|
Post by homeschooldad on May 13, 2022 2:47:14 GMT
www.newhope-ky.org/product-page/infant-homicides-through-contraceptivesI saw this book tonight on a nightly Catholic online television newscast, and immediately ordered one. (Actually I ordered three, because the $4 shipping was the same, and I like this organization.) I'll be interested to read it, and will make my observations on this forum. If it makes a truthful case, this sounds like a book that needs to be given to every married couple, and every couple contemplating marriage. Putting it in vestibules and having it available to give to penitents in the confessional would also be good. True, not all methods of contraception are abortifacient, but the narrower that the options become, the more difficult it becomes to practice contraception. And some methods are clumsy and uncomfortable to use.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 16, 2022 22:01:48 GMT
I got the book today. No chance to read it yet, but judging from these pages, and the commission members and endorsements, I can recommend it wholeheartedly. Father John Hardon, Abbot Edmund McCaffrey, James Hitchcock, John Kippley, Thomas Monaghan, Charles Rice... pretty hard to go wrong there. And James Likoudis, whom I have actually met (as I have also met James Hitchcock and Charles Rice), wrote as impassioned of a defense of the Novus Ordo and the Church's actions to obrogate the Traditional Latin Mass, as I've ever read, so this book can't be condemned as something bubbling up from the fever swamps of Latin Mass traditionalism. As I said, give it to couples contemplating marriage, give it to penitents in the confessional struggling with the issue, leave it in vestibules... Here are the pages: Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2022 17:16:26 GMT
I disagree with what you posted. Birth control pills do not cause abortions, as they prevent conception to begin with. Other forms prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb. This technically isn't an abortion according to most medical professionals. Here's an article explaining the difference www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/birth-control-vs-abortionEither way, the Church teaches against the use of artificial birth control, so Catholics are supposed to stay away from the use, but looking a parishes with most families with just two children, it's probable that they're using the pill to prevent pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 17, 2022 20:20:32 GMT
I disagree with what you posted. Birth control pills do not cause abortions, as they prevent conception to begin with. Other forms prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb. This technically isn't an abortion according to most medical professionals. Here's an article explaining the difference www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/birth-control-vs-abortionEither way, the Church teaches against the use of artificial birth control, so Catholics are supposed to stay away from the use, but looking a parishes with most families with just two children, it's probable that they're using the pill to prevent pregnancy. This has been argued back and forth for years, and I could only say to read the book. As far as prevention of implantation, that most certainly is an abortion, in that the fertilized egg is a newly formed human life, and if it cannot implant, due to some artificial intervention, it will die. "Most medical professionals" agreeing on something doesn't make it true, if nothing else, they are conveniently redefining abortion as "ending of a pregnancy after implantation". The newly conceived entity is human and alive in that window between fertilization and implantation. As far as speculating on what is probably going on when a couple only has one or two children, I have my own thoughts, but I do need to warn you that I once caused a near-riot and got a thorough shellacking on another forum when I expressed similar thoughts. (Not like that matters, other people's responses are "on them" --- you know what they say about opinions, everybody has one --- and I remain unperturbed, unbowed, and unchanged in my mind.) I got all kinds of pushback on "you can't know whether people are using ABC unless you ask them individually", "polls are meaningless and cannot be relied upon", "they could have fertility problems" (and, I will grant, many do), or "what makes you think those people have sex?" (rolling of the eyes here...), as well as "maybe they're using NFP". Please, people. 92 percent of American Catholics, according to the most recent polls, dissent from Humanae vitae. I'm not naive enough to think that use of ABC isn't the overwhelming cause of such small, efficiently-planned and efficiently-sized families. I know better. People do what they want to do, and one way or another, they convince themselves that it's not wrong. Cognitive dissonance can drive you crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2022 20:35:59 GMT
All I can say is, read what the manufacturers of contraceptive pills and even the Plan B bill have said.
Birth Control Pills are hormonal and prohibit ovulation. Some are used to help a woman who is having a hard time getting pregnant after she miscarried. My wife went through this and finally got pregnant and had my son.
