Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[jtauke]

Is that true if the embryo hasn’t made it’s way down the fallopian tubes? Meaning, does Plan B still work in a way that might make the womb hostile to the embryo who has not yet implanted?

The drug Plan B is also artificial progestin and therefore impedes the sperm from entering the uterus in the same way as the IUD. But the drug can also stop the ovaries from releasing an egg. If an egg has already been released, Plan B can slow down the movement of the egg. By slowing down both the egg and the sperm, it prevents fertilization.

The effectiveness of Plan B drops considerably if given more than two days after intercourse. But even at its peak of effectiveness, it is only works 50 percent to 80 percent of the time. Some have argued that Plan B acts after fertilization by changing the uterine lining is such a way that implantation is impossible.

But according to Dr. Sandra Reznik, who also wrote for the January-February 2010 edition of CHA’s Health Progress, if Plan B “involved a change in the endometrium, then one would expect a higher rate of success [in preventing pregnancy]. … Taken together, there are biological, clinical and epidemiological data clearly indicating that Plan B’s mechanism of action involves only pre-fertilization events.”

ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt

I’m of course no doctor or researcher, so If you have evidence of the post-fertilization claim, feel free to cite your source. I’m always happy to read.

 

[TCEL]

The drug Plan B is also artificial progestin and therefore impedes the sperm from entering the uterus in the same way as the IUD. But the drug can also stop the ovaries from releasing an egg. If an egg has already been released, Plan B can slow down the movement of the egg. By slowing down both the egg and the sperm, it prevents fertilization.

The effectiveness of Plan B drops considerably if given more than two days after intercourse. But even at its peak of effectiveness, it is only works 50 percent to 80 percent of the time. Some have argued that Plan B acts after fertilization by changing the uterine lining is such a way that implantation is impossible.

But according to Dr. Sandra Reznik, who also wrote for the January-February 2010 edition of CHA’s Health Progress, if Plan B “involved a change in the endometrium, then one would expect a higher rate of success [in preventing pregnancy]. … Taken together, there are biological, clinical and epidemiological data clearly indicating that Plan B’s mechanism of action involves only pre-fertilization events.”

ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt

I’m of course no doctor or researcher, so If you have evidence of the post-fertilization claim, feel free to cite your source. I’m always happy to read.

Interesting. Thanks for the information. So it doesn’t, in fact, thin the lining of the uterus? There are certainly oral contraceptives that do just that, as indicated in the fine-print. I watched something once where some Christians called pro-life doctors who prescribed contraception, and they actually caught them saying that there is a chance it might do just what I described, but simply that the odds were low.

 

[Thorolfr]

There are no justifiable and proportionate reasons that a Christian could use to vote for Hillary Clinton. None. Her unmitigated support of multiple intrinsic evils makes her an unacceptable candidate. Church teaching is clear on this.

Besides being pro-choice, what other things that you consider to be intrinsic evils does she support?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are entitled to that opinion. Millions of Catholics disagree with you. What you are not entitled to do is to misrepresent Church teaching to other Catholics. The Church does not mandate voting for Donald Trump (or any Republican) or preclude voting for Hillary Clinton (or any Democrat). Each Catholic must reach their own decision.

The Church never tells us what specific candidates we should or should not vote for. But the teachings of the Church make it plain in many instances what the moral and immoral choices are.

It doesn’t matter what millions of Catholics think or don’t think. Even less does it matter what people of other religions think Catholics ought to think.

Clearly, Catholics cannot support candidates who promote intrinsic evils. That’s plain, and no one who knows anything about Catholic teachings disputes that, even those who know but don’t follow the teachings.

When it comes to one candidate relative to another, one cannot support one who promotes intrinsic evils over one who does not. When one candidate supports an intrinsic evil and another supports a lesser one, the obligation is to oppose the one who supports intrinsic evil.

And one has a moral obligation to oppose evil, including the greater of two evils to the extent one can.

So, while the Church doesn’t endorse particular candidates, the teachings, all by themselves, lead to a pretty obvious conclusion.

To the extent, I think, that people feel themselves uncomfortably constrained by the application of the Church’s teachings, that is sometimes only the result of being so accustomed to evil that one is blasé about it now.

Abortion on demand is, however, just as evil as it ever was in 1933, in 1972 and as it will be in 2053.

 

[estesbob]

Besides being pro-choice, what other things that you consider to be intrinsic evils does she support?

" Other than that how was the play Mrs Lincoln?"

 

[TCEL]

Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? General information, last updated 2011.

