Evidence for God from Science

Yes Jac you are telling me it's a violation of their religious beliefs and I am telling you I don't believe that to be so. Now YOU may think that's silly but do YOU want to claim that somebody else is the arbiter over whether or not a belief is reasonable?
Works both ways Jac.
You see the thing is some really really smart people decided that it did not violate their religious beliefs. The issue isn't even that contraception is a sin, which is bloody ridiculous, but they and you have every right to believe that. What the issue is here is that a national, mandated scheme has been rolled out for all employees. Here's the catch, all employers don't even have to follow it all they have to do is file for an exempt. Due to their religious beliefs. That's it. File an exempt. Once they have done so, it is then up to the employee to of their own volition go to a third party. A court of law decided that it in no way violated their rites by asking them to file for an exemption based on religious grounds.
Well done to common sense.
Why so that every employee has equal opportunity to access the new health schemes regardless of the religious beliefs of their employer whilst giving the employer the religious freedom to remain exempt from all proceedings.

melanie wrote:No Rick
That is false.
The contraceptive pill stops ovulation occurring. No ovulation no pregnancy. This mandate only covers the contraceptive pill.

This is why it is all so important to not use terms, but understand what is going on.
Not all "contraceptives" are the same, just like not "abortions" are the same.

You both are right it seems to me, but focusing on different things.
And I think Mel, that you are aware of the subtle differences as I do recall previous discussions.

Many methods markets as "contraceptives" can be "abortifacients" or both.
After conception, if any drugs or device (e.g., copper UIDs) prevent implantation, then that is an abortion.
The sad reality is, many women are having abortions whether they like it or not.

Take Depo-Provera which is a common injection. It works in one of the three ways:
1) It can prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from the ovary);
2) It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change so that if sperm reach the cervix, it is more difficult for them to enter; and
3) It can alter the lining of the uterus so that if the first and two actions fail, then the newly life conceived life will not attach to the lining of the uterus but be expelled cause the life to be snuffed out.

If #3 happens, the woman has technically not fallen fully pregnant because the embryo hasn't impregnated by attached the lining wall of her uterus. And yet, clearly the effects of the "contraceptive" did not prevent conception, but rather made the woman's body hostile to implantation which causes what is known as a chemical or medical abortion.

Now what Christians do with that information is between them and God.
I know where I stand on this issue.

I understand what you are saying K
The thing is, these are not the injections or procedures being offered in the mandate. It is the contraceptive pill. The article blurred the lines between the facts of the matter. I believe for sensationalism. This is an important, emotional issue that doesn't need to obscured by misleading information.

melanie wrote:Just to touch on what FI just said here is a little biology.
When a woman ovulates and the sperm successfully reaches it target the zygote must then make its way down the Fallopian tube and attach itself to the uterine wall. Majority of the time this attachment does not occur and the zygote is expelled through mentsruation. The woman is unaware. The figures show that this happens up to 80% of the time but a more conservative estimate is at the very least half the time. So fertilised zygotes are naturally aborted often. The contraceptive pill largely eliminates this happening as it stops ovulation from occurring therefore a much slighter chance of zygotes naturally aborting.

And I also wanted to address this separately since this is a different issue than the Little Sisters.

The frequency at which newly conceived children fail to implant is totally immaterial to the discussion, as is the frequently at which the pill prevents a sperm from fertilizing the egg by preventing ovulation (obviously, no egg, no conception!). What is important is the fact that that the thickness of a the lining of a woman's uterus determines the likelihood of the successful implantation of a newly conceived child. And we know, again, that birth control pills thin that wall and make it less likely for the newly conceived child to be able to implant. Moreover, we also know that these pills not only change the thinkness of the lining, but also its quality in ways that make it harder for the child to implant.

