Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops - accessories to murder
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ToujoursDan: quote: Originally posted by Sine Nomine: Theory is all well and good, but I'd be interested in knowing the average number of kids western Roman Catholic families typically have today.
Italy, which is the Vatican's backyard, has a fertility rate of 1.33 per woman. Spain, Portugal, Chile and Brazil are fairly close. Argentina and Mexico are around 2 per couple and the Philippines is just over 3.
Can't pull that off without loads of birth control.
I lived in Malta for a couple of years in the 1990's and I'm sure it was and probably remains more RC than Italy or Ireland.
There were a heck of a lot of two-child families.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: Context matters. I wasn't calling everyone to hell. I was calling Trisagion and Catholic Bishops to hell for a specific thing they were trying to do.
Riiight. Just as well for you that no-one can, like, go back and re-read your posts, eh? quote: Originally posted by Justinian: quote: But the RRC doesn't just think contraception is wrong for Catholics - it thinks it's wrong for people. It could be wrong, of course. But should it not be allowed to voice that opinion? Should it not be allowed to seek to persuade the government against what they think is wrong for the country?
It should. But at the same time it should accept that every single additional abortion this causes is their responsibility.
Just you go on asserting that, justinian, and maybe someone will forget that you've completely failed to establish it. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: But you are trying to shift the ground here.
That's bloody rich coming from you, pal. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: It is trying to deny contraception even to those who don't.
Only, it isn't - it is just trying to avoid those who object in conscience being forced to provide it themselves. Others would remain completely free to provide it. It's not even trying to eliminate all access to contraception and abortifacient drugs to Catholics who want to use them. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: This is underlined by people such as Trisagion who try to elide contraception and abortion by claiming that the problem with Roman Catholic Contraception amounts to "redefining the conscientious objection to killing other human beings as unlawfully standing in the way of preventative care"
When the kind of contraception you are talking about is the flushing out of fertilised human eggs, and if you accept as the RCC does that life begins at that stage of conception, then that is exactly what it is. No-one's asking you to agree with us on this, just to not to force us to facilitate or participate in it. Killing human beings is a pretty big deal, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: That is complete and utter bollocks. Contraception is not abortion.
Except when it is. See above. If you happen to think that abortion should be or generally is defined in such a way as to exclude pre-implantation flushing out of fertilised human ova, that's fine. We can call it something else. But it won't change the moral nature of the act. And that is what matters.
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: In America, 55% of Emergency Rooms in Roman Catholic hospitals refuse to provide Emergency Contraception even for rape. Contraception is not always freely available, despite the best efforts of benevolent organisations like Planned Parenthood.
55% of Catholic hospitals will not dish out drugs that effect a direct violation of Roman Catholic principles about the sanctity of life? I'm shocked, I tell you - shocked! If only Catholic hospitals were not the only providers of such drugs... quote: Originally posted by Justinian: And yes, Emergency Contraception is contraception.
Just keep repeating it.
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Trisagion: The expression "preventive care" is the euphemism of choice of the current US administration to cover not only barrier methods of contraception - which clearly do not involve the killing of another human being - bit also anovulent pharmaceutical methods - which can and do cause that through the prevention of the implantation - but more particularly the provision of what this side of the pond is called the "morning after pill", which acts in an abortifacient manner.
Trisagion, I'm afraid that on this subject you are simply wrong. Which, if that is an argument that makes a difference to you, should come as a relief. Emergency Hormonal Contraception, better known as the "Morning After Pill" is not an abortifacient. It is a contraceptive. It acts, as the normal pill acts, by preventing ovulation, and thickening the mucus which prevents the sperm reaching the egg. It does not act in an abortifacient manner, although it might (and this is unproven either way) prevent implantation - statistical evidence suggests it does not prevent implantation.
For that matter, the argument that any major contraceptive method prevents implantation, let alone is an abortifacient, is unproven. I've linked evidence on what actually happens on Josephine's thread in Dead Horses. (The single exception being the copper IUD when used specifically as a means of emergency contraception - if used as regular contraception it does indeed inflame the lining of the uterus, but both this inflammation and the presence of the copper itself make the uterus both spermicidal and ovicidal).
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: quote: Originally posted by Justinian: Context matters. I wasn't calling everyone to hell. I was calling Trisagion and Catholic Bishops to hell for a specific thing they were trying to do.
Riiight. Just as well for you that no-one can, like, go back and re-read your posts, eh?
How about reading the thread title. It says "Calling Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops". Not "calling every Catholic that ever lived".
quote: When the kind of contraception you are talking about is the flushing out of fertilised human eggs, and if you accept as the RCC does that life begins at that stage of conception, then that is exactly what it is.
And I see that you are suffering from the same misapprehension that Trisagion is. The Pill does not prevent implantation. It works by preventing ovulation and by creating a natural barrier that prevents the sperm travelling. The Morning After Pill works in the exact same way. The (copper) IUD does not work by preventing implantation. It works by creating a spermicidal (and ovicidal) environment, ensuring that the sperm and the egg never meet. (The (hormonal) IUS is merely a different mechanism for delivering progesterone and has the exact same mechanism as The Pill).
Contraception is contraception. It prevents conception. RU-486 is not contraception, not even emergency contraception. It is a chemical abortion.
quote: No-one's asking you to agree with us on this, just to not to force us to facilitate or participate in it. Killing human beings is a pretty big deal, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
And no one I am aware of is asking you to participate in providing RU-486 or other forms of abortion. Killing human beings is indeed a big deal. Contraception prevents this.
quote: Except when it is. See above. If you happen to think that abortion should be or generally is defined in such a way as to exclude pre-implantation flushing out of fertilised human ova, that's fine. We can call it something else. But it won't change the moral nature of the act. And that is what matters.
I think contraception as practiced, to the best of medical knowledge available does not include pre-implantation flushing of fertilised human ova. The Progesterone Pill, including variations such as the hormonal IUS and the Morning After Pill, according to the best evidence we have available, doesn't do this. The (copper) IUD doesn't do this. The (copper) IUD used as emergency contraception might do this, but this is unproven.
It won't change the moral nature of the act. But according to the best evidence science has to date produced, you are wrong on the moral nature of the act. Because the act doesn't do what you say it does. And what it actually does matters.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: quote: Originally posted by Justinian: And yes, Emergency Contraception is contraception.
