I could have sworn that it was you who explained in a past discussion, I think it was the circumcision thread, that medical guidelines aren't hard and fast rules.
More young doctors oppose abortions on ethical grounds
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
I could have sworn that it was you who explained in a past discussion, I think it was the circumcision thread, that medical guidelines aren't hard and fast rules.
They aren't and that's how I like it. I misunderstood you, maybe. I thought you were advocating hard and fast rules. That's the impression I got when you said "qualified" for an abortion. It sounded like there would be a list and if you weren't on the list, too bad. Like I said, I am happy with the basic guidelines already in place.
What word would you use to say someone falls within the guidelines and thus will have the procedure? I can't really think of anything else off the top of my head. lol.
In my thoughts, anyone who thinks it's OK to use birth control, then has to be OK with abortion.
Birth control is preventing pregnancy and ending the life of 'live' tissue, with jellies etc., the beginnings of life, and once those
live tissues are joined at conception, then terminated, it is called an abortion. For me there is 'no' difference. I
believe in birth control and 'early' abortion. This is one area that I respect the Catholic Church, for they
are consistent in their beliefs, no birth control and no abortion. If a doctor is not willing to perform an abortion 'for any reason', then should not be allowed to practice in that area of medicine, in my opinion.
Birth control is preventing pregnancy and ending the life of 'live' tissue, with jellies etc., the beginnings of life, and once those
live tissues are joined at conception, then terminated, it is called an abortion. For me there is 'no' difference. I
believe in birth control and 'early' abortion. This is one area that I respect the Catholic Church, for they
are consistent in their beliefs, no birth control and no abortion. If a doctor is not willing to perform an abortion 'for any reason', then should not be allowed to practice in that area of medicine, in my opinion.
I don't feel that eggs have human rights, since they're not human by any definition, they are half a human. Ditto for sperm. Preventing an egg and sperm from meeting is not equivalent to an abortion. No beating heart. No brain. Not the same thing.
Essentially though most pro-life groups, and religious organizations, consider conception as the moment life gets human rights. At that moment there is no brain, no heartbeat. An early embryo is a group of undifferentiated cells. The embryonic stemcell controversy is based on that principle. If people can't agree on who has rights at that point how can they establish guidelines for this? I would have serious objections to anyone negotiating my wife's personal fundamental rights with lobbyists who claim an embryo has more rights to my wife's domain than she does from the moment of conception. The law disagrees with them, I disagree with them, and as far as I'm concerned my wife has a far better understanding of the implications of her pregnancy than they do. I would rather entrust her to make decisions than I would a government lobby or a physician motivated by something other than her physical and mental health.
It's all live tissue, trying to become an embryo, looking for their mate, the same live tissue which
joins to become an Embryo, it's a matter of 'opinion' what anyone decides it is or isn't,
just as it is with early abortion. If one was willing to kill it 'all' 6weeks before conception, then one can do the same 6 weeks after conception, and I'm not going to
fall for any theory that at the moment of conception all of that changes. It is in the
thoughts and beliefs of each of us, not any 'rule' by anyone.
Last edited:
There are three main ways that the birth control pill works:
- First, delay ovulation.
- Failing a delayed ovulation, produce the thick type of mucous in the cervix that prevent sperm from entering the uterus.
- Failing that, make it unlikely for the ferltilized egg to attach to the wall of the uterus, thus aborting the fertilized egg.
Last edited:
I know several churches consider those methods abortifacients. I have two friends who would not use the pill for that reason. One is waiting for marriage to have sex, so it's not a big issue yet (she's greek orthodox). The other is married and it has resulted in one surprise baby, but they were well aware that could happen and took it all in stride despite the difficulties it caused (she was in school at the time). I respect them both for following what their church teaches to the letter in this matter but I am well aware they are not the norm. I don't think most religious people would consider the pill to be a sin anymore.
I dunno either
The guidelines are already there and in the end we still leave it up to them. No woman is forced to abort and those that fall within guidelines and choose it should be accomodated. Those who need it should never be turned away. Docs who aren't comfortable with that should consider another specialty to work in.tubal ligations are also a reliable method of not conceiving an embryo.
on to your question... murder? I resfuse to throw the word around in abortion discussions. I won't label any woman a murderer for making a choice within current societal frame works. Do I believe that the birth control pill ends a human life by creating inhospitable conditions? Yes I do. Do I think that embryo has the same human rights that a fetus with a brain and a heart beat has? No. Some rights, yes, and if there was a reliable way to prevent the need for abortions, without creating the possibility of these 'mini-abortions', then I'd be a firm advocate of it.