Effect of a combined oral contraceptive containing 3 mg of drospirenone and 30 μg of ethinyl estradiol on the human endometrium It’s been several years since I’ve researched all this. I don’t think this study speaks to breakthrough ovulation, but it does speak to the third mechanism of oral contraceptives; thinning the lining of the uterus.

The effect of oral contraceptive pills on markers of endometrial receptivity Same as above.

Emergency Contraception Can Cause Abortion Hidden behind misleading terminology, the facts emerge: emergency contraceptives such as Ella and hormonal IUDs can and do cause abortions

I don’t think this one speaks to Plan B.

Anyway, all of that makes me skeptical that Plan B never acts as an abortifacient. I don’t have time to dig up more resources.

 

[jtauke]

" Other than that how was the play Mrs Lincoln?"

Sarcasm really helps move a conversation forward, right?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also, not doing anything may very well mean accepting the possibility that the greater evil will take place.

And one has a moral obligation to oppose evil, including the greater of two evils to the extent one can.

 

[jtauke]

Also, not doing anything may very well mean accepting the possibility that the greater evil will take place.

False dichotomy. Don’t vote for either.

 

[GaryTaylor]

False dichotomy. Don’t vote for either.

Still applies.

Also, not doing anything may very well mean accepting the possibility that the greater evil will take place.

 

[Thorolfr]

No, no you can’t. Hillary Clinton is WORSE on the intrinsic evils compared to Trump, so there is no way for a Christian to vote for Clinton and remain faithful to the teachings of the Church.

What if a voter thought that Trump is so irresponsible and careless that he might start a nuclear war? Would that make voting for him worse on the intrinsic evil scale than voting for Hillary Clinton?

 

[estesbob]

False dichotomy. Don’t vote for either.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

 

[estesbob]

What if a voter thought that Trump is so irresponsible and careless that he might start a nuclear war? Would that make voting for him worse on the intrinsic evil scale than voting for Hillary Clinton?

I would say they are desperately trying to rationalize voting in support of evil.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What if a voter thought that Trump is so irresponsible and careless that he might start a nuclear war? Would that make voting for him worse on the intrinsic evil scale than voting for Hillary Clinton?

Problem is Hillary has 1-million deaths per year already with more promised each and every year. I would say Evangelium Vitae is composed with thinking such as Hillary in mind.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

Trump has no body count. So we are weighing what is, to what may or may not be.

 

[Thorolfr]

I would say they are desperately trying to rationalize voting in support of evil.

As long as Roe has not been overturned, I don’t see either Trump or Clinton having much impact on the issue of abortion. This issue, I believe, will mostly be fought in the courts. And I doubt that the Supreme Court, even with a few Trump appointees, would overturn Roe.

 

[Thorolfr]

Problem is Hillary has 1-million deaths per year already with more promised each and every year. I would say Evangelium Vitae is composed with thinking such as Hillary in mind.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

Trump has no body count. So we are weighing what is, to what may or may not be.

In what way is Mrs. Clinton personally responsible for 1-million deaths per year? She isn’t personally running an abortion clinic, nor has she personally appointed any judges that have made any rulings on this issue. She has stated her personal opinion on this issue, but has not really had any personal impact that I know of.

 

[GaryTaylor]

She’s implicit by advocacy thus conspiracy. Overturning Roe vs Wade has also been discussed.

rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-we-can-absolutely-outlaw-abortion-without-overturning-roe

 

[Ridgerunner]

In what way is Mrs. Clinton personally responsible for 1-million deaths per year? She isn’t personally running an abortion clinic, nor has she personally appointed any judges that have made any rulings on this issue. She has stated her personal opinion on this issue, but has not really had any personal impact that I know of.

And if she’s elected and appoints some abortionist judges, what will you say then? “Oh, I didn’t see it coming” even though she has said that’s what she’ll do?

 

[Crossbones]

They all have authority to teach but the magisterium is the teaching office of the Church. Its not the USCCB or CAF -Ask and Apologist or a Father speaking from EWTN do not have authority its a matter of understanding the relationship.

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/4LEVELS.TXT

So, the USCCB document that was approved by the vast majority of the bishops says that you should use this document or other documents provided by the diocese. I’ll go with that one instead of EWTN.

 

[Crossbones]

Although I will probably vote him i dont slavishly defend him. i think he is a seriously flawed candidate but is far preferable to what the Democrat party has to offer. I was a cradle Democrat and am still deeply disappointed that the Party has so embraced the culture of death it is almost impossible to find a democrat Candidate a catholic can vote for in a National election

From the USCCB’s Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

“These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human life, such as genocide, torture, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.”

It would seem by the same logic, a Catholic cannot vote for Trump.