BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, there have been recent studies that take seriously the concerns of the pro-life community with respect to endometrial receptivity to the newly conceived child. There is, as there has always been, disagreement as to the exact mechanism. Both sides have studies they can point to. See here:
With that said, the disagreement is still substantial, and it goes without saying (to be anyway) that we err on the side of life. Consistent pro-life people should continue to discourage the use of oral contraception given its possible-to-likely abortifacient properties until we have much stronger evidence that those properties do not exist (or, more technically, until all warrant for thinking they do exists is erased). As of now, we are nowhere near that high bar.
As such, Christians who wish to operate their ministries and businesses within the context of their pro-life beliefs ought not be required to provide these pills. Moreover, Christians who are opposed to all forms of artifical birth control (i.e., Catholics) CERTAINLY ought not be required to provide it, nor should they be required to materially cooperate in the process of their employees receiving it. Anything less is religious oppression and should be opposed by all people of good faith (regardless of their faith).
edit:
mel wrote:Now you are just behaving like a child.
No ma'am. I, unlike you, am respecting their faith and their right to their beliefs. There is nothing more mature and adult. You're the one telling them that they are wrong, that this doesn't violate their beliefs. It seems to me that the person who stamps their foot and insists without evidence that they are right because they said so is the childish one.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
melanie wrote:No Jac you are wrong.
What you are speakng of is commonly known as the morning after pill. Not the contraceptive pill.
I will say it again.
The contraceptive pill stops ovulation, No egg, no fertilisation.
Mel, just want to ask for your further thoughts on the morning after pill.
In particular, with reference to Jac's words whether such is a contraceptive or abortifacient?
You appear to call what Jac is talking about the morning after pill
(notwithstanding many "contraceptives" firstly have contraceptive effects and failing that often act as abortifacient).
But, what do you believe about the morning after pill?
I'm hoping not to debate, but just wanting your take.
I think this question might actually provide some understanding about why some people really get riled.
Last edited by Kurieuo on Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Jac, primarily the contraceptive pill stops ovulation.
The cases of zygotes not implanting in the uterine wall happens less when on the pill. You might say this is an irrelevant fact but it is relevant if we are talking about the potential viability of children. Being on the pill lessons the prelevance of zygotes not implanting. Less fertilised eggs being aborted. Dance around these facts all you like but it is what it is.
The vast majority of the time ovulation does not occur. That is its primary purpose. On the small chance an ovum is released the rate of aborted zygotes is less on the pill than women who are not by a significant scale.
I'm done here.
Somewhere along the way Jac you really need to realise that when two people argue it is to put two points of view across it's not a battle of supremacy or changing another's mind. Just people expressing their opinion.
Mate you can have credentials coming out your backside but you argue arrogantly and with the wrong purpose in mind.
melanie wrote:No Jac you are wrong.
What you are speakng of is commonly known as the morning after pill. Not the contraceptive pill.
I will say it again.
The contraceptive pill stops ovulation, No egg, no fertilisation.
Mel, just want to ask for your further thoughts on the morning after pill.
In particular, with reference to Jac's words whether such is a contraceptive or abortifacient?
You appear to call what Jac is talking about the morning after pill
(notwithstanding many "contraceptives" firstly have contraceptive effects and failing that often act as abortifacient).
But, what do you believe about the morning after pill?
I'm hoping not to debate, but just wanting your take.
I will get back to you K.
I kinda done here for the minute
I have already admitted that the pill means "less fertilized eggs being aborted." I've already admitted that the vast majority of the time ovulation does not occur.
None of that is relevant.
What is relevant is the fact that women are taking pills that have, as one of their methods of preventing childern from being born, abortifacient properties. Suppose you had a pill that worked by always preventing ovulation. Great, right!? No abortion properties! But now suppose that this same pill, like all others, occassionally failed. And now suppose that there was a second pill that only worked by preventing implantation. Suppose the doc recommended you take it together because the first true contraception pill only worked eighty percent of the time and the abortifacient worked the other twenty percent.
You see how pro-life people would object to the second pill? No problem with the first. The problem is with the second. And the problem with the daily does pill is that it is a combination pill of BOTH effects. I don't care if the ratio is 99/100 or 999/1000. The fact is, you are taking a pill works by rarely but in fact sometimes killing a conceived child.
That's unacceptable.
And I'm glad you think this is just expressing opinion. The problem I have is that your opinion is that ES and the Little Sisters are factually incorrect about their own faith. My problem is that your opinion is currently shared by members of our justice system, and that opinion is forcing the Little Sisters to act in ways that they think violate their faith. So this isn't just opinion, mel. This is real world stuff. And, again, you don't get to tell other people what they believe.
Now, if you want to talk about what you think is okay with YOUR conscience, then fine. I'll tell you why I think that you are wrong and why, if you use these methods, you are killing your own children. But, hey, that's a discussion about our opinions. What is NOT okay is for you to say that this is not religious oppression because the Little Sisters and Catholics in general are mistaken as to whether or not this violates their faith. That's not your opinion. That's your judgment as to the rationality of their faith, and that is something you are not entitled to.
edit:
btw, I love the credentials riff. So you think it is arrogant of me to point out how I know something about this stuff? I could doubly point out the arrogance of you telling someone who does this for a living that you understand this better than them. Notice, by the way, that I didn't appeal to the authority of my credentials alone. I have given official documentation and links to scientific journals and reviews of papers to back my interpretation. And what you have given? Your opinion. You've given ONE link that in no way addressed ANY of the substance of my argument. The irony here is that you are the one appealing to your personal authority, not me, both implicitly and explicitly. All I've been trying to get you to do from the beginning is to admit that you don't get to tell ES and the Little Sisters how they get to practice their faith. I'm trying to get you to drop the arrogant posture you've taken and humbly admit that we don't get to bully them and threaten them with financial penalties and tell them that if they don't practice their faith in a way we approve of that they can't be in business or be in the ministry. So yes, one of us is certainly taking a very arrogant position here. It just isn't me. I hope you are willing to change your mind on this and maybe even consider apologizing to ES and Catholics in general for supporting the oppression of their faith.
