Morning After Pill? Sin? Abortion? Contraception?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

Rare meat to me tastes soggy. I like some texture in my stuff. I have this thing against salmonella poisoning too. It seems that Jeff and I know how to enjoy a good steak...cooked and seasoned properly instead of tasting like iron.

Well, that is a concern, and unless I'm eating in a first class establishment, I do order it medium. Eating out at all seems like quite a risk these days.

I kind of like it in this day of feminine rights, women voting, women running for VP and all...how that my wife still asks me how she likes her steak...I kind of like that.

That's very sweet, Carp.

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Well, that is a concern, and unless I'm eating in a first class establishment, I do order it medium. Eating out at all seems like quite a risk these days.



That's very sweet, Carp.

So...uh...did I win this one?

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Well, I'm flattered and shocked that you would rank me up there with Timlan and Jekyll. Jekyll's formidable, Timlan's just downright scary. LOL!!!!! You're no novice, you know. Daniel's definitely not the hawk in the hawk/mouse pic I posted.

Don't be so shocked. You are incredibly gifted with the ability to express insight and clear thought.

Anyway, I hope I'm not the scary sort. I try not to be. Although I did apparently hurt Aquila's feelings last week...but then, he hurt them back, so all's fair....

Not ONE TIME have I ever seen anything from you that was directly offensive or indirectly objectionable. Aquila's feelings are either a special case or a prop used in his stagecraft.

So far on this thread, I haven't even bothered to offer my personal opinions on this matter...BECAUSE, I do think Daniel is looking for a reason to condemn Apostolics for "inconsistency", however on THIS issue, he will find the same amount of variance in any denomination, and even some within the RCC.

See, you're doing it again. Insight. I never really knew or cared what it was that Dan was doing. I just knew that I found his stuff annoying. I'd probably enjoy eating lunch with the guy, but online he reminds me of a 3-year-old.

Furthermore, his personal relationship IS relevant to this thread, and he shouldn't mind sharing he and his fiancee's POV's on the topic, IF he expects the same candor from others on this forum.

I think it is fair to withhold one's personal POV if one is attempting to achieve objective dialog. If one puts their personal POV out there, especially early, the discussion inevitably becomes a referendum on THAT PERSON, rather than an uninvolved hypothetical construct.

That said, I still didn't like Jekyll's post. I'm a bleeding heart, which means I can never be Ann Coulter, no matter how much I aspire to be. *sigh* It didn't have to do with defending Daniel so much as just objecting to folks being called worthless. Dr. Phil would agree with you, though...and say, "You are what you do."

Boys will be boys . . .

[SDG]

Thanks Carl for this substantive post: (see below)

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

I do not believe that people who use the pill in ignorance of its capabilities are guilty of anything. The purveyors of our culture of death are very careful not to ruffle any Christian sensibilities when they are selling convenience and freedom from responsibility.

While it is certainly a stimulating intellectual exercise to consider whether life is in the blood, or whether life can be said, in validity, to exist without successful implantation, the fundamentalist in me always returns to the fact that at conception the embryo meets the scientific criteria for an independent life form.

So I do not see how an informed person could choose to use a morning after pill or most other oral contraceptives and still consider themselves to be pro-life, or Christian. It is not truly analogous to murder. Whenever we hear the word murder, we think of somebody walking up to an enemy or a stranger and shooting them dead. Pre-meditated and direct, with either a specific or generic motive. The pill isn't like that. It is random and uncertain. It's more like leaving a handful of landmines in the yard and hoping that nobody is so foolish as to try to walk there. It is indirect an (usually) not motivated. But one cannot say it isn't pre-meditated.

In legal jargon, use of the pill is not first- or second-degree murder. It would be more analogous to manslaughter. It is death due to negligence, rather than death due to willful volition.

I am not personally capable of comforting myself with the sophistry of argument that the life is in the blood. How certain are we when the first blood cell forms? Cannot stem cells become blood cells?

It's amazing that we debate all this and all the while accept what the advent of contraception has done to civilization.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Acceptance of artificial contraception in Protestant churches began with the 1930 Lambeth conference of the Church of England. My observation has been that many Anglican and Catholic practices have been carried into the Apostolic movement with insufficient scrutiny.

In addition, certain fertility problems may be attributable to oral contraception use. Although more commonly associated with long-term use, contraception-related fertility problems have occurred with shorter-duration usages.

It's important to note that prior to the 1930 Lambeth Council, ALL of Christendom prohibited artificial contraception as sinful in their official teaching. In spite of hundreds of years of re-thinking the RCC views on a wide variety of topics, Protestant theologians did not seem to think that what comes naturally is not what God intended.

It's important to ask whether this was an unintentional adaptation of RCC heresy, or a well-reasoned continuance of a just and righteous doctrine.

I daresay all those pesky little "unintended consequences" of artificial contraception are not of God . . .

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

So...uh...did I win this one?