Just keep repeating it.
Since you insist:
According to the FDA: Plan B works like a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb), which usually occurs beginning 7 days after release of an egg from the ovary. Plan B will not do anything to a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus. The pregnancy will continue.
Note the word "may". Which means it is unproven.
According to recent research The evidence strongly supports disruption of ovulation as a mechanism of action. The data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation, although the possibility has not been completely excluded. The data also suggest that emergency contraceptives are ineffective after ovulation. Women and clinicians who consider implantation or later events to be the beginning of pregnancy should be aware that emergency contraceptives are likely nonabortive by this definition of pregnancy.
According to the Journal of American Medicine: "the ability of Plan B to interfere with implantation remains speculative, since virtually no evidence supporets that mechanism and some evidence contradicts it" "the best available evidence indicates that Plan B's ability to prevent pregnancy can be fully accounted for by mechnisms that do not involve interference with postfertilization events."
According to the University of Princeton Emergency contraceptive pills ... prevent pregnancy primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization. We can’t always completely explain how contraceptives work, and it is possible that any of these methods may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium. But the best evidence that we have suggests that levonorgestrel and ulipristal acetate EC does not interfere with post-fertilization events.
According to numerous scientists: But the scientists say there is no scientific evidence the pills prevent implantation--and considerable evidence they work mainly by blocking the release of an egg from the woman's ovary, so no embryo is formed.
"The pervasive myth out there is that emergency contraception is an abortifacient," said Dr. David Archer, director of clinical research at the Contraceptive Research and Development Program of Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk.
"But there's no evidence scientifically that that's true."
According to the National Institute of Health Emergency contraception prevents or delays the release of an egg from a woman's ovaries.
The method prevents pregnancy in the same way as regular birth control pills. It is also possible that emergency contraceptives prevent a woman's egg from joining with a man's sperm (fertilization), and make it hard for the fertilized egg to implant correctly in the womb.
How many more times do you want me to say it? The Morning After Pill is contraception. This is proven, clear, and statistically accounts for the entire contraceptive effect of the Morning After Pill so far as we can tell. There might be an anti-implantation mechanism at work as well, but this is unproven and statistically unlikely.
According to the best evidence we have, Emergency Contraception is Contraception by both the generally accepted definition and by the tighter definition you would prefer to use.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: Let me for simplicity's sake pretend that God can sin and contradict Himself. (May He forgive my boldness.)
I'm sure it'll be a stretch for him, after all what else has he to do with his grace and mercy . quote:
Then in the case of natural family planning the situations is that God has sinned grievously by imposing a serious defect on the sexual act: frequently and indeed even regularly, it will fail to achieve procreation, its primary goal.
Procreation is the primary goal of human sex? Is this the Catholic Church's de facto understanding? I realize that Aristotelian ethics originally influenced many of the Church Fathers in their definition of the 'proper' and 'good' use of sex. But haven't we learnt a few more significant things about biology and humanity since then.
Eg, in current Western lives women menstruate earlier and have the capacity to conceive and carry babies to full-term later in life; mainly due to healthier diets and lifestyles - and longer life-cycles than our predecessors. Many women, these days, are indeed conceiving and having babies many years after their earlier sisters would have been consigned to a completely natural grave.
Also, the use of better midwifery and medicine means fewer women and babies die in child-birth.
One can almost understand the Church's need to dictate sexual reproductive practice in pagan and pre-medieval/medieval times when only the robust and lucky survived. But human beings are not pure evolutionary animals destined to make every copulation count in order to ensure survival of the species; neither to justify the aristotelian preference that a 'good' womb is a full womb.
Certainly, I can see why sex, even in humans, night be described as the 'primary' goal for humankind as a species. But not the 'only' or preferred goal? And if not the only goal, then surely it has to be conceded as desirable that pregnancy should not be the result of even as many acts of married sex as possible?
-------------------- Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
No, Justinian - there is real ongoing doubt amongst the scientific experts about whether the m-a pill sometimes prevents implantation of fertilized ova. See the citations linked to on this page make that sufficiently clear.
The principle of moral caution fully justifies refusal to condone a treatment that has this level of uncertainty of effect from those who consider moral significance to begin at fertilisation. Would you shoot into barrel you thought had even 1% chance of concealing a dozing hobo in it?
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: No, Justinian - there is real ongoing doubt amongst the scientific experts about whether the m-a pill sometimes prevents implantation of fertilized ova. See the citations linked to on this page make that sufficiently clear.
Heck, your own citations above make that sufficiently clear. You're doing my job for me.
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: No, Justinian - there is real ongoing doubt amongst the scientific experts about whether the m-a pill sometimes prevents implantation of fertilized ova. See the citations linked to on this page make that sufficiently clear.
The citations linked at your page make things incredibly clear. Did you actually read them before posting the link?
And when I do, the first citation states as a conclusion "these data are supportive of the concept that the LNG ECP has little or no effect on postovulation events but is highly effective when taken before ovulation." - in short it inhibits ovulation but does nothing if ovulation has occurred. Meaning it is unlikely to prevent implantaion.
The second citation is about as clear as can be. "The efficacy of LNG-EC has been overestimated in studies using presumptive menstrual cycle data. Our results confirm previous similar studies and demonstrate that LNG-EC does not prevent embryo implantation and therefore cannot be labeled as abortifacient." (Emphasis mine).
The third citation is irrelevant. It says nothing about implantation.
The fourth citation states "When given before the preovulatory LH peak, levonorgestrel blocks or delays ovulation. It may also affect sperm migration in the female reproductive tract and have an effect on fertilization. Although it has been often postulated, there is no evidence for an anti-implantatory effect."
The fifth and final citation states " In an in vitro model, it was demonstrated that LNG did not interfere with blastocyst function or implantation."
The one time your listed paper was cited was also irrelevant - it's a survey on attitudes.
That... is as conclusive a set of conclusions from a group of scientists as I think I've ever seen. And these came from you not me.
quote: The principle of moral caution fully justifies refusal to condone a treatment that has this level of uncertainty of effect from those who consider moral significance to begin at fertilisation. Would you shoot into barrel you thought had even 1% chance of concealing a dozing hobo in it?
