|
Post by homeschooldad on May 19, 2022 20:08:11 GMT
And now there's this: www.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortion-ban-hb-4327-passed/index.htmlI welcome this. It's a good thing that the debate is finally getting to this point, as it forces people to say "well, this fertilization thing, are you saying when the male and female gametes merge to create unique DNA, or does it mean implantation, or does it mean something else, and if it means this, or this, or this, then what other conclusions may we draw?". And even if we were able to rule out BCPs as being abortifacient, there are other methods that are abortifacient as well, at least in possibility, such as the IUD: kidshealth.org/en/teens/contraception-iud.html#:~:text=How%20Does%20an%20IUD%20Work,and%20thins%20the%20uterine%20lining. Neither Planned Parenthood nor WebMD want to acknowledge this (in the case of PP, why should it matter, as long as the pregnancy is prevented --- maybe to prevent a crisis of conscience for those Catholic patients who would object if they knew?), but Nemours admits the possibility.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 19, 2022 20:26:41 GMT
Pregnancy doesn't occur until the implantation takes place. If it was at any other time then petri dishes could be considered pregnant.
Not having read the full text of the bill, I can only imagine that it is full of contradictions which would cause the courts to be covered up in lawsuits. The article mentions nothing of criminal penalties, only civil suits, kind of like what Texas passed.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 19, 2022 21:04:48 GMT
Pregnancy doesn't occur until the implantation takes place. If it was at any other time then petri dishes could be considered pregnant. Not having read the full text of the bill, I can only imagine that it is full of contradictions which would cause the courts to be covered up in lawsuits. The article mentions nothing of criminal penalties, only civil suits, kind of like what Texas passed. Pregnancy, as that term is commonly understood, may not occur until implantation, but there is human life, either ensouled or soon to be, in that space between fertilization and implantation. Again, I welcome the debate, and I welcome the discussion of "when does human life exist?". Among other things, it will force Catholics (and anyone else who understands conception to be the beginning of human life) to face up to how at least some contraceptive methods have the possibility of ending life at some point after conception (at which point it really cannot properly be called "contraception" anymore).
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on May 19, 2022 22:37:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 19, 2022 23:10:08 GMT
And it may be a good thing, to push the debate as far as it can go, and to find the very outer limits of what pro-choicers can tolerate, and what pro-lifers can accept. The pro-choice people are absolutely right to point out that laws against abortion from the moment of conception will collide with "contraceptives" that have an abortifacient effect, and to ask "what is this going to mean for all those people who use them?". Having to prove one's innocence is unconstitutional on its face, and I can only hope that the Supreme Court would uphold that fact. I would hope that due process would prevail. All four of the things you cite would be proper to a state informed by Catholic principles in all things (which would require a super-majority of Catholics who were willing to stand up for the Faith, something that, sadly, I don't see happening anytime soon), and the latter two things could be considered criminal even without recourse to religion. I'm pretty sure we actually do have laws against gross negligence of a parent, and back in the day, women could indeed claim "non-support" on the part of the husband and/or father. I say "and/or" in that not all wives had children, and, unfortunately, not all fathers are married to their children's mothers.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 20, 2022 15:10:03 GMT
Guess we've got their attention now: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10837149/Biden-press-secretary-Karine-Jean-Pierre-tears-ultra-MAGA-Oklahoma-abortion-law.htmlAgain, I welcome this. If nothing else, it will force Catholics (and anyone else with eyes to see and ears to hear) to face up to contraception, and to have to ask "when, in fact, does life begin?", "when does that life become worthy of protection?", and "do we, then, at the very least, have to give up methods of contraception with an abortifacient capability?". Right now, the whole contraception thing is crickets --- we have a very large percentage of Catholics practicing it, going up to communion every Sunday, never mentioned from the pulpit, and there is a very legitimate question of how often it comes up in the confessional (on either side of the screen, assuming one of those is used), for those who still go, that is. Maybe the priests do ask, the penitents have an issue with it, and that's why they're in there for 20 minutes while other people are waiting behind them. I don't know. I will say that I have noticed, at Spanish Masses, quite a few people stay away from communion. Not saying this is what they're doing to necessitate refraining from communion --- yes, yes, I know, "you'd have to ask each one of them" --- but if they are willing to say "yes, I know what the Church teaches, I know it's wrong, but I just don't trust Almighty God enough, my love for Him is too tepid, to follow the Church's teaching on this right now, I can't think of another child, so I know I must abstain from communion", then that is a whole other thing from cheekily asserting "the Church is wrong and there's nothing wrong with it". People have acknowledged the truth, yet gone ahead and sinned out of human weakness, from Day One. Done it myself many a time.
|
|