It was too short lived to really tell, but since the comment about your wife made me feel guilty about telling my husband how to eat his steak, then we'll give you the high marks.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

It's important to note that prior to the 1930 Lambeth Council, ALL of Christendom prohibited artificial contraception as sinful in their official teaching. In spite of hundreds of years of re-thinking the RCC views on a wide variety of topics, Protestant theologians did not seem to think that what comes naturally is not what God intended.

It's important to ask whether this was an unintentional adaptation of RCC heresy, or a well-reasoned continuance of a just and righteous doctrine.

I daresay all those pesky little "unintended consequences" of artificial contraception are not of God . . .

I don't understand their stance against ALL artifical contraception. That is a legalistic stance. When there is a potential life being aborted as in the case of a fertilized egg purposefully being shed, that makes a difference.

[SDG]

There are no 2 ways around this BCPs as they are formulated today can cause an abortion ... they are designed to not only stop ovualation which is the case most of the times ... and fertilzation ... less often ... but the progesterone does weaken the lining of the womb so as to make sure a possible fertilzed egg (odds are miniscule) does not attach.

Someone made the mistake of thinking that I said this happens all the time ... of course it doesnt.

In the 1960's and 1970's ... BCPs used very high levels of estrogen ... to stop ovulation ....however these levels were deemed to have dangerous side effects ... so pharmaceutical companies lowered the level of estrogen signficantly... increasing the number of eggs that slip through .... and increased the levels of progesterone ...

this has made it possible for the chances of a woman to be impregnated while on BCPs to increase ... though the percentage seems negligible ... it still translates to the thousands.

Most, if not all, BCPs carry labels warning women that this is possible ...

I have to believe most women ... including Apostolic women read labels and are aware of the potential "risks" ....

Whether it's a BCP ... or a concentrated form of an EC ... there is enough SCIENTIFIC DATA ... to make a very convincing argument that it can be an abortifacient.

With this in mind ... reconciling the belief that most of us say that life begins at conception ... (not all, Ferd and other Apostolics differ) ... may not fit well with the effects any BCP can produce.

I have to believe that if one is strict constructionist pro-life the view OP Carl has is consistent ... at least rationally.

Anyone who is pro-BCP ... but anti-EC ... has a huge dilemma .... the intensity and/or time taken does not always translate in a "life" being destroyed based on our definitions.... but it can. All of it depending on whether an egg ... slipped through ... and if a egg was fertilized despite the intents of the BCP user to avoid this in taking the pill as a preventative measure.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

There are no 2 ways around this BCPs as they are formulated today can cause an abortion ... they are designed to not only stop ovualation which is the case most of the times ... and fertilzation ... less often ... but the progesterone does weaken the lining of the womb so as to make sure a possible fertilzed egg (odds are miniscule) does not attach.

Someone made the mistake of thinking that I said this happens all the time ... of course it doesnt.

In the 1960's and 1970's ... BCPs used very high levels of estrogen ... to stop ovulation ....however these levels were deemed to have dangerous side effects ... so pharmaceutical companies lowered the level of estrogen signficantly... increasing the number of eggs that slip through .... and increased the levels of progesterone ...

this has made it possible for the chances of a woman to be impregnated while on BCPs to increase ... though the percentage seems negligible ... it still translates to the thousands.

Most, if not all, BCPs carry labels warning women that this is possible ...

I have to believe most women ... including Apostolic women read labels and are aware of the potential "risks" ....

Whether it's a BCP ... or a concentrated form of an EC ... there is enough SCIENTIFIC DATA ... to make a very convincing argument that it can be an abortifacient.

With this in mind ... reconciling the belief that most of us say that life begins at conception ... (not all, Ferd and other Apostolics differ) ... may not fit well with the effects any BCP can produce.

I have to believe that if one is strict constructionist pro-life the view OP Carl has is consistent ... at least rationally.

Anyone who is pro-BCP ... but anti-EC ... has a huge dilemma .... the intensity and/or time taken does not always translate in a "life" being destroyed based on our definitions.... but it can. All of it depending on whether an egg ... slipped through ... and if a egg was fertilized despite the intents of the BCP user to avoid this in taking the pill as a preventative measure.

Dan, I would say you have accurately summarized the history, facts, and issues of the situation.

Most people are herded as easily as sheep via propaganda and fear tactics. These days some of the official sources estimate that it costs the average family $250,000 to raise a child to adulthood. Some of us decided that the people who said we could not afford more than 2 or 3 children were WRONG, and probably driven by questionable motives.

Children need love, consistency, and training. There are indeed costs associated with food, shelter, and clothing. Even at full retail, this comes nowhere close to a quarter-million. Most of the rest fits within the category of the excesses of Western Civilization.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by ILG

I don't understand their stance against ALL artifical contraception. That is a legalistic stance. When there is a potential life being aborted as in the case of a fertilized egg purposefully being shed, that makes a difference.

You can gain insight by asking yourself, 'why does the average couple wish to limit their family size to 2 or 3 children?'

What is their motivation?

Is it to draw closer to God, more fully rely upon His providence, to attain deeper levels of consecration, submission, commitment, and conviction?


If you read the official RCC doctrines, you'll find them weird at best. They are not a good foundation for an Apostolic position.