Why do I want to shoot into a barrel?
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: No, Justinian - there is real ongoing doubt amongst the scientific experts about whether the m-a pill sometimes prevents implantation of fertilized ova. See the citations linked to on this page make that sufficiently clear.
Heck, your own citations above make that sufficiently clear. You're doing my job for me.
Nothing like as well as you just did mine for me. My citations showed that the scientific community directly involved in research on the mechanisms hadn't completely ruled every possibility of implantation being slightly inhibited out. Mostly because proving a negative is almost impossible.
To do that, I needed one of the citations you told me to read, thank you.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: If you read the bible, God does contradict himself. See Jonah in which Jonah does preach what God commanded - "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Jonah Chapter 3 verse 10: 10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. How much more explicit do you want?
Dude, I'm a traditional Christian as in church fathers, councils and scholastics, not as in fundamentalist, YECcie and bible belt. If you are not pulling my leg here, then I suggest that you look at this document by the Pontifical Biblibal Commission. The sort of naively literalist "argument" from the bible you are advancing here is dealt with in the section "F. Fundamentalist Interpretation", and none too kindly as you will notice.
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: Not proven. And IMO not even true. The primary goal of the sexual act is, as I have demonstrated, not procreation. If the primary goal of the sexual act in humans were procreation, humans would not have a number of adaptions that make procreation unlikely, such as the inability to easily tell when a woman is fertile.
You have, of course, demonstrated nothing of that sort. We are not talking here about the actual intentions of people having sex, but about what sex is good for in principle. And the primary purpose is then that without which sex would not exist. Clearly this is procreation. If we would reproduce asexually, would we still have evolved genitals and use them in something resembling the sexual act? No, we would not. The whole design of the genitals clearly serves the purpose of joining gametes from both parents. This is as easy to discern as that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood through the body. It is risible to claim that such highly complicated organs and the complex physiology and behaviour governing their function could have arisen for any other purpose than the obvious one of procreation. Testicles do not produce massive amounts of sperm for the unity of spouses. The lining of the uterus is not refreshed monthly to provide pleasure. Etc.
This is not to claim that sex has no other purposes. It does, certainly in humans. But these are secondary to the primary purpose (and as it turns out, ordered to it). This is easily demonstrated by the fact that they can be absent without sex ceasing to exist. Take emotional bonding through sex, clearly a secondary purpose of sex in humans. But many animals have sex exclusively of them "wham bam thank you ma'am" type. Furthermore, bonding is not just some random super-added purpose. Rather, potential human offspring profits greatly from being cared for by both parents, given its slow development.
And precisely along these lines, the evolutionary reason that I have heard for the "hidden" fertility of human females is that this makes it necessary for the male to become a constant close companion of the female in order to protect their reproductive stake against competitors. And why would this particularly strong bond need to be established? Because human offspring requires such intense care for such a long time, making it a priority to keep dad on the job. So also this quirk of human sexuality speaks for, not against, the claim that the primary purpose of sex is procreation. Not that this is not blindingly obvious anyhow, of course.
quote: Originally posted by Anselmina: Procreation is the primary goal of human sex? Is this the Catholic Church's de facto understanding? I realize that Aristotelian ethics originally influenced many of the Church Fathers in their definition of the 'proper' and 'good' use of sex. But haven't we learnt a few more significant things about biology and humanity since then.
This has nothing to do with Aristotelian ethics or social engineering in antiquity / the middle ages or whatever. It is an utterly inescapable conclusion from observing the anatomy, physiology and biology of humans just as much as of any other sexually reproducing animal. Really and truly, sex is primarily about reproduction, just as heart beating is primarily about pumping blood around and lung breathing is primarily about getting oxygen into the body.
The ethics come into play when we ask ourselves what we shall do with this undeniable fact. You can of course say "I do not care that the primary purpose of sex is procreation. I care primarily about secondary purposes like emotional bonding between the partners," or maybe you wish to say "while it is undeniable that sexual pleasure has evolved primarily in order to motivate people to reproduce, I do not need to care about this biological history and see no problem in enjoying this pleasure in ways that will not lead to offspring." Etc.
In short, we can discuss how morally meaningful the primary purpose of sex is. Does this "is" of our biology tell us something about the "ought" of our actions? We however do not need to discuss what that primary purpose actually is. There just is no question about that.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
There are some awfully long posts on this thread. One of the reasons I don't become a Roman Catholic is that if I did, I'd have to spend the next twenty years finding out what I believed. And I don't have that kind of time.
-------------------- "What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: We are not talking here about the actual intentions of people having sex, but about what sex is good for in principle. And the primary purpose is then that without which sex would not exist. Clearly this is procreation.
So any act which doesn't result in a child doesn't count as "sex"? Do you think such acts don't exist in the sense of not being sex, or in the sense of never having really occurred?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Adeodatus: There are some awfully long posts on this thread. One of the reasons I don't become a Roman Catholic is that if I did, I'd have to spend the next twenty years finding out what I believed. And I don't have that kind of time.
Only if you have reached a stage where you accept that you have to act and believe in accordance with long and convoluted interpretations mostly arrived at in committee. And AFAIK, no committee has ever taken any of the sacraments.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: My citations showed that the scientific community directly involved in research on the mechanisms hadn't completely ruled every possibility of implantation being slightly inhibited out.
Well, quite. How is that supposed to count against my caution that it might indeed, as other experts in the field have suggested it in fact may? quote: Originally posted by Justinian: To do that, I needed one of the citations you told me to read, thank you.
You think that paper conclusively rules out every possibility that LNG-EC acts to prevent implantation of fertilized ova in women? How does it do that, precisely?
Here (a response to this paper) are the opinions of some who do not consider it settled. [ 16. February 2012, 14:28: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: We are not talking here about the actual intentions of people having sex, but about what sex is good for in principle. And the primary purpose is then that without which sex would not exist. Clearly this is procreation.... snip ...This is not to claim that sex has no other purposes. It does, certainly in humans. But these are secondary to the primary purpose (and as it turns out, ordered to it). This is easily demonstrated by the fact that they can be absent without sex ceasing to exist.
I was struck by this part of the argument, that the secondary nature of the non-procreative aspects of sex is demonstrated by the fact that they can be absent without sex ceasing to exist.
