Author Topic: Abortion and Politics  (Read 74174 times)

Buckeye Deaconess

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3047
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #90 on: September 26, 2012, 03:46:30 PM »
Now- can you tell me that an IUD does not, in any way shape or form prevent implantation, or simply that in the majority of times it prevents fertilization?

The LCMS supports your position, Matt.

Intrauterine Methods

The intrauterine device (IUD) is a small plastic or metal device placed inside a woman’s uterus by a doctor and is intended to remain in place for an extended length of time. There are two main types of IUDs in use, medicated and non-medicated.

Non-medicated IUDs are currently not being used in the U.S., but are available in other parts of the world.  Currently available in the U.S. are two medicated IUDs: the copper IUD (hormone-free, commonly known as ParaGard) and a progestin-releasing IUD (commonly known as Mirena Intrauterine System).  Any IUD, medicated or non-medicated, will trigger an inflammatory response of the uterus to a foreign body. This foreign body reaction produces tissue injury of a minor degree, but sufficient enough to be toxic to sperm.  A variety of studies demonstrate that IUD use diminishes both the number of sperm reaching the Fallopian tube and the capacity of sperm to fertilize the egg.

In addition to the spermicidal effects caused by the foreign body reaction, the medicated IUDs have additional contraceptive actions.  For instance, the copper IUD (ParaGard) works by releasing copper and copper salts that enhance the inflammatory action within the endometrium and stimulate the production of prostaglandins, chemicals that affect the hormones needed to support a pregnancy. Some scientists now think that the metal of the traditional copper IUD may have an intrinsic spermicidal effect as well.

On the other hand, the progestin-releasing IUD (Mirena) thickens the cervical mucus creating a barrier to sperm and inhibits sperm capacitation, impairing its ability to fertilize the egg. Although it partially inhibits follicular development, thus interfering with ovulation, up to 85 percent of the cycles may be ovulatory.  Therefore, Mirena can stop ovulation, but this is not typically the way it works. In addition, it may cause suppression of endometrial growth and hamper implantation. Scientists do not know which action is the primary method in which it operates. Most likely, all of them work together.

It is clear that IUDs do not primarily work by preventing ovulation. There does seem to be a predominant spermicidal effect of IUDs, but we cannot dismiss that it may also interfere with implantation. It is due to this reason that use of the IUD as a method of birth control would give cause for concern to Christian couples. Although newer types of IUDs are thought to be safer, many manufacturers have ceased production of the IUD in the past because of serious health risks, including infections and infertility. These health risks should be discussed with one’s personal physician.


From:  http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=632

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2972
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #91 on: September 26, 2012, 04:44:18 PM »
I loves me some Buckeye Deaconess and the LCMS.   ;D

I went back and checked, RE (Since I know not your name but don't get my nickers in a twist like some folks on that issue)

IUDs may not be listed as abortifacients, but if the package insert says they (may) inhibit nidation, guess what that means?

Big Pharma, a part of the Abortion-Industrial Complex especialy now that there is a move into "pharmacological" intervention with abortion, are going to skip the A word and use language that is not well known.

I have, with all due modesty, one of the most extensive working vocabularies of anyone I know.  And I had to be told by a former Drug Rep now turned Fertility Awareness Based Medicine practitioner about nidation.  She will be sending me links, but Google can do it for you.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 05:37:43 PM by Prolife Professional »
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19815
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #92 on: September 26, 2012, 05:00:04 PM »
Peter writes:
...assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

I comment:
So it is only baby-making orgasms that have value?
Once again, you attempt to restate something while entirely changing the meaning. Please show me where I said or even implied that an orgasm that produces no baby has no value. You can't. You simply leap to bogus conclusions, and you do so habitually. What I said was that we are organizing our society or culture, by which I mean much more than government and include television, fashion, lifestyles, music, marriage, etc., around the idea that sterile orgasms are among the highest humanly achievable goods. And I stand by that statement. 

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2012, 06:23:22 PM »
Peter writes:
...assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

I comment:
So it is only baby-making orgasms that have value?
Once again, you attempt to restate something while entirely changing the meaning. Please show me where I said or even implied that an orgasm that produces no baby has no value. You can't. You simply leap to bogus conclusions, and you do so habitually. What I said was that we are organizing our society or culture, by which I mean much more than government and include television, fashion, lifestyles, music, marriage, etc., around the idea that sterile orgasms are among the highest humanly achievable goods. And I stand by that statement.

