Rape/emergency contraception

[mikew262]

When an infant is born dead does that mean we are free to kill infants?

What silliness!! We are talking apples and oranges here. Killing fully formed infants vs. an emergency contraception drug for rapes that prevent egg implantation when chances are it wouldn’t implant anyway?

 

[mikew262]

Truth is not determined by majority opinion. And claiming life begins at implantation is no scientific fact, it is an opinion.

Same goes with your position.

 

[fix]

What silliness!! We are talking apples and oranges here. Killing fully formed infants vs. an emergency contraception drug for rapes that prevent egg implantation when chances are it wouldn’t implant anyway?

No, you said because non implanted fertilized eggs are lost that is evidence life begins at implantation. I find that too absurd to comprehend. Please explain it further so that I may grasp it.

 

[fix]

Same goes with your position.

No, my position is based on authentic science and the teaching of Christ.

 

[jburgherr]

According to the study that was quoted, the vast majority of fertilized eggs never get implanted. How do explain all these eggs being discarded? God is giving life, and then saying oops, my mistake, nevermind, I didn’t really mean to do that.

Unless the egg implants, it was never mean’t to be in the first place.

Think!!

God’s ways are not necessarily your ways. You either believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent God or you don’t. It is His design that certain eggs will succefully implant, and others will not. It is not for you to artificially make things inhospitalble for implantation to take place. You are trying to put yourself in the seat of God.

The realm of creation of human life is and always has been with God. That God decides not to allow every egg to be implanted is His decision, and His alone. We participate with God through the marital act. We are not to interfere with His ways and plan in the creation of human life or to do anything that shortens it, until natural death occurs.

mikew, “your arms are too short to box with God!” (quote stolen from Fr. John Corapi)

 

[mikew262]

No, you said because non implanted fertilized eggs are lost that is evidence life begins at implantation. I find that too absurd to comprehend. Please explain it further so that I may grasp it.

I find it absurd that you are unable to comprehend the logic that I have already explained, plus what was provided to you by that link that was provided , all quoting legitimate medical/scientific organizations.

However, lets try again, so you may try to “grasp” it.

Technically, the egg and the sperm are alive in there own right. When they join, yes, life continues in that one new cell or grouping of cells. However, if that grouping of new cells does not implant, it dies. The vast majority of them do die, thats nature. This drug just increases the chance of that egg not implanting, like increasing the 85% chance of it not happening anyway to say 95%. I’m just guessing at the percentages, but do you get my point?

BTW, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy according to the dictionary. Unless the egg implants, there is no pregnancy, thus no abortion.

 

[fix]

I find it absurd that you are unable to comprehend the logic that I have already explained, plus what was provided to you by that link that was provided , all quoting legitimate medical/scientific organizations.

Mike, do you think politics influence medicine and professional organizations? Do you think every single physician, especially the ones in those professional groups, are severe intellectuals that are immune from moral relativism and utilitariansim?

There is no scientific proof life begins at implantation. It is an arbitrary definition based in politics and relativism. Please prove that life begins at implantation.

However, lets try again, so you may try to “grasp” it.

Technically, the egg and the sperm are alive in there own right.

Alive in what way?

When they join, yes, life continues in that one new cell or grouping of cells. However, if that grouping of new cells does not implant, it dies.

What exactly dies?

The vast majority of them do die, thats nature. This drug just increases the chance of that egg not implanting, like increasing the 85% chance of it not happening anyway to say 95%. I’m just guessing at the percentages, but do you get my point?

Yep, taking the drug has the intention of increasing the chance a fertilized egg will be lost. That seems to be an informed choice with a firm intention. I got it.

BTW, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy according to the dictionary. Unless the egg implants, there is no pregnancy, thus no abortion.

Is a dictionary now the source of truth? Should I use it to form my conscience?

 

[mikew262]

God’s ways are not necessarily your ways. You either believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent God or you don’t. It is His design that certain eggs will succefully implant, and others will not. It is not for you to artificially make things inhospitalble for implantation to take place. You are trying to put yourself in the seat of God.

The realm of creation of human life is and always has been with God. That God decides not to allow every egg to be implanted is His decision, and His alone. We participate with God through the marital act. We are not to interfere with His ways and plan in the creation of human life or to do anything that shortens it, until natural death occurs.

mikew, “your arms are too short to box with God!” (quote stolen from Fr. John Corapi)

Your point is well taken, and I can’t really argue against it. You say it much more eloquently than Fix who basically calls you absurd and illogical if he disagrees with your point. However, I think the point that was made earlier that a pregnancy doesn’t truly begin until implantation is a legitimate one, thus the study stating that this particular drug is not abortion causing is accurate.

 

[fix]

Your point is well taken, and I can’t really argue against it. You say it much more eloquently than Fix who basically calls you absurd and illogical if he disagrees with your point. However, I think the point that was made earlier that a pregnancy doesn’t truly begin until implantation is a legitimate one, thus the study stating that this particular drug is not abortion causing is accurate.

