in the uterine lining that makes it less likely, in the case of an actual conception, to implant?
The pill and IUDs prevent it from fertilizing, the life is not yet created, therefore it cannot be called an abortion, which is the termination of an existing pregnancy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top