Now, ironically perhaps, the net result of all this is that oral contraception may reduce the number of abortions absolutely--that is, when you include both spontaneous abortions and those resulting from the pill's abortifacient properties, to say nothing of the later abortions we are all so familiar with--because their role in preventing ovulation such that there may be less conceptions. But, I cannot emphasize this enough, that is immaterial. The ethics of this are not decided on a sum total of reduced abortions. That type of reasoning is called a utilitarian ethic and it is essential that we reject it. The real problem is that the use of oral contraception, by the means described above, actively prevents some newly conceived children from implanting to the uterine wall. Therefore, such methods are abortifacients by nature.

That is the incontravertible science. What is debatable is the rate at which all this happens, not that it happens. But, again, the rate is immaterial to the argument. The only thing that is material is whether it happens at all, and on those grounds, oral contraception (the typical daily ones, I mean) are absolutely to be considered abortifacients.

fdit:

For those who are interested, here is another quote from the ERDs (this from directive 36)

• A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Read that very closely and when you look at the way contraception pills work, you'll see the distinctions I made above. If a woman is raped, she can receive contraception pills if and only if testing has shown that she has not ovulated. If she has, then no pill may be taken, because such would interfere with the implanataion of the fertilized ovum.

That's the way it's practiced in our hospital, anyway. I trust our doctors on this a lot more than political pieces.

melanie wrote:Yes Jac you are telling me it's a violation of their religious beliefs and I am telling you I don't believe that to be so. Now YOU may think that's silly but do YOU want to claim that somebody else is the arbiter over whether or not a belief is reasonable?
Works both ways Jac.
You see the thing is some really really smart people decided that it did not violate their religious beliefs. The issue isn't even that contraception is a sin, which is bloody ridiculous, but they and you have every right to believe that. What the issue is here is that a national, mandated scheme has been rolled out for all employees. Here's the catch, all employers don't even have to follow it all they have to do is file for an exempt. Due to their religious beliefs. That's it. File an exempt. Once they have done so, it is then up to the employee to of their own volition go to a third party. A court of law decided that it in no way violated their rites by asking them to file for an exemption based on religious grounds.
Well done to common sense.
Why so that every employee has equal opportunity to access the new health schemes regardless of the religious beliefs of their employer whilst giving the employer the religious freedom to remain exempt from all proceedings.

What?

I am not telling you it is a violation of their beliefs. THEY ARE. Do you really think you understand their religion better than they do?!? Filing the exemption constitutes material cooperation with evil. The documentation I provided showed you WHY it so constitutes.

But really, forget the evidence. Are you REALLY sitting here and telling me that you, oh great and mighty mel, understand Catholicism better than these nuns and the professional ethicists who are advising them? I mean, let's forget my expertise--the expertise of a board certified chaplain who works in a Catholic hospital and understands the nuances of the ERDs. Leave me out of it. YOU think YOU understand this better than THEM?

I'm sure they are glad to know that you can instruct them on the meaning of their faith.

edit:

For the record, what would NOT violate their beliefs (as far as I understand the ERDs) would be if they did not have to do anything--not even file an exemption. If the employee reads his or her benefits packages and finds that his is not a benefit to them, then he or she could go to the government and file a form saying "My employer won't provide this benefit to me. Here's the proof," and then if the government decides to provide it, fine. Again, the problem here is the Catholic institution being asked to go to the government and say to them, "I am not going to provide this: get someone else to do it." By filing that form, the institution is materially cooperating in the process of getting people contraception. And THAT is a violation of their beliefs, and to be told that they have to violate their beliefs is religious oppression. It is immoral, and I am aghast that any Christian would support it.

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.

No, I am not. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I am speaking of normal, daily dose contraception. Here are the studies I have in mind if you are interested in educating yourself rather than trying to explain bioethics to someone who has taken masters level courses in the subject and whose professional responsibilities includes counseling people through these types of issues.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8206045468
http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015- ... 9/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8774274

edit:

But I'll give you this, I only have 9 hours of masters level work in this particular area of bioethics. As it happens, I work very closely with our resident bioethicist who has a full master's degree just in this stuff. And he talks about this stuff all the time, because it has MAJOR ramifications for how we operate as a Catholic hospital. Again, you are simply incorrect, mel. You do not understand the nuances of the Catholic faith, you have failed to understand what facts are material to ethical aspects of this in the pro-life debate generally and to Catholic institutions in particular, and you have failed to understand the actual science on the matter.