My first reaction was that marital sex without these 'secondary' characteristics (reinforcing pair bonds, the 'delight and tenderness of sexual union' to quote someone or other) sounds - well I want to say barren.
I also wondered whether the fact that today procreation can occur without sex, affects the argument that the 'point' of sex is procreation? When we get to the point that sex (at least sex as it's usually understood, between two people in the same room) 'can be absent without' procreation 'ceasing to exist' does this affect the debate?
Anne
-------------------- ‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: quote: Originally posted by Justinian: To do that, I needed one of the citations you told me to read, thank you.
You think that paper conclusively rules out every possibility that LNG-EC acts to prevent implantation of fertilized ova in women? How does it do that, precisely?
I think your argument pretty much reduces to admitting that the effect claimed is so small or infrequent that it cannot be observed scientifically. This is quite different than Trisagion's original claim that:
quote: Originally posted by Trisagion: The expression "preventive care" is the euphemism of choice of the current US administration to cover not only barrier methods of contraception - which clearly do not involve the killing of another human being - bit also anovulent pharmaceutical methods - which can and do cause that through the prevention of the implantation - but more particularly the provision of what this side of the pond is called the "morning after pill", which acts in an abortifacient manner.
Note the claim of definite, clinical knowledge and the assertion that such knowledge is strong enough to base public health policy on.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by IngoB: We are not talking here about the actual intentions of people having sex, but about what sex is good for in principle. And the primary purpose is then that without which sex would not exist. Clearly this is procreation.
So any act which doesn't result in a child doesn't count as "sex"? Do you think such acts don't exist in the sense of not being sex, or in the sense of never having really occurred?
I rather believe the point is that sex in the animal kingdom evolved for the purpose of procreation. No question about that.
-------------------- Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sioni Sais: quote: Originally posted by Adeodatus: There are some awfully long posts on this thread. One of the reasons I don't become a Roman Catholic is that if I did, I'd have to spend the next twenty years finding out what I believed. And I don't have that kind of time.
Only if you have reached a stage where you accept that you have to act and believe in accordance with long and convoluted interpretations mostly arrived at in committee. And AFAIK, no committee has ever taken any of the sacraments.
Hey, if I'm going to engage in any obsequium religiosum*, I want to know in advance exactly what it is I'm being obsequious about.
*(Am I the only one that thinks this sounds like a spell from a Harry Potter story?)
-------------------- "What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: quote: Originally posted by Justinian: My citations showed that the scientific community directly involved in research on the mechanisms hadn't completely ruled every possibility of implantation being slightly inhibited out.
Well, quite. How is that supposed to count against my caution that it might indeed, as other experts in the field have suggested it in fact may? quote: Originally posted by Justinian: To do that, I needed one of the citations you told me to read, thank you.
You think that paper conclusively rules out every possibility that LNG-EC acts to prevent implantation of fertilized ova in women? How does it do that, precisely?
Here (a response to this paper) are the opinions of some who do not consider it settled.
Seriously? That? That is your "evidence"? An op-ed saying "well, one possibility has been ruled out. But we don't want to change our ideas, so let's come up with a few other random hypotheses rather than changing our theory."
And my answer is no I don't think it absolutely rules out the possibility that it prevents implantation. I believe it puts it into the same league as my hypothesis that toothpaste prevents implantation. There's no scientific evidence for that either. But using exactly the same precautionary principle you want to use here, women should not brush their teeth after sex. Because it might have a weirdly complex mechanism after sex whenever toothpaste is swallowed that prevents implantation.
And that is why caution without any decent evidence to be cautious is silly. Chesterbelloc, next time you leave the house there is a possibility this will cause someone's death. I can hypothesise several ways for this to happen. And they have non-zero possibility.
Now, if you believe in your cautionary principle, you won't leave the house. Because there is a possibility it would lead to killing someone. And you shouldn't, under your own principles, leave the house until you have ruled out every possibility that will happen.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: quote: Originally posted by Justinian: To do that, I needed one of the citations you told me to read, thank you.
You think that paper conclusively rules out every possibility that LNG-EC acts to prevent implantation of fertilized ova in women? How does it do that, precisely?
I think your argument pretty much reduces to admitting that the effect claimed is so small or infrequent that it cannot be observed scientifically.
Actually, I've stupidly allowed myself to become sidetracked into only discussing one of the covered options, "Plan B". My bad. But since Justinian brought RU-486 up, "Ella" (the "week after pill" which closely resembles it) which is considered an abortifacient (see here and here for starters) is definitely covered by the Obama mandate.
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Tell you what, Justinian, I'll concede defeat-by-medical-consensus over the morning-after pill discussion we've just been having if you will address the "Ella" issue.
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: Actually, I've stupidly allowed myself to become sidetracked into only discussing one of the covered options, "Plan B". My bad. But since Justinian brought RU-486 up, "Ella" (the "week after pill" which closely resembles it) which is considered an abortifacient (see here and here for starters) is definitely covered by the Obama mandate.
First off, you shouldn't consider the Weekly Standard or some anti-abortion website as a decent source for medical data. Any citations from primary research you'd care to offer on this one?
Second, the "Obama mandate" does not cover abortifacients. It does cover:
- Well-woman visits
- Screening for gestational diabetes
- HPV testing
- STD counseling
- HIV testing and counseling
- Breastfeeding support and supplies
- Contraception
- Screening and counseling for domestic violence
Dangerous stuff, I know! Once again, no private organization in the U.S. is required to offer health insurance to their employees. What Catholic institutions are arguing here is that they should be able to provide insurance in a manner that's gender-discriminatory and still reap the tax benefits thereof.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: Trisagion, I'm afraid that on this subject you are simply wrong. Which, if that is an argument that makes a difference to you, should come as a relief. Emergency Hormonal Contraception, better known as the "Morning After Pill" is not an abortifacient. It is a contraceptive. It acts, as the normal pill acts, by preventing ovulation, and thickening the mucus which prevents the sperm reaching the egg. It does not act in an abortifacient manner, although it might (and this is unproven either way) prevent implantation - statistical evidence suggests it does not prevent implantation.