One might find that statement negative, and indicative of a degeneration of society. One might find that statement one to applaud as an indication of something positive for society. But no sensible person can argue that it is not a true and accurate observation.
 

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #94 on: September 26, 2012, 06:31:17 PM »
In "Manhattan" a fine 1979 Woody Allen movie, a trendy woman at a cocktail party says: “I finally had a orgasm, and my doctor said it was the wronge kind.”
Woody muses:
 “Oh, really? Cause I’ve never had the wrong kind. My worse one was… right on the money.”

I comment:
And perhaps that also applies to "sterile orgasms."

swbohler

  • Guest
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #95 on: September 26, 2012, 07:55:56 PM »
It is not the "orgasm" part of the phrase that is the problem, Rev. Austin.  It is the "sterile" part (that is, the concept that orgasms specifically intended NOT to conceive a child to be the goal and desired aim) which give many pause.  I would assume you would object to a person who ate simply for the pleasure of eating, and then purged himself of the eaten food in order to consume more but NOT to nourish his body.  We eat to nourish the body, but we are blessed to enjoy the meal.  But to seek the one without the other is to pervert/misuse what God has given.

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #96 on: September 26, 2012, 10:47:45 PM »
Pastor Bohler writes:
I would assume you would object to a person who ate simply for the pleasure of eating, and then purged himself of the eaten food in order to consume more but NOT to nourish his body.

I comment:
Au contraire. I sometimes do eat "simply for the pleasure of eating," a good scone or biscuit with tea in the afternoon, some Swiss chocolate before bedtime; a cookie or three when I feel down. Nourishment of the body is not my goal; and - given the nature of some of my gustatory treats - there may be little nourishment given. (What is the nutritional value of two scoops of pistachio ice cream?)
Now, I do not "purge," but I am not at those times eating for nourishment, but for pleasure.
As for that other pleasure mentioned upstream; I am among those who believe that it does not exist only for making more people.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19815
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #97 on: September 26, 2012, 10:57:06 PM »
Pastor Bohler writes:
I would assume you would object to a person who ate simply for the pleasure of eating, and then purged himself of the eaten food in order to consume more but NOT to nourish his body.

I comment:
Au contraire. I sometimes do eat "simply for the pleasure of eating," a good scone or biscuit with tea in the afternoon, some Swiss chocolate before bedtime; a cookie or three when I feel down. Nourishment of the body is not my goal; and - given the nature of some of my gustatory treats - there may be little nourishment given. (What is the nutritional value of two scoops of pistachio ice cream?)
Now, I do not "purge," but I am not at those times eating for nourishment, but for pleasure.
As for that other pleasure mentioned upstream; I am among those who believe that it does not exist only for making more people.
Nobody said it exists solely for making more people.

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5615
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #98 on: September 26, 2012, 11:00:54 PM »
However one terms it and whatever the legal distinctions, there can be no question that we're a society that increasingly organizes itself around the assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

Pithy and accurate, unfortunately.

Peace,
Michael
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

swbohler

  • Guest
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #99 on: September 26, 2012, 11:12:13 PM »
Rev. Austin,

You did not really address what I wrote.  I asked about a person who ate solely for the pleasure of eating and then intentionally purged himself so as not to nourish the body and/or to eat more.  You changed that to speak of a person who ate for the pleasure of eating (but who did not purge after eating).  Not the same thing.

God made sex to procreate.  God made sex enjoyable.  God made food to nourish us.  God made food taste good.  But to separate the first from the second (not to ignore, or forget, or such but to separate) is to pervert what God has given.  To do that with food is gluttony.  To do that with sex is ..... good? 

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #100 on: September 27, 2012, 04:59:50 AM »
Peter writes:
Nobody said it exists solely for making more people.