I'm sorry. You are just wrong. Factually.

Jac3510 wrote:

melanie wrote:Yes Jac you are telling me it's a violation of their religious beliefs and I am telling you I don't believe that to be so. Now YOU may think that's silly but do YOU want to claim that somebody else is the arbiter over whether or not a belief is reasonable?
Works both ways Jac.
You see the thing is some really really smart people decided that it did not violate their religious beliefs. The issue isn't even that contraception is a sin, which is bloody ridiculous, but they and you have every right to believe that. What the issue is here is that a national, mandated scheme has been rolled out for all employees. Here's the catch, all employers don't even have to follow it all they have to do is file for an exempt. Due to their religious beliefs. That's it. File an exempt. Once they have done so, it is then up to the employee to of their own volition go to a third party. A court of law decided that it in no way violated their rites by asking them to file for an exemption based on religious grounds.
Well done to common sense.
Why so that every employee has equal opportunity to access the new health schemes regardless of the religious beliefs of their employer whilst giving the employer the religious freedom to remain exempt from all proceedings.

What?

I am not telling you it is a violation of their beliefs. THEY ARE. Do you really think you understand their religion better than they do?!? Filing the exemption constitutes material cooperation with evil. The documentation I provided showed you WHY it so constitutes.

But really, forget the evidence. Are you REALLY sitting here and telling me that you, oh great and mighty mel, understand Catholicism better than these nuns and the professional ethicists who are advising them? I mean, let's forget my expertise--the expertise of a board certified chaplain who works in a Catholic hospital and understands the nuances of the ERDs. Leave me out of it. YOU think YOU understand this better than THEM?

I'm sure they are glad to know that you can instruct them on the meaning of their faith.

Ohh for goodness sake Jac, stop with theatrics
I did not claim to understand the nuances of the Catholic faith, I will leave that to your highly self prized credentials. I claimed that I did not think that a decision made by the court violated their religious freedom. You could insert any belief system into that equation it makes no difference to the matter at hand. I am entitled to that belief Jac. You do realise that I hope. People can see things differently. It's okay, it's not a personal attack just an opinion.
I think we need to stop here.
Agree to disagree.
I will finish by saying that it is nonsensical to me for these nuns to be given an exemption based on religious grounds then for them to want an exemption from the exemption. Clearly this argument did uphold in a court of law.

“We’re disappointed with today’s decision,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is helping to defend the Little Sisters in court.

“After losing repeatedly at the Supreme Court, the government continues its unrelenting pursuit of the Little Sisters of the Poor,” he continued. “It is a national embarrassment that the world’s most powerful government insists that, instead of providing contraceptives through its own existing exchanges and programs, it must crush the Little Sisters’ faith and force them to participate.”

“Untold millions of people have managed to get contraceptives without involving nuns, and there is no reason the government cannot run its programs without hijacking the Little Sisters and their health plan,” Rienzi said.

The Becket Fund said that the Little Sisters and their attorneys are looking into the possibility of appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.

from; http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... ase-57581/

It looks like the gov't could help the issue by attaching their employees to gov't exchanges but for some reason will not. It does look like bullying. I would like to understand how the exchanges could help and why the gov't won't do it. This article confirms all Jac's allegations to their definition of active involvement with evil by participating as the govt demands... eg; sign on the dotted line... or we'll take 2.5 million from you in penalties... money that should have been used to help the poor, the needy... the elderly... but ends up in Uncle Sam's hands, because they could have helped with their exchanges but for some reason will not..

needs more research but not good with the way it feels to this point .... drips of religious persecution IMO, willful arm twisting from one of the city of Chicago's finest.

melanie wrote:Ohh for goodness sake Jac, stop with theatrics
I did not claim to understand the nuances of the Catholic faith, I will leave that to your highly self prized credentials. I claimed that I did not think that a decision made by the court violated their religious freedom. You could insert any belief system into that equation it makes no difference to the matter at hand. I am entitled to that belief Jac. You do realise that I hope. People can see things differently. It's okay, it's not a personal attack just an opinion.
I think we need to stop here.
Agree to disagree.
I will finish by saying that it is nonsensical to me for these nuns to be given an exemption based on religious grounds then for them to want an exemption from the exemption. Clearly this argument did uphold in a court of law.