For that matter, the argument that any major contraceptive method prevents implantation, let alone is an abortifacient, is unproven. I've linked evidence on what actually happens on Josephine's thread in Dead Horses. (The single exception being the copper IUD when used specifically as a means of emergency contraception - if used as regular contraception it does indeed inflame the lining of the uterus, but both this inflammation and the presence of the copper itself make the uterus both spermicidal and ovicidal).
Thank you for this information and for the other links. I will readily refrain from engaging further on this particular point unless and until I have acquainted myself with all the evidence you have adduced.
-------------------- ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: Actually, I've stupidly allowed myself to become sidetracked into only discussing one of the covered options, "Plan B". My bad. But since Justinian brought RU-486 up, "Ella" (the "week after pill" which closely resembles it) which is considered an abortifacient (see here and here for starters) is definitely covered by the Obama mandate.
"Lifenews". Right. And the Neo-conservative Weekly Standard. I think I can see how accurate your news sources are. Of course given how badly you did when you actually went for scientific evidence I'm not surprised you're going for tabloids and shifting drugs.
As for Ulipristal Acetate, better known as ellaOne or Ella, it indeed is a "sister drug" to RU-486. In that RU-486 contains two active ingredients which combine to have an abortive mechanism, and Ella contains something a bit like one of them. At 5% of the dosage.
So your argument is that a drug at a much lower and controlled dosage might have a completely different effect. You know what drug my father is on? Warfarin. Better known as rat poison. The dose is what makes the poison.
And, for the record, even if Ella is covered, you can simply prescribe Plan B. But this one, although there is no definitive evidence, you do at least have a case especially as unlike Plan B the NHS says the already pregnant are not to take it (although this is in part to try to prevent people overdosing on ellaOne, taking it in sufficient doses to be equivalent to RU-486).
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Trisagion: Thank you for this information and for the other links. I will readily refrain from engaging further on this particular point unless and until I have acquainted myself with all the evidence you have adduced.
And thank you. That is all I can ask.
I now feel a little guilty about taking out stress from my little sister's major heart surgery on you.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: First off, you shouldn't consider the Weekly Standard or some anti-abortion website as a decent source for medical data. Any citations from primary research you'd care to offer on this one?
Tackle the issues, not the sources, Crœsus. The Weekly Standard piece was almost entirely composed of sources and links (including medical info ones) from elsewhere. Did you follow any of them? Perhaps you could tell me what factual criticisms you have of either of the pieces I linked to in re Ella's modus operandi. quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: Second, the "Obama mandate" does not cover abortifacients.
Beg the question much? It covers Ella. Under "contraception". Ella seems to lead to the rejection of fertilised ova, (perhaps even after implantation). Do you know different? Let's hear it. quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: What Catholic institutions are arguing here is that they should be able to provide insurance in a manner that's gender-discriminatory and still reap the tax benefits thereof.
What they're arguing is that Catholics should not be made to cover products like Ella to which they conscientiously object. Would you be happy to cover insurance for what you considered to be destruction of the innocent?
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: So any act which doesn't result in a child doesn't count as "sex"?
Sigh. No, rather even sexual acts that do not result in a child, including those clearly not even aiming at procreation like solo masturbation, do occur only because sexual acts are intended by nature to produce offspring. These organs have evolved primarily to fulfill a specific biological function, reproduction, whether that function is in fact realized in any particular instance of their operation or not.
quote: Originally posted by anne: My first reaction was that marital sex without these 'secondary' characteristics (reinforcing pair bonds, the 'delight and tenderness of sexual union' to quote someone or other) sounds - well I want to say barren.
Sure. A good argument can be made that a couple should refrain from sex entirely rather than merely executing the physiological mechanics.
An analogy: I'm arguing that proper chocolate must contain cocoa solids. My intention is not to suggest that next time your kids ask for some chocolate, you should give them crushed coca beans. Clearly there is more to good chocolate than that! My intention is to argue that "white chocolate" lacks a key ingredient to fully deserve that name.
quote: Originally posted by anne: I also wondered whether the fact that today procreation can occur without sex, affects the argument that the 'point' of sex is procreation?
Well, the basic reason why the RCC condemns IVF etc. is because these methods separate procreation from sex. So yes, that connection is highly relevant, but the RCC thinks it says something moral about these methods, rather than about sex.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: Tell you what, Justinian, I'll concede defeat-by-medical-consensus over the morning-after pill discussion we've just been having if you will address the "Ella" issue.
I've already cross-posted an answer (and thanks for the concession). But for what it's worth (I may have some medical research to my name - but as a statistician, not a medical person so this is a layman's opinion), my guess would be that Ella is an abortifacient if and only if the envelope is pushed in terms of when it is taken.
If Ella is taken when Plan B would otherwise be successful (which is most of the time) then the effect is simmilar to that of Plan B. And like Plan B it does have a secondary method of contraception - however this isn't the same as that used by Plan B. Plan B clogs the sperm up so they don't get that far. Ella, on the other hand, quite possibly kills the egg.
If taken late there is therefore a significant possibility that it will kill the egg post-conception rather than pre-conception. I don't know whether it does, and don't believe the evidence is anything like as clear either way as it is for Plan B - but in this case there is much more of a mechanism including known side effects in animals, and some statistical correlation. I therefore have complete sympathy with anyone who wants to prescribe or take Plan B rather than ella because of the risk.
As always, my answer could change with new evidence.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: Trisagion, I'm afraid that on this subject you are simply wrong. Which, if that is an argument that makes a difference to you, should come as a relief. Emergency Hormonal Contraception, better known as the "Morning After Pill" is not an abortifacient. It is a contraceptive. It acts, as the normal pill acts, by preventing ovulation, and thickening the mucus which prevents the sperm reaching the egg. It does not act in an abortifacient manner, although it might (and this is unproven either way) prevent implantation - statistical evidence suggests it does not prevent implantation.
For that matter, the argument that any major contraceptive method prevents implantation, let alone is an abortifacient, is unproven. I've linked evidence on what actually happens on Josephine's thread in Dead Horses. (The single exception being the copper IUD when used specifically as a means of emergency contraception - if used as regular contraception it does indeed inflame the lining of the uterus, but both this inflammation and the presence of the copper itself make the uterus both spermicidal and ovicidal).