One article they said they prevent conception and if the Plan B pill just prevented implantation, it'd be more effective, which it's not. About 80% of rape cases get protection from Plan B, while 20% end up pregnant and having an abortion.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 17, 2022 22:11:29 GMT
I disagree with what you posted. Birth control pills do not cause abortions, as they prevent conception to begin with. Other forms prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb. This technically isn't an abortion according to most medical professionals. Here's an article explaining the difference www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/birth-control-vs-abortionEither way, the Church teaches against the use of artificial birth control, so Catholics are supposed to stay away from the use, but looking a parishes with most families with just two children, it's probable that they're using the pill to prevent pregnancy. This has been argued back and forth for years, and I could only say to read the book. As far as prevention of implantation, that most certainly is an abortion, in that the fertilized egg is a newly formed human life, and if it cannot implant, due to some artificial intervention, it will die. "Most medical professionals" agreeing on something doesn't make it true, if nothing else, they are conveniently redefining abortion as "ending of a pregnancy after implantation". The newly conceived entity is human and alive in that window between fertilization and implantation. As far as speculating on what is probably going on when a couple only has one or two children, I have my own thoughts, but I do need to warn you that I once caused a near-riot and got a thorough shellacking on another forum when I expressed similar thoughts. (Not like that matters, other people's responses are "on them" --- you know what they say about opinions, everybody has one --- and I remain unperturbed, unbowed, and unchanged in my mind.) I got all kinds of pushback on "you can't know whether people are using ABC unless you ask them individually", "polls are meaningless and cannot be relied upon", "they could have fertility problems" (and, I will grant, many do), or "what makes you think those people have sex?" (rolling of the eyes here...), as well as "maybe they're using NFP". Please, people. 92 percent of American Catholics, according to the most recent polls, dissent from Humanae vitae. I'm not naive enough to think that use of ABC isn't the overwhelming cause of such small, efficiently-planned and efficiently-sized families. I know better. People do what they want to do, and one way or another, they convince themselves that it's not wrong. Cognitive dissonance can drive you crazy. Keeping an egg from implanting is not an abortion, because without implantation the fetus/zygote isn't viable. It can't grow into a baby without proper implantation in the uterus. Yes, the Church says any type of artificial birth control is contrary to Gods Law, but not because it is killing a life like abortion, but that it may prevent what otherwise might be a successful pregnancy which God might have allowed. If the failure of a fertilized egg to implant is an abortion, then God himself allows for a bunch of abortions. Trying to convince a country that abortion is murder is hard enough. Trying to convince them that birth control which prevents fertilization or implantation of an egg is not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 17, 2022 22:22:21 GMT
All I can say is, read what the manufacturers of contraceptive pills and even the Plan B bill have said. new ParticipatedBirth Control Pills are hormonal and prohibit ovulation. Some are used to help a woman who is having a hard time getting pregnant after she miscarried. My wife went through this and finally got pregnant and had my son. One article they said they prevent conception and if the Plan B pill just prevented implantation, it'd be more effective, which it's not. About 80% of rape cases get protection from Plan B, while 20% end up pregnant and having an abortion. I know what they say, I just want to hear the other side. I don't think Dr Kuhar just sat down and made all of this up (not saying you suggested this), nor do I think it is possible for him to be totally wrong. It is, of course, impossible to prove that any one individual instance of denial of implantation (thus abortion) ever takes place, but if BCPs have this capability as a kind of secondary or "backup" function, it would be kind of like shooting a gun into the air, or out over a body of water --- you don't see anyone, but still, there is always that possibility, and if the bullet hits someone (a pilot of a small plane or an unseen boater or swimmer in the water), they could die. It would be akin to "depraved-heart" murder, not willingly having targeted one person, but behaving with an utter disregard for life.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 17, 2022 22:37:11 GMT
This has been argued back and forth for years, and I could only say to read the book. As far as prevention of implantation, that most certainly is an abortion, in that the fertilized egg is a newly formed human life, and if it cannot implant, due to some artificial intervention, it will die. "Most medical professionals" agreeing on something doesn't make it true, if nothing else, they are conveniently redefining abortion as "ending of a pregnancy after implantation". The newly conceived entity is human and alive in that window between fertilization and implantation. As far as speculating on what is probably going on when a couple only has one or two children, I have my own thoughts, but I do need to warn you that I once caused a near-riot and got a thorough shellacking on another forum when I expressed similar thoughts. (Not like that matters, other people's responses are "on them" --- you know what they say about opinions, everybody has one --- and I remain unperturbed, unbowed, and unchanged in my mind.) I got all kinds of pushback on "you can't know whether people are using ABC unless you ask them individually", "polls are meaningless and cannot be relied upon", "they could have fertility problems" (and, I will grant, many do), or "what makes you think those people have sex?" (rolling of the eyes here...), as well as "maybe they're using NFP". Please, people. 