Last edited by Jac3510 on Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
How about I make this my last post on here then you can respond and have the last say, because let's face it that is important to you.
I will say this again, it is not about how I feel about their faith, or what they believe. I am agreeing to a decision made by the courts. Bang on about it all you like Jac, knock yourself out.
There is a saying over here 'legend in your own lunchbox'
I don't know if you're familiar with the term but your a smart guy I think you can gather the nuances.
melanie wrote:Jac, primarily the contraceptive pill stops ovulation.
The cases of zygotes not implanting in the uterine wall happens less when on the pill. You might say this is an irrelevant fact but it is relevant if we are talking about the potential viability of children. Being on the pill lessons the prelevance of zygotes not implanting. Less fertilised eggs being aborted. Dance around these facts all you like but it is what it is.
The vast majority of the time ovulation does not occur. That is its primary purpose. On the small chance an ovum is released the rate of aborted zygotes is less on the pill than women who are not by a significant scale.
I'm done here.
Somewhere along the way Jac you really need to realise that when two people argue it is to put two points of view across it's not a battle of supremacy or changing another's mind. Just people expressing their opinion.
Mate you can have credentials coming out your backside but you argue arrogantly and with the wrong purpose in mind.
Mel,
The way I understand the contraceptive pill, is its primary function is to stop ovulation. No ovulation means no fertilization. No problem for me so far. But it's secondary function, if it doesn't stop ovulation, is to prevent the newly fertilized human being, from implanting on the uterine wall. So, it's made to be an abortifacient as one of its functions.
Whether the secondary function of prohibiting implanting on the uterine wall happens less than it would if someone isn't taking the pill, is irrelevant. ITS FUNCTION IS TO BE AN ABORTAFACIENT!
And of course even if it wasn't an abortafacient, it's still a contraceptive, which is against Catholic beliefs. And even if the Catholics themselves don't provide the contraceptives through their healthcare, they are being forced to effectively tell people how to go get an abortafacient. Which is against their beliefs. Thereby making the issue one of religious persecution.
So,
Whether you or I agree with the Catholic stance on this, it doesn't matter. Because it's THEIR belief that's being taken away from them.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
melanie wrote:How about I make this my last post on here then you can respond and have the last say, because let's face it that is important to you.
I will say this again, it is not about how I feel about their faith, or what they believe. I am agreeing to a decision made by the courts. Bang on about it all you like Jac, knock yourself out.
By agreeing with the courts, you ARE telling them what they believe. The courts have said that the Little Sister's faith is not being violated. They say it is. They say being required to file an exemption violates their faith by requiring them to materially cooperate with evil. You agree with the courts that the Little Sisters are wrong about that, that they have misunderstood what violates their own faith. You are not entitled to that opinion. It is arrogance, hubris, and all that is wrong with western society. If you really supported freedom of religion, you would not ask them to file for an exemption. You would simply ask the employees who want such medication to go to the government and ask for it themselves and leave the Little Sistesr out of it entirely.
And yes, I'm sorry to say, religious freedom and life are both important to me.
There is a saying over here 'legend in your own lunchbox'
I don't know if you're familiar with the term but your a smart guy I think you can gather the nuances.
You're right. I am a smart guy, and I'm very well aware of the personal attack. I hope you found it emotionally satisfying.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
melanie wrote:No I don't think it is.
They have the right to file an exemption. That is the point of the exception.
Jac wrote:
They say being required to file an exemption violates their faith by requiring them to materially cooperate with evil.
They are being forced to either:
1) provide contraception which is against their faith
Or
2) file an exemption which is against their faith
They are left with no options that do not violate their faith. Thereby making it religious persecution.
It seems pretty straightforward to me.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
How is filing an exemption against their faith?
It is so they do NOT have to provide it. The employee goes elsewhere if they choose. That's the point.
How on earth is that violating their faith?
And they are not providing contraception. The contraceptive pill has been added to national healthcare, the doctors write the script and the pharmacist provides the medication which is subsidised by the healthcare.
Like antibiotics or other prescribed medication.
Ohh thank goodness we have Medicare here and we don't have to put up this! The U.S. should have a healthcare system that resembles Australia. Get all employers outta the picture.
melanie wrote:How is filing an exemption against their faith?
It is so they do NOT have to provide it. The employee goes elsewhere if they choose. That's the point.
How on earth is that violating their faith?
Mel,
The link explaining why it's against their faith, is provided by Jac in this post.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
The exemption mel is the complicit link of the Sisters to their employees, knowingly sending them to another "exchange" is of no avail as they are still aware of the practice. What i don't get yet is why the gov't won't allow for their exchanges to supply the meds. It seems to me it would solve the problem of the Sister's knowing (and there by complicit) and the gov't gets it's sought after coverage for all these type employed people.
Trust the past to God’s mercy, the present to God’s love, and the future to God’s providence. -St Augustine
melanie wrote:And they are not providing contraception. The contraceptive pill has been added to national healthcare, the doctors write the script and the pharmacist provides the medication which is subsidised by the healthcare.
Like antibiotics or other prescribed medication.
Ohh thank goodness we have Medicare here and we don't have to put up this! The U.S. should have a healthcare system that resembles Australia. Get all employers outta the picture.
it always amazes me that people who don't live here, and have no idea what's going on in the U.S., think it's that simple.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
it always amazes me that people who don't live here, and have no idea what's going on in the U.S., think it's that simple.