The Morning After Pill

You had sex with your boyfriend. Then, the morning after you became worried about getting pregnant. Solution: Take Plan-B, the controversial over-the-counter pill to prevent pregnancy. This medicine is a hormone and acts to delay ovolution and, therefore, no conception. However, if conception has occured, the same medicine will prevent implantation, thus no pregnancy. The Evangelical Bush Administration has fought hard to prevent the drug from coming to market, but it nonetheless was approved.

Today, the US Food and Drug Administration, announced the availability of a newer drug -- Ella -- the so-called Morning After, After, After Pill because it can be taken even several days after sex to prevent pregnancy.

The government approved it. Most governments in Europe and Asia too. Why? Are governments un-Christian? atheist? demonic? Or we should just accept the fact that serious scientists and government people studied the issue and decided that these are good for the people. And that politicians and leaders respond to the desires of their constituents for this types of products? Perhaps, our Christian morality is as out-of-date as the discarded belo. What do you think, guys? Patapos na ba ang mundo, o naiiwanan lang ang ating pag-iisip?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/ella-five-day-emergency-contraception_n_682032.html

Some forms of contraception are merely contraceptive (ex. condoms) and other forms of contraception are abortifacient - able to cause an abortion.

Chemical contraceptives and the IUD (intra-uterine device) and some spermicides are abortifacient. They are able to kill the conceived prenatal, thus causing a very early abortion. Chemical contraceptive are probably abortifacient by preventing the implantation of the prenatal.

All forms of contraception are intrinsically evil because they deprive the sexual act of its procreative meaning. Abortifacient contraceptives are also intrinsically evil because they can kill the conceived prenatal.

I have three questions about this "procreative" dogma:

a. How about those couples who practice the calendar method? Isn't the method deprived of its procreative meaning, thus evil? So, why does the RCC allows it under the guise that it is supposed to be natural?

b. How about those couples who are diagnosed to be sterile, say the wife has her ovaries removed? All the sex that they would do will not be procreative, so will that be evil?

c. Where in the Bible is the procreative dogma explained? I know that we are supposed to procreate, but where does it say that all sexual actions have to be procreative?

Ateo wrote:I have three questions about this "procreative" dogma:

a. How about those couples who practice the calendar method? Isn't the method deprived of its procreative meaning, thus evil? So, why does the RCC allows it under the guise that it is supposed to be natural?

The methods used in Natural Family Planning are not in and of themselves sinful, because these methods are open to life and open to the will of God. There is no barrier or chemical preventing conception from occurring. The couple is not doing anything to prevent conception, or to oppose the will of God concerning the procreation of children. If it is God's will, a couple using Natural Family Planning could still conceive a child each time they engage in marital relations. In Holy Scripture, Abraham and Sarah were still able to conceive a child, by God's will, even though conception seemed unlikely due to their advanced ages.

If there were a natural method of birth control which gave couples complete control over the procreation of children, such a method would be, in and of itself, sinful, because it would not be open to life and to the will of God. The mere fact that a method of family planning is natural is not sufficient to cause the method to be, in itself, moral. The method must be open to life and to the will of God.it is also possible to sin by using NFP, either by intention, or because of the circumstances. It is not moral to attempt to use NFP so strictly as to eliminate the possibility of conception without a grave reason.

Using NFP with a contraceptive intention is immoral. The couples' intentions must be open to life and to the will of God concerning the procreation of children.

Ateo wrote:
b. How about those couples who are diagnosed to be sterile, say the wife has her ovaries removed? All the sex that they would do will not be procreative, so will that be evil?

Contraception is immoral partly because it is deliberate.Intrinsically evil acts are always deliberately chosen. He has no control over his infertility, so it is not a sin.

The act of natural marital relations, in cases of infertility, is still inherently directed toward procreation, even though the moral object of procreation cannot be attained. The ordering toward the moral object, not the attainment of the moral object, is what determines the morality of the second font.


This is discussed in Humanae Vitae, n. 11:

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed.

Ateo wrote:
c. Where in the Bible is the procreative dogma explained? I know that we are supposed to procreate, but where does it say that all sexual actions have to be procreative?

The teaching of the Catholic Faith is not based on Scripture alone, but on Tradition, and Scripture, and the teaching of the Magisterium.

Tradition: For example, Saints Augustine and Aquinas taught that the purpose of marriage (and of marital relations) is threefold:
1. proles (offspring)
2. fides (fidelity)
3. sacramentum (the Sacrament)
The first end of marriage is procreative, to conceive and raise children.

Tradition has always condemned contraception, because the first purpose of marriage is procreation.

Scripture teaches that marriage is for the procreation of children:

[Genesis]
{1:27} And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him; male and female, he created them.
{1:28} And God blessed them, and he said, "Increase and multiply...."
...
{38:8} Therefore, Judah said to his son Onan: “Enter to the wife of your brother, and associate with her, so that you may raise offspring to your brother.”
{38:9} He, knowing that the sons to be born would not be his, when he entered to the wife of his brother, he spilled his seed on the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
{38:10} And for this reason, the Lord struck him down, because he did a detestable thing.

Onan used a type of contraception known today as 'the withdrawal method'. Scripture states that this contraceptive act (and therefore all contraceptive acts) is 'a destestable thing', i.e. gravely immoral.

[Ezekiel]
{18:5} And if a man is just, and he accomplishes judgment and justice,
{18:6} and if he does not eat upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and if he has not violated the wife of his neighbor, nor approached a menstruating woman,

Here Scripture condemns the contraceptive mentality. In ancient times, couples thought that by having relations only when the woman was menstruating, they would avoid conception. (This is not actually true.)

[1 Timothy 2]
{2:15} Yet she will be saved by bearing children, if she has continued in faith and love, and in sanctification accompanied by self-restraint.