No, you are NOT entitled to that belief. You are NOT entitled to tell a Catholic what does or does not violate their faith. You are entitled to tell them what violates YOUR faith. Not theirs. When you say, "I think that does not violate their faith," when they say it does, you are presuming to instruct them on the actual nature and content of their faith. In that case, you have to show within the context of their faith--NOT YOURS--how they have misunderstood their own beliefs.

So, no, I do not agree to disagree. You are wrong. And this is so bothersome to me because you are supporting religious oppression. You and a lot of other people are walking around saying, "I think that the nuns are wrong. They say this violates their beliefs, but they are mistaken. This does not violate their beliefs. Therefore, because this does not violate their beliefs, I support them being forced to act in this particular manner."

You have made yourself the arbiter of the nature of their beliefs. That is wrong, mel. If anybody should stop something, it's this government and their desire to practice religious oppression. And you should stop supporting it.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

“We’re disappointed with today’s decision,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is helping to defend the Little Sisters in court.

“After losing repeatedly at the Supreme Court, the government continues its unrelenting pursuit of the Little Sisters of the Poor,” he continued. “It is a national embarrassment that the world’s most powerful government insists that, instead of providing contraceptives through its own existing exchanges and programs, it must crush the Little Sisters’ faith and force them to participate.”

“Untold millions of people have managed to get contraceptives without involving nuns, and there is no reason the government cannot run its programs without hijacking the Little Sisters and their health plan,” Rienzi said.

The Becket Fund said that the Little Sisters and their attorneys are looking into the possibility of appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.

from; http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... ase-57581/

It looks like the gov't could help the issue by attaching their employees to gov't exchanges but for some reason will not. It does look like bullying. I would like to understand how the exchanges could help and why the gov't won't do it. This article confirms all Jac's allegations to their definition of active involvement with evil by participating as the govt demands... eg; sign on the dotted line... or we'll take 2.5 million from you in penalties... money that should have been used to help the poor, the needy... the elderly... but ends up in Uncle Sam's hands, because they could have helped with their exchanges but for some reason will not..

needs more research but not good with the way it feels to this point .... drips of religious persecution IMO, willful arm twisting from one of the city of Chicago's finest.

Don't worry, ES. I don't know what I'm talking about. I know that you are a Catholic, but mel as assured me the she understands this better than I do. Her opinion is that I am mistaken, and since you agree with me, she must assume you are mistaken, too. I would encourage you and the Little Sisters to inform you as to why you have misunderstood how this violates the tenents of your faith.

Jac3510 wrote:No, I am not. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I am speaking of normal, daily dose contraception. Here are the studies I have in mind if you are interested in educating yourself rather than trying to explain bioethics to someone who has taken masters level courses in the subject and whose professional responsibilities includes counseling people through these types of issues.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8206045468
http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015- ... 9/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8774274

edit:

But I'll give you this, I only have 9 hours of masters level work in this particular area of bioethics. As it happens, I work very closely with our resident bioethicist who has a full master's degree just in this stuff. And he talks about this stuff all the time, because it has MAJOR ramifications for how we operate as a Catholic hospital. Again, you are simply incorrect, mel. You do not understand the nuances of the Catholic faith, you have failed to understand what facts are material to ethical aspects of this in the pro-life debate generally and to Catholic institutions in particular, and you have failed to understand the actual science on the matter.

I'm sorry. You are just wrong. Factually.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... al_methods

Jac3510 wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

“We’re disappointed with today’s decision,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is helping to defend the Little Sisters in court.

“After losing repeatedly at the Supreme Court, the government continues its unrelenting pursuit of the Little Sisters of the Poor,” he continued. “It is a national embarrassment that the world’s most powerful government insists that, instead of providing contraceptives through its own existing exchanges and programs, it must crush the Little Sisters’ faith and force them to participate.”

