User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 3:59:56 PM EDT
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512090161dec09,1,7430793.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed I almost put this in GD, but it would have ended up here anyway, or in the pit, and I hate the pit, so I just put it here. Putting aside differences for the moment, I hope the Catholic Church fights this tooth and nail. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 4:31:07 PM EDT
[#1]
What is your issue with the morning after pill? Do you take issue with all forms of birth control?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 4:34:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Birth control happens beforehand. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 4:41:26 PM EDT
[#3]
Some people will never understand this, but Catholics as well as other Christian faiths believe that life begins at Conception. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The Church is and always will be Pro-Life. To change that would be like asking a single shot .22 pistol to become a Vulcan Chain Gun just because you think it should be. It aint gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 4:46:38 PM EDT
[#4]
The "morning after" pill does not abort a fertilized egg. It prevents conception, just like regular birth control pills. The "abortion pill" is called RU486 and is a different deal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 4:55:12 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:06:52 PM EDT
[#6]
The morning after pill is completely sensible, but you will never get some to go along with it. Not being able to use the 'killing of a baby' rationale, the hard core pro lifers will turn into sexual luddites and claim it encourages promiscuity and therefore must be banned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:12:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Aha! Now your post in the other thread makes sense.  The pill is not rational. The 'killing of a baby' rationale applies perfectly. I'm sorry that you don't see it that way, but your refusal to see it doesn't change reality. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:21:53 PM EDT
[#8]
How would the morning after pill kill a baby? If the egg is already fertilized, nothing happens to it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:24:55 PM EDT
[#9]
So now it's a baby before the chromo's unite? It seems that you may not approve of the flushing pill simply because it is yet another consequence removed from supposed 'sinful' behavior. I suspect all forms of birth control fall into the same category? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:25:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Actually, here's what happens: The fetus (a fertilized egg is known as a 'fetus') fails to implant in the uterine wall, and is then flushed out. The fetus ultimately dies, I suppose, in the toilet.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:27:01 PM EDT
[#11]
No, it's a baby AFTER they unite. See the above post.
You didn't read the thread, did you? 
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 6:37:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Yeah so? I'm with dvr9 and arowneragain, the morning after pill kills babies. I hope Catholic hospitals prevails on this issue! Shok |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 7:01:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Socialist bullshit. But it's ok when it makes the christians angry! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 7:18:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Wrong, wrong, wrong! The "morning after pill" does indeed abort a fertilized egg, if it has already been fertilized. The regular birth control pill does as well. They do work similarly. The current birth control pill works in 3 ways: 1. it works to suppress ovulation 2. it is thought to possibly thicken the cervical mucus (although the evidence for this isn't compelling) 3. if ovulation occurs (called breakthrough ovulation), the hormones that the BC pill is made of makes the womb inhospitable for any newly fertilized egg (read: baby under construction, but still a baby), and it is unable to implant in the endometrium. It then dies and is flushed out with the next menses. IOW, it causes an abortion. The morning after pill does the same thing since it is basically the same pill. It suppresses ovulation, but it also makes the womb inhospitable to any newly fertilized egg that may exist. The rest is the same as #3 above. IOW, it causes an abortion. Add to the abortifacient function of these drugs the increased risk of stroke, heart disease, blood clots, high blood pressure, and breast cancer (that's right), I don't see how anyone should be forced to prescribe them. Medicine is supposed to heal and restore a body's natural function. The BC pill does the exact opposite and is designed to thwart the body's natural function and screws it up. I fail to see how all of these artificial contraceptives can be called "medicine." The state may want to force Catholic hospitals to prescribe a contraceptive, but they simply can't. What will they do -- shut down all Catholic hospitals? They can't afford to do that. Hopefully the bishop there will have the guts that Francis Cardinal George of Chicago did when Illinois tried the same thing. He threatened to shut down every Catholic hospital in his diocese if the legislature passed a law requiring all hospitals to distribute the things (there was no exception in the law for religious belief). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 7:47:04 PM EDT
[#15]
what is the problem with the morning after pill when a woman's body already aborts 79% of fetuses anyway? If it is good enough for God to "kill" a zygote, then it is good for us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2005 8:15:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Well hell, 100% of people die anyway, so I guess there's nothing wrong with a few murders here and there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 3:31:03 AM EDT
[#17]
PreMed Gunner.....Owned!!! 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 3:44:47 AM EDT
[#18]
The hospitals are wrong, but I still support them. The state has no business telling them what drugs they can and can't prescribe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 4:42:14 AM EDT
[#19]
I believe Wal Greens has suspended five pharmicists who refused to fill prescriptions for the "morning after" pill citing their own religious convictions.