Thank you for this information and for the other links. I will readily refrain from engaging further on this particular point unless and until I have acquainted myself with all the evidence you have adduced.
-------------------- ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: What they're arguing is that Catholics should not be made to cover products like Ella to which they conscientiously object. Would you be happy to cover insurance for what you considered to be destruction of the innocent?
The trouble is they are also arguing to not cover Plan B. Or The Pill. Single out Ella as part of the campaign and directly accept Plan B and other definitively contraceptive methods and this stops looking like grasping at straws.
My biggest, deepest argument with the Roman Catholic Church is about contraception. I believe you are wrong in most other places (and regularly wrong through routes I need to continually fight myself to avoid, which adds significantly to my dislike). But everyone is wrong some of the time. On the other hand the contraception issue is the place where you are IMO actively working to try to fuck the world up even more than it already is without even being able to point to petty and venial self interest - which is much more forgivable IMO. There are only two other groups that are alongside you in my dislike here and for almost exactly the same reason. One is Evangelical Christians who oppose contraception. (Or for that matter, anyone else who opposes contraception). And the other is the anti-vaccination lobby. (If I could find people opposing sanitation or nutrition on principle and saw any power at all in them I'd throw them in).
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: "Lifenews". Right. And the Neo-conservative Weekly Standard. I think I can see how accurate your news sources are.
Ok, just tell me where they're wrong on this issue.
And would you like to know why conservative and pro-life organs are the ones that most often have available articles on these issues? Because life-issues are not so well covered by liberal ones, which tend to presume in favour of maximimsing reproductive freedom. Hardly surprising that that these are the types of sources I end up citing on these issues - these are the ones that are actually reporting them. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: Of course given how badly you did when you actually went for scientific evidence I'm not surprised you're going for tabloids and shifting drugs.
Gracious of you. I pointed to competent medical opinion that doubted the complete absence of abortifacient effect of LNG-EC. There wasn't as much as I had thought, and I conceded that the medical consensus was on your side. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: As for Ulipristal Acetate, better known as ellaOne or Ella, it indeed is a "sister drug" to RU-486. In that RU-486 contains two active ingredients which combine to have an abortive mechanism, and Ella contains something a bit like one of them. At 5% of the dosage.
So what? Can Ella cause fertilised eggs to be ejected or can it not? That is the pertinent question. It has been recorded as "embryolethal" in animal tests and the manufacturers themselves, as well as clinicians, admit "alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy." quote: Originally posted by Justinian: And, for the record, even if Ella is covered,
It is. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: you can simply prescribe Plan B.
What does that mean? Who can prescribe it? If Ella is covered, it can be prescribed. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: But this one, although there is no definitive evidence, you do at least have a case especially as unlike Plan B the NHS says the already pregnant are not to take it.
Thank you.
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Catastrophic cross-posting all round - will address in next!
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
First, thank you for this post. quote: Originally posted by Justinian: quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: What they're arguing is that Catholics should not be made to cover products like Ella to which they conscientiously object. Would you be happy to cover insurance for what you considered to be destruction of the innocent?
The trouble is they are also arguing to not cover Plan B. Or The Pill.
Yes, indeed they are. But Catholics fully admit that that (potentially) abortifacient drugs are a much more serious issue than (non-abortifacient) contraceptives. In terms of political savvy, maybe singling out Ella and giving way on the contraceptives would be sucessful. But singling out Ella would still leave Catholics with an issue of conscience over the lesser evil of the contraceptives: an issue of conscience is an issue of conscience. Why force Catholics to cover such services against their religious principles at all when they are generally accessible, cheap and freely available otherwise? What is the actual point of that?
The RCC is not asking for something special they've never had before: they are just asking for the status quo wrt contraceptive cover (in the case of Catholic employers and insurers who so object) to be maintained.
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: Yes, indeed they are. But Catholics fully admit that that (potentially) abortifacient drugs are a much more serious issue than (non-abortifacient) contraceptives. In terms of political savvy, maybe singling out Ella and giving way on the contraceptives would be sucessful. But singling out Ella would still leave Catholics with an issue of conscience over the lesser evil of the contraceptives: an issue of conscience is an issue of conscience. Why force Catholics to cover such services against their religious principles at all when they are generally accessible, cheap and freely available otherwise? What is the actual point of that?
As noted above, no one is forcing Catholics to do anything. There is no requirement under U.S. law to provide a prescription drug benefit to your employees. There is, however, a standard for what must be included for something to be considered a prescription drug benefit. quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: The RCC is not asking for something special they've never had before: they are just asking for the status quo wrt contraceptive cover (in the case of Catholic employers and insurers who so object) to be maintained.
Actually, they are. Twenty-eight states (containing approximately 58% of the U.S. population) already require prescription contraceptives to be covered by any insurance plan purporting to include a prescription drug benefit. For whatever reason, the Catholic Church has not seen fit to make an issue of this until now.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: For whatever reason, the Catholic Church has not seen fit to make an issue of this until now.
This Catholic suggests that its because the bishops see that their political power is waning because of the clerical sexual abuse scandal and want to shore it up. I suspect there may be something to that.
The discussion has moved on considerably since Chesterbelloc and Trisagion addressed my post about the RCC not recognizing marriages not contracted under its aegis. However, I still want to say that I stand by my earlier remark about hairsplitting, and I would add that the RCC's track record in regards to how it treats marriage in the US is crap. You can talk all you want about the differences between a civil marriage and a sacramental one and about how various "impediments" render marriages invalid or non-sacramental or whatever, and you can wax rhapsodic about "one flesh" all day long -- it's still all horseshit. If it weren't, the bishops might have something to say about Newt Gingrich's being on his third marriage. Tell me, which woman is he "one flesh" with?
Finally, the reason I think the RCC's bullshit about marriage is relevant to a discussion of contraceptives is because it's all part and parcel of one of the biggest problems in that church: a huge institution with a lot to say about personal details of many people's lives is run entirely by men.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: As noted above, no one is forcing Catholics to do anything. There is no requirement under U.S. law to provide a prescription drug benefit to your employees. There is, however, a standard for what must be included for something to be considered a prescription drug benefit.