92 percent of American Catholics, according to the most recent polls, dissent from Humanae vitae. I'm not naive enough to think that use of ABC isn't the overwhelming cause of such small, efficiently-planned and efficiently-sized families. I know better. People do what they want to do, and one way or another, they convince themselves that it's not wrong. Cognitive dissonance can drive you crazy. Keeping an egg from implanting is not an abortion, because without implantation the fetus/zygote isn't viable. It can't grow into a baby without proper implantation in the uterus. Yes, the Church says any type of artificial birth control is contrary to Gods Law, but not because it is killing a life like abortion, but that it may prevent what otherwise might be a successful pregnancy which God might have allowed. If the failure of a fertilized egg to implant is an abortion, then God himself allows for a bunch of abortions. Trying to convince a country that abortion is murder is hard enough. Trying to convince them that birth control which prevents fertilization or implantation of an egg is not going to happen. No, denial of implantation is an abortion. The zygote is alive, and if allowed to implant, will continue to grow and thrive. If that living zygote --- a human life, just not having gotten to its destination (the uterine wall) yet still just as much a human life (I am not going to try to parse questions of ensoulment here) --- is denied that chance to implant, then it will die. If that denial takes place through deliberate artificial prevention, then that is an abortion, just at an earlier stage in the pregnancy. It is the same as if a newborn baby were left out in the cold of winter to freeze to death. And, yes, Almighty God does allow a lot of newly conceived children to die before implantation, and that is part of His creation (and, very possibly, part of the "downstream effect" of Original Sin and that creation having been damaged and inclined towards death). That is His Will and we do not question it, any more than we question it when He allows an unborn child to die after implantation but before birth. You do correctly note that convincing Americans to abandon methods of artificial birth control, that also act as an early abortifacient, is going to be quite the hat-trick. Contraception is, as the ad slogan goes, "as American as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet", and simply put, it makes our economy, indeed our whole society, what it is. Very few non-Catholics shun contraception, and to narrow their options... well, that wouldn't be well-received. If the public debate ever gets to that point, there will probably be some hair-splitting to create a false dichotomy of "well, conception doesn't really mean 'conception', it means implantation, or ability to detect the pregnancy with a test..." and so on. Then the fair question will be "why?". Some non-Catholics see the problem. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), one group of Protestants who are people after my own heart (not thinking of converting, but I do respect them), produced this manuscript some time back: homeschooldad.info/killpill.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2022 23:01:57 GMT
All I can say is, read what the manufacturers of contraceptive pills and even the Plan B bill have said. new ParticipatedBirth Control Pills are hormonal and prohibit ovulation. Some are used to help a woman who is having a hard time getting pregnant after she miscarried. My wife went through this and finally got pregnant and had my son. One article they said they prevent conception and if the Plan B pill just prevented implantation, it'd be more effective, which it's not. About 80% of rape cases get protection from Plan B, while 20% end up pregnant and having an abortion. I know what they say, I just want to hear the other side. I don't think Dr Kuhar just sat down and made all of this up (not saying you suggested this), nor do I think it is possible for him to be totally wrong. It is, of course, impossible to prove that any one individual instance of denial of implantation (thus abortion) ever takes place, but if BCPs have this capability as a kind of secondary or "backup" function, it would be kind of like shooting a gun into the air, or out over a body of water --- you don't see anyone, but still, there is always that possibility, and if the bullet hits someone (a pilot of a small plane or an unseen boater or swimmer in the water), they could die. It would be akin to "depraved-heart" murder, not willingly having targeted one person, but behaving with an utter disregard for life. The thing to keep in mind is, the drug manufacturers of the birth control pills are reviewed by the FDA and peer review as well. Because one doctor who obviously is following an agenda of his own, doesn't mean he's right. My wife and myself didn't use ABC after Christ came into our lives. We did before because it was for medical reasons in order that she could get pregnant that she was on the pill in the first place. She did, but it was not an easy ride for her and my son who resulted and has had to live with cerebral palsy and other medical issues.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 17, 2022 23:16:17 GMT