“Untold millions of people have managed to get contraceptives without involving nuns, and there is no reason the government cannot run its programs without hijacking the Little Sisters and their health plan,” Rienzi said.

The Becket Fund said that the Little Sisters and their attorneys are looking into the possibility of appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.

from; http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... ase-57581/

It looks like the gov't could help the issue by attaching their employees to gov't exchanges but for some reason will not. It does look like bullying. I would like to understand how the exchanges could help and why the gov't won't do it. This article confirms all Jac's allegations to their definition of active involvement with evil by participating as the govt demands... eg; sign on the dotted line... or we'll take 2.5 million from you in penalties... money that should have been used to help the poor, the needy... the elderly... but ends up in Uncle Sam's hands, because they could have helped with their exchanges but for some reason will not..

needs more research but not good with the way it feels to this point .... drips of religious persecution IMO, willful arm twisting from one of the city of Chicago's finest.

Don't worry, ES. I don't know what I'm talking about. I know that you are a Catholic, but mel as assured me the she understands this better than I do. Her opinion is that I am mistaken, and since you agree with me, she must assume you are mistaken, too. I would encourage you and the Little Sisters to inform you as to why you have misunderstood how this violates the tenents of your faith.

Now you are just behaving like a child.

I would encourage you and the Little Sisters to inform you as to why you have misunderstood how this violates the tenets of your faith.

their was a great discussion on the Presence radio today addressing the problem in exactly these terms...... (Who does he gov't think they are?) no one knows better their religious belief than the believers, especially one so well rooted and concisely defined dogma. The gov't is to be a protective umbrella over all religious practices and beliefs... and has turned in to a rabid proactive watch dog. There's no telling who's next, but if they go after nuns, where is their line crossed ?

melanie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:No, I am not. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I am speaking of normal, daily dose contraception. Here are the studies I have in mind if you are interested in educating yourself rather than trying to explain bioethics to someone who has taken masters level courses in the subject and whose professional responsibilities includes counseling people through these types of issues.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8206045468
http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015- ... 9/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8774274

edit:

But I'll give you this, I only have 9 hours of masters level work in this particular area of bioethics. As it happens, I work very closely with our resident bioethicist who has a full master's degree just in this stuff. And he talks about this stuff all the time, because it has MAJOR ramifications for how we operate as a Catholic hospital. Again, you are simply incorrect, mel. You do not understand the nuances of the Catholic faith, you have failed to understand what facts are material to ethical aspects of this in the pro-life debate generally and to Catholic institutions in particular, and you have failed to understand the actual science on the matter.

I'm sorry. You are just wrong. Factually.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... al_methods

I actually took the time to read the link. You know what I didn't see? The claim that regular daily dose (whether traditional or combined) do NOT have abortifacient properties. They can't make that claim, because that claim is false. No one is disputing the fact that the primary mechanism is preventing the sperm from getting to the egg. Wha we are pointing out is that these same pills prevent the occasional, accidentally fertilized egg (which can happen by simple failure of the drug or, more often, by human error in taking it incorrectly) from implanting to the uterine wall.

Here's a link for you.

http://www.healthywomen.org/condition/progesterone

And the relevant quote:

• Some birth control pills, called mini-pills, contain only progestin. These pills do not always suppress ovulation, but make the cervical mucus thick and unwelcoming to sperm, preventing entry to the uterus. They also thin the endometrial lining, making it less receptive to a fertilized egg. Mini-pills are slightly less effective than combination pills but are still a very effective form of contraception when used properly.

And another link and quote:

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/4/874.full

• Third, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the lining of the womb (properly known as the endometrium). Under the influence of the chemicals in the pill, the lining of the womb doesn’t grow to the proper thickness. You will notice that your periods are lighter when you are on the pill. This is because the lining of the womb has not developed properly. But this change also means that the womb is not in the right stage of development to allow a fertilized egg to attach properly (this attachment process is known as implantation). This action of the pill will be discussed again in this booklet.