So, you would rather encourage Catholics not to offer their employees coverage for potentially extremely expensive and life-saving drugs than allow them not to have to fund some generally very cheap and non-essential products that most people would expect to pay for themselves anyway? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face... quote: quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: The RCC is not asking for something special they've never had before: they are just asking for the status quo wrt contraceptive cover (in the case of Catholic employers and insurers who so object) to be maintained.
Actually, they are. Twenty-eight states (containing approximately 58% of the U.S. population) already require prescription contraceptives to be covered by any insurance plan purporting to include a prescription drug benefit. For whatever reason, the Catholic Church has not seen fit to make an issue of this until now.
I doubt if there has never been opposition to this on a diocese-by-diocese basis as and when those states mandated that coverage. However, I don't know enough about the specifics of it to comment further. But since this is a massive rolling out of such a requirement across the whole country at once it should come as no surprise that was seen as a must-act-now by the bishops. They certainly have reason to "make an issue of it" now.
It's also worth noting that the Catholic bishops have been overwhelmingly in favor of nation-wide health care provision over the decades and during the current administration.
[fixed fuxed code] [ 17. February 2012, 08:53: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by RuthW: If it weren't, the bishops might have something to say about Newt Gingrich's being on his third marriage.
I certainly don't know, and wouldn't expect to know, whether Gingrich's bishop or pastor has had anything to say about his marital conduct - do you? I don't even know whether he has sought an annulment/s, or if he approaches to receive Holy Communion, do you? His conversion to Catholicism is pretty recent.
In the absence of such information, how do you know the bishops are being, as you suggest, hypocrites over this?
-------------------- "[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sine Nomine: I rather believe the point is that sex in the animal kingdom evolved for the purpose of procreation. No question about that.
The problem lies in drawing unwarranted conclusions from that fact. Such as that there's something wrong with sex that isn't "open" to procreation. As Justinian has shown, sex in humans is about more than procreation now, since the females developed permanent estrus. The whole "open to procreation" thing is a laughable attempt to fudge the untenable position that sex should only be undertaken for the purpose of procreation.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: No, Justinian - there is real ongoing doubt amongst the scientific experts about whether the m-a pill sometimes prevents implantation of fertilized ova. See the citations linked to on this page make that sufficiently clear.
The principle of moral caution fully justifies refusal to condone a treatment that has this level of uncertainty of effect from those who consider moral significance to begin at fertilisation. Would you shoot into barrel you thought had even 1% chance of concealing a dozing hobo in it?
And yet, the church hasn't come out against driving cars, despite the risk of death it carries.
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: As noted above, no one is forcing Catholics to do anything. There is no requirement under U.S. law to provide a prescription drug benefit to your employees. There is, however, a standard for what must be included for something to be considered a prescription drug benefit.
So, you would rather encourage Catholics not to offer their employees coverage for potentially extremely expensive and life-saving drugs than allow them not to have to fund some generally very cheap and non-essential products that most people would expect to pay for themselves anyway? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
Who says Catholics need encouragement? That kind of "take our ball and go home" thinking has been a consistent theme with the Church in other areas where it wasn't successful in imposing its dogma on non-believers. (Adoption by same-sex couples comes to mind, but there are doubtless other areas that escape me at the moment.)
It also seems dangerous, and just a little bit feudal, to give employers the authority to decide for their employees which medical treatments are "essential". Isn't that the sort of thing usually best worked out between doctors and patients? What's to prevent an employer from claiming that his religion forbids any medical treatment other than prayer and then claiming funds used to build a religious facility count as providing health insurance for his employees?
As for whether employees should "expect" to pay for certain prescription drugs themselves, it seems more likely to me that an employee who has prescription drug coverage would expect that coverage to extend to all prescription drugs. Or is that just me being too literal?
"Very cheap" is also relative, I guess. A 28-day supply of oral contraceptives runs about US$72-95, which represents 6.5% to 8.5% of the salary of someone working a full time job for the U.S. minimum wage.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by RuthW: I suspect there may be something to that.
That's because in the fantasy world you occupy it is clear that the only people who are entitled to the presumption of acting in good faith are your fellow 'liberal "peace first" hankie squeezers'.
quote: The discussion has moved on considerably since Chesterbelloc and Trisagion addressed my post about the RCC not recognizing marriages not contracted under its aegis. However, I still want to say that I stand by my earlier remark about hairsplitting, and I would add that the RCC's track record in regards to how it treats marriage in the US is crap. You can talk all you want about the differences between a civil marriage and a sacramental one and about how various "impediments" render marriages invalid or non-sacramental or whatever, and you can wax rhapsodic about "one flesh" all day long -- it's still all horseshit. If it weren't, the bishops might have something to say about Newt Gingrich's being on his third marriage. Tell me, which woman is he "one flesh" with?
So you build a logically flawed argument based on a completely erroneous premise, your error is pointed out to you and yet, rather than display a shred of intellectual honesty, you simply reassert the original argument in more aggressive and less logically coherent form, with a little ad hominem attack on a straw man thrown in to attempt - unsuccessfully, as it turns out - to score a cheap political point. I don't know what that's called where you come from but around here we call that being a four-fisted fuckwit.
quote: Finally, the reason I think the RCC's bullshit about marriage is relevant to a discussion of contraceptives is because it's all part and parcel of one of the biggest problems in that church: a huge institution with a lot to say about personal details of many people's lives is run entirely by men.
First, there is no evidence on this thread - or elsewhere on the Ship - that you are capable of thought at all let alone sufficient thought to link together cause and effect in any cogent way in respect of even simple physical phenomena. That you would claim to be able to do so in something as complicated as the factors affecting the beliefs of a global body as large, long-lasting and complex as the Catholic Church, is just simply laughable.
Second, your argument reveals all too clearly the fact that you are, in fact, nothing more than a cheap feminist, sexist bigot.
Third, if you displayed even an ounce of self-knowledge, you might begin to consider when your 'liberal "peace first" hankie squeezing' prejudices are ever subject to any kind of critical engagement with anything even faintly resembling a second-cousin to Christianity.
Admit it, sweetie, you are doctrinaire liberal ideologue who claims for her half-baked prejudices an infallibility that would have made even the most purple Ultramontanist blush with embarrassment.
-------------------- ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Sine Nomine: I rather believe the point is that sex in the animal kingdom evolved for the purpose of procreation. No question about that.