I know what they say, I just want to hear the other side. I don't think Dr Kuhar just sat down and made all of this up (not saying you suggested this), nor do I think it is possible for him to be totally wrong. It is, of course, impossible to prove that any one individual instance of denial of implantation (thus abortion) ever takes place, but if BCPs have this capability as a kind of secondary or "backup" function, it would be kind of like shooting a gun into the air, or out over a body of water --- you don't see anyone, but still, there is always that possibility, and if the bullet hits someone (a pilot of a small plane or an unseen boater or swimmer in the water), they could die. It would be akin to "depraved-heart" murder, not willingly having targeted one person, but behaving with an utter disregard for life. The thing to keep in mind is, the drug manufacturers of the birth control pills are reviewed by the FDA and peer review as well. Because one doctor who obviously is following an agenda of his own, doesn't mean he's right. My wife and myself didn't use ABC after Christ came into our lives. We did before because it was for medical reasons in order that she could get pregnant that she was on the pill in the first place. She did, but it was not an easy ride for her and my son who resulted and has had to live with cerebral palsy and other medical issues. I am very sorry to know about your dear son's problems. I hope and pray he, and all of you, are well. I would just have to wonder if the FDA and peer review are all that concerned about whether implantation is prevented or not, just so long as the result is suppression of pregnancy (or, rather, preventing it from taking place, or ending in a non-traumatic fashion, non-traumatic for the mother, that is). Even though there is much talk in evangelical and other circles, as well as obviously Catholic ones, about "life beginning at conception", I have to think that BCP developers are more concerned with preventing obvious pregnancy, rather than being concerned about the possibility of denial of implantation if, in fact, conception does take place. It would be good, if the evangelicals and others to whom I referred above, would have someone sit them down (figuratively speaking) and say "okay, life begins at conception, you do realize what that means, don't you, and are you willing to take that concept to its logical conclusion, that anything --- be it a BCP or be it some other ABC method --- which prevents implantation also causes an abortion, something you surely oppose as well?". It might take another Protestant telling them, but as long as they understand the reality of the matter, and acknowledge that they must change their thinking and behavior accordingly, I don't really care how they come to the realization. Some people can be reached by one person, where another person can't reach them.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 17, 2022 23:47:54 GMT
Again trying to convince the rest of the country to adopt the Catholic position is a non starter.
So are the sperm and egg alive before they join? Yes. Although they only contain half of the chromosomes needed for a human.
After joining is a human life made, or is it a human life once it implants and becomes viable? That is where serious debate begins. What if there are extra or less chromosomes than a typical human has? Is that still a human being?
When the egg is fertilized and simply exits the body without implantation was a soul lost? If the fertilized egg implants in the tube of the woman, a human life exists, should no action be taken and the woman and baby both be allowed to die?
If a woman engages in activities, ie rigorous exercise or work which keeps the egg from implanting in her uterus is she guilty of causing her own abortion? Has she committed a mortal sin?
What if the woman engages in activities after the embryo has implanted and during her next cycle, the pregnancy is terminated. Again is she guilty of causing her own abortion?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2022 0:28:47 GMT
Again trying to convince the rest of the country to adopt the Catholic position is a non starter. Aside from what few evangelicals and other like-minded people might see the truth, logic, and reasonableness of the Catholic position, you're probably right. But we must proclaim it, regardless of how few people will agree. Truth is not determined by consensus. Again, at some point down the road, people will be forced to answer the question "all right, when you say 'life begins at conception', do you really mean 'conception', and are you prepared to act and think accordingly --- and if not, why not, what's the problem with following the logic where it, in fact, does lead?' ".So are the sperm and egg alive before they join? Yes. Although they only contain half of the chromosomes needed for a human. They are alive, but they are not human life, viz. a life with unique DNA, all 46 chromosomes, on its way to differentiating into the various systems that make up a human body, that if unbothered, and allowed the conditions needed for it to flourish, will be born as a live baby. True, a blood cell or a liver cell (for instance) contains those 46 chromosomes, but it does not have a soul, nor will it ever grow into a unique, recognizable human being. There is a very strong presumption that the soul is infused at conception --- not at implantation, not at Stage X in the growth of the conceptus. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a huge proof of this presumption. But since we do not know when the soul is infused, we have to err on the side of caution and assume that this could take place at conception. After joining is a human life made, or is it a human life once it implants and becomes viable? That is where serious debate begins. What if there are extra or less chromosomes than a typical human has? Is that still a human being? Human life begins once sperm and egg become a unique human being (albeit a very small one). It's above my pay grade, to speculate about "what, exactly, is it?" during that process of fusion and creation of unique DNA --- it doesn't happen in one millisecond --- but all of that happens long before there are any questions of implantation, and in a very short time, you have unique human DNA.