Here procreation is so important that Paul teaches it can be a part of the salvation, if the conception and raising of children is done in faith and love.

The Magisterium has always condemned contraception as intrinsically evil.

Specifically on the procreative meaning of marital relations, Humanae Vitae teaches:

"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called." (HV, n. 11-12).

The teaching of the Magisterium is that each and every sexual act must be marital and procreative and unitive. This does not imply that a child must result from every marital sexual act, but only that each act must be 'open to life,' that is, the type of sexual act that is inherently directed toward procreation.

There's got to be a morning after
If we can hold on through the night
We have a chance to find the sunshine
Let's keep on lookin' for the light

Oh, can't you see the morning after
It's waiting right outside the storm
Why don't we cross the bridge together
And find a place that's safe and warm

It's not too late, we should be giving
Only with love can we climb
It's not too late, not while we're living
Let's put our hands out in time

There's got to be a morning after
We're moving closer to the shore
I know we'll be there by tomorrow
And we'll escape the darkness
We won't be searchin' any more...

Nice poetry, element. Did you write it?

Ateo wrote:Nice poetry, element. Did you write it?

Lyrics of "The Morning After" by Maureen McGovern

A little life nestled in the womb

Do you feel me deep inside of you?
Do you know that I am here?
I am now so much a part of you,
Don’t be sad and have no fear,
Perhaps worry fills your soul,
My life has come by surprise,
Or feelings of a new born baby,
Seem to be a mistake and not very wise,
How I long to see your smiling face,
As you set your gaze into my eyes,
To be held inside your warm embrace,
It’s so wonderful to be alive,
Choosing not to see this little one,
Or ever to call me by my name,
We will miss the joy of having fun,
But I will love you just the same,
Some may say to you that I don’t exist,
That there is no life inside of you,
Then to end this beating heart of mine,
They will pierce it through and though,
You had the right to make the choice,
Is what they will have to say,
Confused, abandoned, and lonely,
They’ll just let you walk away,
Don’t be sad, you are not alone,
I am always very near,
How I want to hug and squeeze you tight,
And wipe away your tears.
If you wish to heal your broken heart,
Just call me by name,
I will be with you always mommy,
I love you just the same,

Baby Esther

guess who wrote this!

Your story/poetry, Esther, is too contrived, too melo-dramatic. Let us have something more realistic, more biblical.

Tamar -- the Prostitute and Jesus ancestor

Genesis 38 talks about the story of Tamar, the daughter-in-law of the patriarch, Judah (after which the Judeo nation was named). Tamar became a widow when her husband and Judah's son died. One day, Judah procured the services of a prostitute (yes, siree, patriarchs liked prostitutes too!). That prostitute turned out to me Tamar who was not recognized because of a disguise. Tamar got pregnant because o that encounter.

Three months later, Judah noticed that his daughter-in-law got a bulging stomach. He therefore declared -- rather correctly -- that the husbandless Tamar must be prostituting around. He therefore ordered Tamar to be burned to death for working in what was the Jewish equivalent of Pegasus.

Moral question 1: Was Judah moral in burning a woman?

Moral question 2 -- and the most relevant question here: Why did Judah order the burning of a pregnant woman? Is it not the equivalent of killing of what Esther calls as the "little life inside the womb"? Why didn't God said no. (By the way, this was the time when God was so personal that He dropped by regularly and interfered with the lives of people.)

To save her life, Tamar declared that her pregnancy was in fact caused by Judah himself. Not bothered by the moral complications, Judah simply forgave Tamar and that is the end of the story.

Not quite the end though. Several months later, Tamar gave birth to a twin, the elder one of which was called Perez. Perez was the ancestor of King David and therefore the ancestor of Jesus. Jesus came from the line of a prostitute (Tamar) and a son (Perez) born of incest.

That is what the Bible said; so believe, don't complain.

The Catholic Christian Faith contains doctrines and disciplines. These doctrines are teachings on matters of faith and morals.The disciplines include Canon Law, diocesan regulations, rules for religious orders, liturgical norms, and decisions of prudential judgment. The disciplines are changeable; they are not teachings.

The Old Testament has teachings on faith and morals, as well as a type of discipline used by the Jews in ancient times: ceremonial procedural directives or rule, rules for animal sacrifice, dietary laws, and others. These disciplines have been dispensed by Christ; they are replaced by the disciplines of the Church.

But the Old Testament teachings on faith and morals remain true and in force.

The prescription of the death penalty for certain sins is a discipline, not a teaching. The death penalty remains moral in some cases; it is not inherently evil. But the particular choices of which sins or crimes should be given the death penalty, as stated in the Old Testament, is a type of discipline. But all the Old Testament disciplines were dispensed by Christ (Council of Florence, 4 February 1442, Session 11) and so are no longer in force.

God prescribed a harsher set of penalties in Old Testament times because humanity at that time, prior to Divine Revelation, did not understand that all immoral acts offend the one true God.

So in order to bring about the worship of the one true God, who is Goodness itself, and in order to incorporate a true and full morality into the lives of the Israelites and ultimately into the whole world, the penalties for doing evil had to be more severe than would be required in another set of circumstances. And all this was necessarily to prepare the Israelites, so that the Messiah, who would offer salvation to all persons, could be born among a people who worshipped the one true God in truth and justice. For the salvation of all, some harsher penalties were necessary, in order to prepare the way for the Messiah among a people who (like all peoples) were sinful and resistent to change. Once the Messiah, Jesus Christ, arrived and taught us, and once he died for our salvation, the harsher penalties of the Old Testament law were no longer necessary.

The so called rhythm or "calendar" method is no longer endorsed by the Catholic Church. The Billing or mucus method is the one endorsed an is 100% safe and effective.