Posted on 08/05/2006 1:09:41 PM PDT by fightnight
Yes, we get it. Contraceptives are, somehow, just not popular with a group called "No Room for Contraception" (if it is a whole group, rather than just the one person who posts here).
?????
No comments on the article? Just a general attack on the group?
So, as far as I can see, the argument is that the forms of contraception that prevent implantation of already-fertilized ova should be illegal, because this is displeasing to God, while barrier methods that prevent fertilization occuring in the first place are OK?
What about all the fertilized ova that fail to implant naturally anyway? Is that simply seen as God's will? I'm not being sarky on this, I'm just interested in Christian philosophy on this latter point.
No comments on the article?
Checking my old Stedman's (1976), the definition of conception is: "Implantation of the blastocyst."
And you might consider the recent research, which shows that Plan B doesn't have a negative effect on implantation.
I think you need to check the version of Stedman's referenced in the article (28th printed edition), not the 1976 version.
And the research only shows that it doesn't prevent implantation in *animals*. That has yet to be proven in humans. Until such a time, it has to treated that it does prevent implantation.
Not valid? If there is a dispute over a word, what does one use? A dictionary..
>>What about all the fertilized ova that fail to implant naturally anyway? Is that simply seen as God's will? I'm not being sarky on this, I'm just interested in Christian philosophy on this latter point.
I suspect that would be called a miscarriage (unintentional abortion).. As to the question of God, I'm not sure...
Only for a quick, down-and-dirty answer. To come up with a precise, real answer, you have to hit the medical journals - just like, if I were to cite Black's Law Dictionary, and only Black's without researching the caselaw, I would be laughed out of court.
Dictionaries are starting-points, not end-points.
An accident of nature is simply that. There is no moral agency in it. An ovum failing to implant due to natural accidents is nothing but a failure to implant.
It would be quite a stretch to call it the will of God. Due to sin, the universe is filled with imperfection and one of the imperfections is accidents.
Being as this is from the "no room for contraception" website, I'd have to say they're right, wouldn't you?
Thank you for the reply! Perhaps miscarriage would be the right term, though of course to the woman it would simply seem like a normal period and she'd have no idea that fertilization had even occured.
And the research only shows that it doesn't prevent implantation in *animals*. That has yet to be proven in humans. Until such a time, it has to treated that it does prevent implantation.
According to this:
'When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception, involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation."
You forgot to mention this part of it..
", the knowledge of the mechanism of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel in humans, when used for contraceptive purposes and especially for emergency contraception, remains incomplete"
>>Only for a quick, down-and-dirty answer. To come up with a precise, real answer, you have to hit the medical journals - just like, if I were to cite Black's Law Dictionary, and only Black's without researching the caselaw, I would be laughed out of court.
Medical journals print opinions that are all over the map (such as the journal that featured an article that unborn babies don't feel pain -- and it was discovered that one of the authors was involved in the abortion industry...)
Dictionaries are definitive and help solve things. Application of such words do require additional material, such as case history etc (law). But the definitions are very clear...
>>Dictionaries are starting-points, not end-points.
Maybe in law, where absolutes are absent and laws change, precidents have impact, etc, but on medical terms, it seems to be clear that a dictionary can provide definitions minus the bias present in medical journals.
Yup, it's incomplete. But the available data says, as I quoted, that the effect isn't from blocking implantation. So?
it seems to be clear that a dictionary can provide definitions minus the bias present in medical journals.
Then why does my Stedman's say one thing, and your edition another? Why do the dictionaries vary at all? I notice that many of the sources in your table are not for physicians. Stedmans and Tabers, Ok. Mosby's looks to be aimed at nurses and ancillary healthcare workers. Most of the others are for the public.
Do you really think that dictionary editors don't have a bias too? In fact, they may be more dangerous because the bias in an individual journal article can be detected., while a dictionary is much harder to detect.
In my former life before law school, I was a chemistry student. I can tell you it would be irresponsible to hit a dictionary, but not the chemistry journals.
Sure they do, which is why one must use several dictionaries to come up with a consensus or at least a definition representing a majority of dictionaries.
I do agree that you can't learn medicine by reading a dictionary, but you can find out the meanings of words by using one. Journals may explain how things happen, current theory, etc, but they cannot really define words, and quiet often, only lead to confusion by having competing theories full of bias (on all sides).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.