Human beings with the non-standard number of chromosomes, people with Down Syndrome and other such diversities, are indeed human. I really have to wonder who would ever have the chutzpah to suggest to a person with Down Syndrome that they might not be human. As our society becomes more accommodating, it is not unheard of for people with DS to get college degrees. Sounds pretty human to me.When the egg is fertilized and simply exits the body without implantation was a soul lost? If a soul had been infused, yes. If the fertilized egg implants in the tube of the woman, a human life exists, should no action be taken and the woman and baby both be allowed to die? This is an ectopic pregnancy. Removal of the diseased part of the tube, with the unfortunate embryo inside of it who will die, is morally licit under the principle of double effect (neutral act with a good effect and a bad effect). Removal of the embryo, while leaving the tube intact, is an abortion. If a woman engages in activities, ie rigorous exercise or work which keeps the egg from implanting in her uterus is she guilty of causing her own abortion? Has she committed a mortal sin? People have been conceived and born from the beginning of time with mothers who have engaged in normal human activity. Sexually active and fertile women are under no obligation to refrain from normal human activity at all times, just because they could at any point be pregnant, and just because there is the remote possibility --- but who would ever know? --- that some innocent act she does could prevent implantation. At that point, matters must simply be commended to the providence of Almighty God.
What if the woman engages in activities after the embryo has implanted and during her next cycle, the pregnancy is terminated. Again is she guilty of causing her own abortion? See above.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 18, 2022 0:55:09 GMT
When the egg is fertilized and simply exits the body without implantation was a soul lost? If a soul had been infused, yes. If the fertilized egg implants in the tube of the woman, a human life exists, should no action be taken and the woman and baby both be allowed to die? This is an ectopic pregnancy. Removal of the diseased part of the tube, with the unfortunate embryo inside of it who will die, is morally licit under the principle of double effect (neutral act with a good effect and a bad effect). Removal of the embryo, while leaving the tube intact, is an abortion. If a woman engages in activities, ie rigorous exercise or work which keeps the egg from implanting in her uterus is she guilty of causing her own abortion? Has she committed a mortal sin? People have been conceived and born from the beginning of time with mothers who have engaged in normal human activity. Sexually active and fertile women are under no obligation to refrain from normal human activity at all times, just because they could at any point be pregnant, and just because there is the remote possibility --- but who would ever know? --- that some innocent act she does could prevent implantation. At that point, matters must simply be commended to the providence of Almighty God.
What if the woman engages in activities after the embryo has implanted and during her next cycle, the pregnancy is terminated. Again is she guilty of causing her own abortion? See above.How are we supposed to know when the soul enters the person. Has the Church determined that? Does the existence of the soul indicate human life? One could make the argument that a woman not engage in activity which would lessen her ability or keep her from carrying out a pregnancy. The argument is made that birth control which keeps her from ovulating disrupts the natural cycle of her body. Other activities though not drug induced can do the same thing. So the tube becomes diseased with the existence of an embryo in it. One can't remove the disease without making the tube useless to the body without error. Seems the disease is a human embryo. How is an embryo a disease in one instance and a human in another? It would feasibly contain the same matter, and substance just in a different place. That would be a hard sell to most. I understand where the Church is on all of this, and don't necessarily disagree, just raising points which will be hard to convince people who don't follow the Church's teachings of. They will easily make accusations of having it both ways in some instances when it suits the Church.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 18, 2022 2:52:50 GMT
How are we supposed to know when the soul enters the person. Has the Church determined that? Does the existence of the soul indicate human life? One could make the argument that a woman not engage in activity which would lessen her ability or keep her from carrying out a pregnancy. The argument is made that birth control which keeps her from ovulating disrupts the natural cycle of her body. Other activities though not drug induced can do the same thing. So the tube becomes diseased with the existence of an embryo in it. One can't remove the disease without making the tube useless to the body without error. Seems the disease is a human embryo. How is an embryo a disease in one instance and a human in another? It would feasibly contain the same matter, and substance just in a different place. That would be a hard sell to most. I understand where the Church is on all of this, and don't necessarily disagree, just raising points which will be hard to convince people