Does the RC church allow tubals or vasectomies? I thought they didn't. I don't know about other denominations.
Word to the wise, we had a woman conceive twins after a tubal
It apparently wasn't done correctly... My cousin was conceived after my uncle's vasectomy. He was sure his wife had cheated on him till the test results came back that he was in fact still fertile
Does the RC church allow tubals or vasectomies? I thought they didn't. I don't know about other denominations.
Word to the wise, we had a woman conceive twins after a tubal
The lesser of evils one could say Tracy. Not one RC priest I know will talk about tubals. They don't want to say yay or nay apparently. That is, once you've had children. I think if you went and got a tubal before children, they would find fault. Personally, the effectiveness of tubals is reason number MILLION for men to have it done instead of women, where it can be reliably measured. Here, you're not supposed to engage in unprotected intercourse until those counts have been checked and come back at a nice zero.
I think the RC church is practical in the end, as we all are. I don't hear of women being excommunicated for using the pill or having a tubal, but I did think they weren't allowed. One of my friends said it was considered mutilation almost, but I don't know if that was just her interpretation or the official church stance. I can't imagine they would bar condom use, but allow tubals and vasectomies.
They do tell men to get tested before relying on their vasectomies now
. My uncle had it done way back when (my cousin is 28 ). Cases like that are probably why docs now test men after the procedure. Vasectomies are physically easier than tubals anyways.Not when it comes to possibly conceiving a child! I don't trust ANYBODY, but me. Knock on wood, it's worked out for me so far
I respect that the church wanted me to have a family. I love that about my church. The emphasis on family is the cornerstone of the church. But it ultimately falls to us to care for that family once we've had it. The church over all may not, but our individual parishes recognize that. So, if God wanted me to have many many more children, he wouldn't have caused pseudotumor cerebri in me. That was my message that a tubal was in order. My message that, in order to continue being able to look after my family, I was going to have to stop having kids. I would have loved to never need to send my hubby for his tubal. But, raising kids blind, when you don't HAVE to go blind, is just ridiculous. And going through surgery and all the risks it bears, just to put in a shunt so I could keep having more kids, seemed like a drastic risk in light of already having two kids who needed me.
They do tell men to get tested before relying on their vasectomies now
With all factors considered, when it came time to take drastic measures to prevent pregnancy, hubby didn't even consider letting me get a tubal (because frankly, risking surgery for a tubal, or a shunt, I'd have taken the shunt!). My mother had a tubal, and the adhesions she's gotten all through her abdomen because of it have necessitated 5 other surgeries since to essentially 'untie' her intestines from one another. She's waiting for her sixth. Hubby really didn't want to risk me going through that, since the docs have pointed to the unusual scarring in our family as the cause.
Especially when you consider that his tubal was done without even needing a stitch. A few painkillers, two days on the couch, and he was good as new.
For me it is much simpler, as I do not have 'any' religious muddling to deal with in my mind.
For me it is just 'common sense' period, the live tissue, (egg/sperm) are the making of an
embryo, 'true', on their way to create a baby, jellies kill sperm, and other forms of birth control
prevent an embryo from forming.On the day of conception, the sperm joins the egg,
same material as it was the day before, for me that means nothing, joined or not joined. I am
pro choice, I have no problem with birth control and/or 'EARLY' abortion, while that embryo
is in it's early stages of growth. I am not in favour of 'late' abortion, it is now a fetus, a baby,
and I would not interfere with that process or birth of the baby.
For me it is just 'common sense' period, the live tissue, (egg/sperm) are the making of an
embryo, 'true', on their way to create a baby, jellies kill sperm, and other forms of birth control
prevent an embryo from forming.On the day of conception, the sperm joins the egg,
same material as it was the day before, for me that means nothing, joined or not joined. I am
pro choice, I have no problem with birth control and/or 'EARLY' abortion, while that embryo
is in it's early stages of growth. I am not in favour of 'late' abortion, it is now a fetus, a baby,
and I would not interfere with that process or birth of the baby.
My husband had a vasectomy 36 yrs ago, and he was 'tested 'at a later date, to makeI think the RC church is practical in the end,
They do tell men to get tested before relying on their vasectomies now
sure there were no live sperm.
Very smart if you ask me
I wish everyone had as much concern for the children they conceive. I'm also glad that your parish accepts this.