I cannot remember where this happened but the article stated that the law in that particular state reads that if you sell any contraceptives at all, you must also make available the "morning after" pill as well. The company believes the pharmicists were in violation of that law. Do Catholic hospitals dispense any other forms of contraception? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 4:58:33 AM EDT
[#20]
I'm no expert on Catholic hospitals, but a quick google search turned up nothing to make me think Catholic hospitals dispensed contraceptives of any sort. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 7:09:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Anytime there's a pill, procedure, etc. that effects conception, there are going to be people with strong personal convictions on the matter.
I'm not in favor of the government telling a private run hospital that it has to provide this pill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 7:14:54 AM EDT
[#22]
Catholic hospitals will dispense contraceptives only in the case where they are used to regulate a womans cycle or hormone levels. I used to date a girl in college, very pro-life and anti-contraception. Her cycle was extremely erratic and could not be tracked at all. It caused several additional health problems as well. Contraceptives were prescribed by her doctor so that she could regulate her cycle. The Church allows this as long as the women practices the Rhythm Method "Hereforto known as Vatican Roullette" at the same time |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 11:11:04 AM EDT
[#23]
It's because...
Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate And so forth. You get my point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 11:17:30 AM EDT
[#24]
That's GREAT news! The Catholic hospitals will respond by closing facilities in those liberal states and moving them to more friendly places. No more freebie low cost medical care for liberals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 11:42:34 AM EDT
[#25]
First, I feel Romney mukked up. Private hospitals should be able to make these sorts of decisions without the State or the Fed making them for them. Second, AROwner...Birthcontrol pills (that which is taken BEFORE the sex act) also work in the way you've outlined above--when the first two levels of their "powers" fail. Just thought you should be aware. Third...last time I was Catholic, they were against ALL forms of birthcontrol besides rhythm and abstinence. Dunno if that's changed since my, er, last contact with Catholicism circa 1986ish) ETA: DV8--What do you call people using the rhythm method??? PARENTS...at least that's what *I* like to call my mom and late father. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 11:51:21 AM EDT
[#26]
There's a fine point there, and to attempt to flesh it out here would be to devolve into semantics and technicalities. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 11:52:44 AM EDT
[#27]
If that happens, it would truly be poetic justice. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 12:01:22 PM EDT
[#28]
PM,
You must have missed the part where I called the Rhythm Method Vatican Roullette.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 12:33:04 PM EDT
[#29]
I missed nothing silly...I was telling you how *I* define it! Since there's 8 years between my brother and I, there was little doubt that I was a Whoopsie!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 12:36:30 PM EDT
[#30]
14 years between my youngest brother and I. Definate "whoopsie" there.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 12:36:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Fine, schmine. You know it and I know it. Bottom line if the pregnancy is not prevented by a. preventing the egg drop or b. killing the sperm then c. MAKING THE WOMB INHABITABLE TO THE FERTILIZED EGG occurs. No way around it. See, the way I see it...if R v W is reversed, and if the morning after and ru-486 banned, the floodgates on contraception legality will open. FWIW: I think Romney was a putz. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 12:37:40 PM EDT
[#32]
"Whoopsie" is what you say when the "Whoopie" is over and there's EVIDENCE of its happening! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 1:49:53 PM EDT
[#33]
I honestly don't know what to think of him. As a fiscal manager he does great, but I really don't know enough concerning his politics. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 2:20:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Ok, then. Thanks for pointing out that chink in my 'intolerance' armor. I'll go modify my stance on birth control now. Then, you can point, giggle, and call me 'intolerant'. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 2:38:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Agreed...but I believe it's that way for a reason: the man announced today he will NOT seek another term as Governor...fueling claims he's seeking a presidential nomination... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 2:39:52 PM EDT
[#36]
What the hell are you going on about now? Really, you make it unneccessarily difficult at times. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 3:12:15 PM EDT
[#37]
considering we are talking about two entirely different things here: the termination of a zygote versus the termination of an actual person, I do not think he owned me. If a womans body destroys 79% of pregnancies by itself, I see nothing wrong with increasing that number to 100% via the addition of what is basically just a hormone cocktail. It is not abortion anyway as a zygote is just a blastocyst, a bunch of un-differentiated cells; there is not heart, brain, or any precursors of those in the zygote, destroying it is no different than cutting off any other "growth" like moles, warts, and the like. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 3:50:30 PM EDT
[#38]
I don't believe that a private hospital should be forced to do anything. They should decide which procedures and prescriptions they will participate in, and if you don't like it, then go somewhere else.