who don't follow the Church's teachings of. They will easily make accusations of having it both ways in some instances when it suits the Church. We do not know the exact point when the soul enters the body. As I said, there are strong reasons to believe that it enters the body at the moment of conception, and as a matter of prudence (that is, as a matter of not committing murder, which is the killing of a person with a body and soul), we have to go on the assumption that it does indeed do that. Again, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception strongly points towards that assumption. Indeed, the most recent Catechism has been used as support for ensoulment at conception, but the use of the word "immediately" has confused many an English-speaker, because while the common vernacular meaning of "immediately" is "right that very second", in the Catechism, this use of the word "immediately" means "without mediation from anyone other than Almighty God", i.e., He infuses the soul without the mediation of the parents. That is a confusing use of "immediately" for the average reader, and it would be an honest mistake to make. As far as a woman's activity during her pregnancy (indeed, during any time in which she is fertile, sexually active, and could be pregnant), you might well be able to make a case for her refraining from activity which might threaten an unborn child --- but aside from the obvious (drugs, licit or otherwise, which could be harmful or deadly to the child, tobacco, alcohol, and there is honest debate about the latter in moderation), how would one know? If it could be proven empirically (just to use absurd examples) that playing Parcheesi, doing Pilates, or eating pepperoni pizza could endanger the life or health of the child, then, yes, you'd have a case. But in the absence of such knowledge, then the only thing to do, is to live one's life normally. You make an excellent point by proposing that, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, the presence of the embryo is the "disease", but even if one were to grant this, that would not mean that the embryo ceases to be human --- using this reasoning, it could be seen as both. This is not terribly far removed from Dr Bernard Nathanson's example of the sane man and the madman tied together at sea, with the madman thrashing and taking both down to drown, but the sane man having a knife with which he can cut the rope, let the madman thrash and drown, free himself, and be able to swim to safety. May he cut the rope, or may he not? I'm not sure anyone has ever thought of this, but does it become a function of "the embryo being where it has a right to be"? Does the embryo have the right to be lodged in the fallopian tube? What if, hypothetically --- stay with me on this, it'll make sense when I'm done (I hope) --- the embryo were lodged in the mother's lung? Her heart? If you remove the lung, the embryo dies, but the mother may live. But could you just remove the embryo and leave the lung intact? Removing the heart is not an option, both mother and embryo would die. You would either have to remove the embryo, let it die, or leave it be, and both mother and child would certainly die as the child grows. Does the embryo have the right to be in the lung or the heart? Yes, it's impossible, but follow the reasoning. Can the fallopian tube be compared to the lung? The heart? If the fallopian tube is not the appropriate place for the embryo to be, does it have a right to be there? Many questions, and many more beyond that. Ectopic pregnancies are the ultimate abortion conundrum. This is an excellent discussion, and I appreciate your willingness to be the advocatus diaboli or the "tenth man". Truly, iron sharpens iron.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 18, 2022 3:27:13 GMT
The embryo certainly does have a right to be in the fallopian tube, as it has no other path which to take to get to the uterus. Absent the tube, the woman would be sterile. When a tubal pregnancy becomes diseased as a result of the embryo not clearing the tube and continuing on the path to the uterus for a viable pregnancy, both the embryo is destroyed and 1/2 of the woman's ability to become pregnant again if surgery is done. Should this happen on the other side, in essence she has been sterilized no differently than having her tubes tied. The end results are the same. So what if the doctor and woman decide instead of surgery, to give drugs which cause the pregnancy to be terminated, with the possibility of saving the fallopian tube. The disease is treated without damaging (possibly) the mothers ability to have future children. However this would be considered abortion would it not? In your scenario, instead of using a knife to cut the madman free, it is simply done with drugs, and the results are the same, madman dies, and sane man lives. Yet according to the Church, this is not an option. Only if you cut out the diseased tissue (human embryo), destroying the tube. This scenario certainly gives one pause. One course of action saves the mothers ability to be whole and increases her chances of future pregnancy, and the other scenario reduces those chances by 50 percent. It seems odd that the one that damages the woman the most is the only one that is licit according to the Church. BTW, women extreme athletes run the risk of miscarriage or stopping their monthly cycle due to the strain on their bodies. Men can also be affected. trakfertility.com/how-are-athletes-fertility-compromised/
|
|