It is not about opinions like I like vanilla and you like chocolate. I find it distressing anyone would equate non implanting fertilized eggs as equal to intentionally rendering them unable to implant.

We are not talking about when pregnancy starts we are talking about when life begins.

 

[jburgherr]

However, I think the point that was made earlier that a pregnancy doesn’t truly begin until implantation is a legitimate one, thus the study stating that this particular drug is not abortion causing is accurate.

So we are arguing in symantics…thats fine if you wish to continue. I won’t get in that argument because it solves nothing.

Artificial interference with human conception is, in the eye of the Church, always morally wrong, grave matter, and to be avoided. Should a Catholic disagree with this fact and either use or advocate the use of any contraceptives and/or abortion, they have automatically excommunicated themselves and should not receive Holy Communion.

That is the fact…and that is undisputed.

 

[jack_hawkins]

There is ample evidence to conclude they are abortifacient

Then it won’t be any trouble to produce some

To act contrary to such compelling evidence is to be callous toward life

This fails in so many ways! First and most importantly appeal to emotion.
Not to mention the fact that the evidence is certainly not compelling.

First do no harm. Any doubt must be resolved in terms of avoiding serious evil.

First do no harm is a platitude from the days when nearly all remedies were useless so any side-effects were unacceptable. This aphorism certainly doesn’t apply to modern medicine.
Your second statement is another appeal to emotion which seeks to suppress any dissent IMO in favour of the “pro-life” movement position.

A good example of the way the “pro-life” movement tries to bully people into accepting its own position regardless of how illogical it is.

 

[fix]

Then it won’t be any trouble to produce some

I already have, several times.

This fails in so many ways! First and most importantly appeal to emotion.

It is an appeal to morality and conscience.

Not to mention the fact that the evidence is certainly not compelling.

Not compelling to those who refuse to accept it. If you were walking down a road and saw a bag that looked like it may have a baby in it but were not sure is your first thought to kick the bag or check for life?

First do no harm is a platitude from the days when nearly all remedies were useless so any side-effects were unacceptable. This aphorism certainly doesn’t apply to modern medicine.

Is your first thought to be careless and do harm?

Your second statement is another appeal to emotion which seeks to suppress any dissent IMO in favour of the “pro-life” movement position.

Wrong again. You dismiss logical reasoning because it interfers with your preconceived end that using abortifacients is acceptable.

A good example of the way the “pro-life” movement tries to bully people into accepting its own position regardless of how illogical it is.

I am still waiting for you to contradict the evidence they are abortifacient. What is your argument other than making false charges regarding my assertions.

 

[mikew262]

So we are arguing in symantics…thats fine if you wish to continue. I won’t get in that argument because it solves nothing.

Artificial interference with human conception is, in the eye of the Church, always morally wrong, grave matter, and to be avoided. Should a Catholic disagree with this fact and either use or advocate the use of any contraceptives and/or abortion, they have automatically excommunicated themselves and should not receive Holy Communion.

That is the fact…and that is undisputed.

Using this logic, then over 90% of adult American Catholics have excommunicated themselves. Hmm…

 

[fix]

Using this logic, then over 90% of adult American Catholics have excommunicated themselves. Hmm…

If 90% have done such things they are objectively wrong. How culpable they are before God is another issue. That depends on several factors.

 

[jack_hawkins]

We are not to interfere with His ways and plan in the creation of human life or to do anything that shortens it, until natural death occurs.

So logically we mustn’t interfere with God’s plan by medical cures then?
Or give opioid painkillers as they hasten death?

 

[mikew262]

I am still waiting for you to contradict the evidence they are abortifacient. What is your argument other than making false charges regarding my assertions.

Somebody else provided it already. Remember the link concerning Dr. James Trussel? Did you bother reading it?

 

[fix]

So logically we mustn’t interfere with God’s plan by medical cures then?
Or give opioid painkillers as they hasten death?

Not logical at all. Eliminating pathology and restoring health are good. How that is done is an issue. Also, rendering a healthy reproductive system infertile is not repairing pathology or restoring health.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Fix, you haven’t produced proof. Therefore I think it is reasonable to assume there is none. The rest of your post goes downhill from there, and amply illustrates that the “pro-life” camp believes in rhetoric before science and logic.
There is no proof that the COCP is an abortifacient. There is only a theory called the “hostile endometrium” theory.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Not logical at all. Eliminating pathology and restoring health are good. How that is done is an issue. Also, rendering a healthy reproductive system infertile is not repairing pathology or restoring health.

The medical profession doesn’t eliminate “pathology” very often. However contraception eliminates the health risks associated with pregnancy and so counts as a medical treatment under the definition normally used for medical treatment.

 

[fix]

Somebody else provided it already. Remember the link concerning Dr. James Trussel? Did you bother reading it?

Yes, and it does not prove your point. It only restates what I, and others here, have said. Indirect evidence supports these drugs may help prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. When serious evil is possible always error on the side of life.