But - it can be a double-edged sword (correct me if I'm wrong, I know nothing about insurance companies and the laws they must adhere to), insurance companies can refuse payment to hospitals that refuse certain forms of treatment/medication (effectively shutting hospitals down). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2005 7:18:28 PM EDT
[#39]
And yet it worked for 8 years for Playmore's parents, and it worked for 14 years for yours... I'd say that's a pretty good success rate. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2005 2:59:33 AM EDT
[#40]
It only works if your cycle is regular. Well, that and if mom does not say "yes" alot.... My mom made it work that long with a combination of the two.  |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2005 4:26:49 PM EDT
[#41]
I don't know if you parents practiced actual Natural Family Planning, or something else, but NFP works very well for irregular cycles. Just ask my wife. We have 18 months, 3 years, and soon-to-be 2 years between our youngest ones. I'd say it works just fine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 6:32:20 PM EDT
[#42]
The Word became flesh not at Christmas, but 9 months before when the Angel of the Lord appeared to Mary and she accepted God's will.... she admits this in her magnificat prayer in Luke, as does St Elizabeth by greeting her as "mother of my Lord"; this less than a couple weeks following her conception of Jesus....
This is bedrock, basic Christianity 101 here, which is why virtually every Christian church under the sun, before the advent of the modern contraceptive banned contraceptive drugs as immoral - as ending a life. After all, if Jesus became Man at the Annunication, 9 months before his birth, are we to suppose our children don't begin existence at conception too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2005 7:16:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Question (and I dunno if this is the right place or not to ask...) but what is the stance on sterilization? I'm just curious. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2005 9:03:04 PM EDT
[#44]
A wart doesn't turn into a person in 9 months genius. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 5:52:21 AM EDT
[#45]
Neither does a human fetus. It already is a fetal human, already a human person. There is a reason why a pregnant woman was always said of as "with child". There is a reason why no one ever says "I am against cutting off moles personally but I would never force that belief on others." There is a reason why no one says "removing moles is a great tragedy but until a solution can be found..." There is a reason no one says "Having a wart removed can be one of the most difficult decisions a woman can make." And that reason is that no matter which side in the debate does the polling, the majority of Americans want abortion to be legal to one degree or another, and that no matter which side in the debate does the polling the majority of Americans also think that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. In other words, everyone knows intrinsically, it is "self-evident" to almost everyone, that human life, our lives, began when our conception. And even if this self-evident truth was not accessible to reason, (which it is) the very fact that it was the Communists and the Nazis that first did away with the laws that recognized the unborns right to life would be enough for me to be against it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 5:56:06 AM EDT
[#46]
The Pope says Nope! Sterilization is acceptable if it is the result of another injury, surgery, illness etc. For example, if I had testicular cancer and they removed a jewel or two, then it is acceptable. Elective sterilization is not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 6:12:56 AM EDT
[#47]
With all my sins...who'd a thunk a simple swish of a knife would be the thing sending me to hell.... I'll save you a seat, DV8!
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 6:39:40 AM EDT
[#48]
Whatever your position on abortion (I'm personally against) it seems the pro-CHOICE people have gotten their wires crossed on this one.
I can remember a bumper-sticker that said, "Don't like abortion, don't have one!" Now it seems that they are saying, "Don't like abortion, tough $#!*. You've got to perform them anyway." And how you define "abortion" is largely irrellevent. It is how the Catholic Church defines it. They are the ones who are being forced to go against their beliefs. To put it in perspective. Some guy walks into your gunshop and wants you to convert his old damascus double to shoot the new 3 1/2" magnum shells. You consider this an unsafe modification and tell him you won't do it. It is irrelevant that he has a right to own the firearm. It is irrelevant that he doesn't consider the modification unsafe or unethical. You are the one being asked to perform the procedure and you believe it is unsafe and therefore unethical. You are within your rights to refuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2005 8:02:11 AM EDT
[#49]
Better save an entire balcony...I'm coming with friends. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2005 10:49:39 PM EDT
[#50]
My understanding of Catholic dogma, after growing up in a Catholic family, is that any time you have sex, you must be open to the possibility of children. This means no condoms, no pills, no foams, etc. This is becuase sex serves two purposes: the sharing of love between man and wife, and the creation of new life. If one or the other isn't happening, then it is a mockery of the true act. It would be like going ot mass on Sunday with a grevious sin on your mind, and accepting the Eucharist.
All that said, I had sex before marriage, and while great an all, it pales in comparison to sex in marriage. There is just so much more emotion and love involved. Its the closest thing I've ever felt to a psychic experience. I could go on and on about how great it is, but before, all I could describe to you was the physical aspect. TRUST ME, the physical part is maybe 5-10% of the overall experience. I believe many people in this age will never understand why we were given sex in the first place, because they will squander the gift. So yeah, the Church is right in the saying sex shoudl be between only man and wife, I know this from experience. They are right on a few other thing I know from experience, so I would assume - until proof to the contrary is presented, that they are right in the other aspects as well. I've used the rhythm method for 3 years now, and its been 100% effective. I know that statistically, its like 60%, but when God decides the time is right, it is. It would be rough, but I could handle a baby 9 months from now. It would hurt financially, and I might not be able to buy a gun when I want to, but I could handle it. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