I comment:
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago, you oppose all forms of contraception and want every act of sexual intercourse to have the capability of bringing sperm and egg together for fertilization. This says to me that the act exists, if not solely, at least primarily for the purpose of creating more people.
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago and recently, you have a problem with engaging in sexual intercourse solely for the sake of the pleasurable relationship.
I do not have that problem, nor do I see anything inherently wrong with a couple choosing to limit the number of children they have or choosing not to have children at all.
How about this, Pastor Bohler? I enjoy eating some things that - given my general condition - do absolutely nothing to nourish my body. My body does not need them to grow, sustain itself or survive. Still good eating, they are, and the pleasure of eating them blessed by God, think I.
And BTW "gluttony" is excessive eating, it is not eating for pleasure.
But I sense we have - from our different worlds - entered the deep dark Tunnel of Nowhere. I think I'll turn around now and try not to go further into its darkness.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 05:06:00 AM by Charles_Austin »

Mike Gehlhausen

  • Guest
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #101 on: September 27, 2012, 08:37:17 AM »
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago, you oppose all forms of contraception and want every act of sexual intercourse to have the capability of bringing sperm and egg together for fertilization. This says to me that the act exists, if not solely, at least primarily for the purpose of creating more people.
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago and recently, you have a problem with engaging in sexual intercourse solely for the sake of the pleasurable relationship.
I do not have that problem, nor do I see anything inherently wrong with a couple choosing to limit the number of children they have or choosing not to have children at all.
How about this, Pastor Bohler? I enjoy eating some things that - given my general condition - do absolutely nothing to nourish my body. My body does not need them to grow, sustain itself or survive. Still good eating, they are, and the pleasure of eating them blessed by God, think I.
And BTW "gluttony" is excessive eating, it is not eating for pleasure.
But I sense we have - from our different worlds - entered the deep dark Tunnel of Nowhere. I think I'll turn around now and try not to go further into its darkness.

This is an excellent excursis, albeit in a negative sense, as to what Romans 16:17-18 means by serving the appetites -- both gustatory and sexual in this case -- of one's belly rather than our Lord Christ.

Mike

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19815
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #102 on: September 27, 2012, 08:39:04 AM »
Peter writes:
Nobody said it exists solely for making more people.

I comment:
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago, you oppose all forms of contraception and want every act of sexual intercourse to have the capability of bringing sperm and egg together for fertilization. This says to me that the act exists, if not solely, at least primarily for the purpose of creating more people.

You do misunderstand me and you do use bad logic. First, I never said I want every act of sexual intercourse to be capable of fertilization. I don't think anyone on the planet thinks that except possibly the big family who sings in Monty Python's Meaning of Life. Rather, I think the people involved should be open to procreation. That makes a big difference. Secondly, even if you understood me correctly, your conclusion does not follow. To see why, all you have to do is apply your standard to some other important aspect of sexual intercourse such as physical pleasure or emotional bonding. I oppose all artificial efforts to remove physical pleasure from the act of intercourse as though it were somehow bad. But that doesn't mean I think intercourse exists primarily or solely for giving physical pleasure. Nor does it mean that I think someone who, perhaps due to a headache or some medical affliction, nevertheless engages in intercourse for the sake of the spouse because they're trying to conceive is doing something immoral by having sex without pleasure. It is the deliberate removal of pleasure, not the lack of pleasure, that perverts sex. Similarly, it is the deliberate prevention of procreation, not the lack of capability to procreate that perverts sex. Procreation doesn't have to be any more important that pleasure; it simply has to be inextricably entwined with the purpose of the act.

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #103 on: September 27, 2012, 08:55:10 AM »
Peter writes:
Similarly, it is the deliberate prevention of procreation, not the lack of capability to procreate that perverts sex.

I comment:
Then artificial contraception "perverts sex". I get that.
Done here.

pearson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion and Politics
« Reply #104 on: September 27, 2012, 09:50:03 AM »

Similarly, it is the deliberate prevention of procreation, not the lack of capability to procreate that perverts sex.


Your entire argument here, Pr. Speckhard, is well spoken.  However, this particular sentence discourages one (of several) of the natural law arguments against homosexual sexual activity.  One of the arguments traditionally put forward by natural law is that homosexual sexual activity is morally wrong precisely because there is a "lack of capability to procreate" in such activity.  Unless one abandons this natural law argument, perhaps some nuance needs to be added to your claim above.

Tom Pearson