The problem lies in drawing unwarranted conclusions from that fact. Such as that there's something wrong with sex that isn't "open" to procreation. As Justinian has shown, sex in humans is about more than procreation now, since the females developed permanent estrus. The whole "open to procreation" thing is a laughable attempt to fudge the untenable position that sex should only be undertaken for the purpose of procreation.
Oh absolutely. If I believed that I just guess I wouldn't be having any, would I? Thank God for free will – that's what I always say. Well, sometimes that's what I say.
-------------------- Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: quote: Originally posted by RuthW: If it weren't, the bishops might have something to say about Newt Gingrich's being on his third marriage.
I certainly don't know, and wouldn't expect to know, whether Gingrich's bishop or pastor has had anything to say about his marital conduct - do you? I don't even know whether he has sought an annulment/s, or if he approaches to receive Holy Communion, do you? His conversion to Catholicism is pretty recent.
In the absence of such information, how do you know the bishops are being, as you suggest, hypocrites over this?
Oh, but there is such information. It is reported that he attends church regularly, and no mention is made of his not approaching to receive communion, so it seems a fair assumption that he does. His pastor says his current marriage is valid. His second wife has said that she received a notice about having her marriage annulled. His first wife apparently isn't talking, but she's still alive, so one way or another that marriage has been dealt with to the church's satisfaction.(Source)
You imply that we shouldn't be privy to such information, but in the midst of the 2004 presidential campaign, the man who is now pope issued a memo saying Catholic politicians who support legal abortion should be denied communion, making his opinion of the state of John Kerry's soul rather public knowledge. Receiving communion is something one does in public. Contracting a marriage is not a wholly private thing either, either in the RCC or outside it; the ceremony must be properly witnessed, and church bodies place various levels of power over whether the ceremony may take place in the hands of priests and ministers. In the Episcopal Church, for instance, a priest must obtain the bishop's permission to officiate at a wedding where one or more of the parties has previously been married. This may entail writing a letter with a lot of personal details about the couple to a bishop whom they may never have met.
So don't act like this is all personal, private stuff that I have no business knowing. Especially when we're talking about Newt Gingrich, a very public figure currently running for public office who goes around the country hawking a book called Rediscovering God in America.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Trisagion: sweetie
Aw ... he called me sweetie.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Chesterbelloc: So, you would rather encourage Catholics not to offer their employees coverage for potentially extremely expensive and life-saving drugs than allow them not to have to fund some generally very cheap and non-essential products that most people would expect to pay for themselves anyway?
Let's say that I'm an employer, and I decide that taking blood pressure medication is a manifestation of the sins of sloth and gluttony, and I don't want to participate in those sins, even by allowing a portion of my money to go to subsidize the products that people use to allow them to engage in it. Should I be able to refuse to cover blood pressure medication? It's non-essential, and it's cheap; surely folks who want it can buy it for themselves.
What about Viagra? Cheap or expensive, it's certainly non-essential. I think I don't want to cover that, either. I'll just cover medications that are essential.
Painkillers are non-essential. They don't treat anything or prevent anything or cure anything. Sure, you might prefer not to be in pain, but Nature itself tells us that pain is important. Artificial pain relief interferes with God's ability to send you a message through your body, so it's a sin. I don't want to be a party to that sin, even at arm's length, by paying for insurance coverage for it.
Antihistamines! They aren't essential, either. No one ever died from hay fever. And if you think you need it, you can use an OTC antihistamine. No reason for me to cover the prescriptions.
Who cares what the doctors think? I don't need a medical degree to decide what medications are medically necessary. Why should I need that? All I need is faith in God. If I say that your oral contraceptives are non-essential, then they're non-essential. Don't tell me that you need them to treat endometriosis, or PCOS, or premenstrual dysphoria, or endometriosis, or hormonally induced migraines. I know that's not true, because I know that the only people who ever use the Pill are married women who don't want to have babies. And that's a sin. And it would be a sin for me to contribute to anyone else's sin.
-------------------- I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Trisagion: Second, your argument reveals all too clearly the fact that you are, in fact, nothing more than a cheap feminist, sexist bigot.
You know, I thought we were past the era when accusing someone of believing women should have the same political rights as men is considered an insult, but I guess I was wrong.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
Trisagion's response was so spittle-flecked, over-the-top and irrational one can only assume invective is his only remaining weapon.
I must say this cracked me up though:
quote: First, there is no evidence on this thread - or elsewhere on the Ship - that you are capable of thought at all let alone sufficient thought to link together cause and effect in any cogent way
What could possibly be less true?
-------------------- Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: This has nothing to do with Aristotelian ethics or social engineering in antiquity / the middle ages or whatever. It is an utterly inescapable conclusion from observing the anatomy, physiology and biology of humans just as much as of any other sexually reproducing animal. Really and truly, sex is primarily about reproduction, just as heart beating is primarily about pumping blood around and lung breathing is primarily about getting oxygen into the body.
Wronger than a wrong thing in Wrongville! The heart is not 'primarily' about keeping breath in the body; it is ONLY about keeping breath in the body. Whereas sex is not ONLY about reproduction.
You talk about the Church vetoing IVF (for example) because the method separates sex from procreation. How about the dangers of separating sex from the formation of a spiritually and physically complete married relationship?
It really comes across as if the argument being put forward is: sex (within marriage, of course) is fine so long as the opportunity for conception is always there, and anything in addition to that ie, satisfaction, enrichment, relationship-building, comfort etc is just a bonus, and never to be mistaken for a justifiable reason for having sex.
Or, IOW, your feelings and happiness are your own concern, but your sperm and eggs belong to us!
-------------------- Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sine Nomine: Trisagion's response was so spittle-flecked, over-the-top and irrational one can only assume invective is his only remaining weapon.
I must say this cracked me up though:
quote: First, there is no evidence on this thread - or elsewhere on the Ship - that you are capable of thought at all let alone sufficient thought to link together cause and effect in any cogent way
What could possibly be less true?
I often appreciate Trisagion's contributions on the boards, but I have to say I was surprized with this little case of the brain-staggers!
I mean, what was the final straw? RuthW indicating that some people have a problem with the fact that the RCC is run solely by men? Sheesh!
-------------------- Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|