my invitation to you to write on my own blog (so that bloggerofjared would not be hijacked) was erased. apparently i am not allowed to redirect your attacks elsewhere.

anyways, please go and do all the attacking you want.

p.s. i am not epederson. she is a friend of mine and wife of vegor (who posts on provopulse occasionally).

http://www.bloggerofjared.com/2006/09/08/steven-jones-pandering-to-paranoia-for-popularity/

Check my post entries.

Sup Narrator! ;)

my initial beef with Connor’s arguement is that it centered around this:

“Jill needs to learn that her actions have consequences. She didn’t use protection. She forgot to take the pill. Whatever the case may be, she should square her shoulders and face the consequences, rather than swallowing a pill to make them disappear.”

His arguement relied heavily on the notion that people should have to suffer the consequences of their actions. He further affirmed that this was his main point with:

I believe that “morning after” pills are morally wrong, because it facilitates the breakdown of cause and effect. You should reap what you sow. Period.

This is why my intitial post pointed out how ludicrous his point about cause and effect was. We intercede between cause and effect all of the time. If my little nephew (who I absoulutely adore) stupidly jumped into a pool. I will jump into the pool to save him from drowning. To not jump into the pool would be morally wrong for me. There is nothing inherently immoral about interceding between cause and effect.

Since cause and effect in itself could obviously not be the issue (as Connor admitted), then what about sexual intercourse and pregnancy. First of all, it should be obvious to everyone that there is no necessary relationship between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. Couples have sex all the time trying to get pregnant without success.

Should couples having sex get pregnant? This could be broken down into two different types of imperatives, a natural/physical imperative and a moral imperative. An affirmative is most likely the answer for the former type. Sex is an instrument of procreation. The primary biological purpose of sex is to continue the species.

But what about the moral imperative? Should couples having sex have a moral obligation to try to (or at least not avoid) getting pregnant? Catholicism officially answers yes. Mormonism officially answers no. Yes, it is a personal issue and person may feel morally obligated to (and some earlier church leaders argued affirmatively), but there is no official objective moral obligation in Mormonism to do so.

Because there is no objective moral grounds against interceding between sex and pregnancy (i.e. birth control), Connor arguing the case in lieu of stepping in between sex and intercourse as necessarily immoral could not be the case.

What about the specific example of Jill? Connor seems to assert that Jill should be getting pregnant, not merely because of her sex, but because of her “promiscuous actions.” Again there is nothing necessarily immoral about interceding between sex and pregnancy. Connor, I assume, would assent to a married couple turning to Plan B if they felt it was okay to avoid an unplanned pregnancy. So it’s not just about a ‘whoops, good thing there is Plan B’ issue.

It seems pretty clear that Connor’s real issue is deals with Jill’s sins of promisquity. He says that she should “square her shoulders and face the consequences.” Sounds like a punishment to me. Connor seems to be saying that Jill should face a punishment of pregnancy for her promisquous sex. This should be abhorent for two reasons. First and foremost, pregnancy should never be a punishment. The idea that somebody deserves to be pregnant should be utmost repugnant to anyone. Second, Saying that someone should be punished for their sins goes against the very notion of the atonement, and saying that somebody should be punished in this life for their sins goes against the very gospel of Christ. It’s fine for Connor to be against promisquous sex. It’s fine for Connor to be against extra/pre-marital sex. So am I. It’s another thing to put out some idea that people should be punished for having illicit/pre/unprotected sex.

The reason I brought the abortion issue into this is that I hoped that Connor was not really thinking everything I mentioned above and was just using his post as a guise to criticize Plan B as an abortion pill. I was also showing that if such was the case, Connor’s argument still fails because Plan B does not abort a pregnancy.

Perhaps you two then aught to be arguing about the use of birth control for the sake of promescuity or rape just as much as the use of Plan B. Either way, it would behoove you both to actually “listen” to what each other is saying.

Sorry if that seemed harsh, but I thought it was so silly that you got into the long winded discussion over something that wasn’t really the point in the first place. Just an observation.

Actually, the FDA and others have openly asserted that Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus wall.

I know the Plan B makers hype it in that direction, but this is not proven, as the above quote explains. Therefore, while also being a potential method of contraception, Plan B is also a potential method of abortion.

The quote you offer is problematic because the fertilized egg is not considered an embryo until it has attached itself to the uterus (it isn’t even an embryo for about two days after it is attached). Until then the fertilized egg is only a zygote, morula, or blatocyst. While one may attempt to claim that these clumps of 1 to 64 cells is a human or person, but scientifically, philosophically, emotionally, and even theologically this is a hard line to sell. For a large percentage of couples trying to have children, these clumps of cells fail to attach and impregnant in the mother. Even when it is known, nobody mourns the passing of a human child (though some may feel sorrow for not conceiving).

Along the same lines, a woman is not considered pregnant until the clump of cells has attached to the uterus. Once it has attached, Plan B has NO affect on the embryo. A woman can’t have an abortion if she is not pregnant.

It basically comes down to two things.

1- Is a fertilized egg a human being possessing a human spirit? Some catholics think so. Some Mormons think so, others have said the spirit isn’t in the fetus until much later in the pregnancy. As I already said, the former claim is a fairly difficult claim to make on scientific, philosophical, and theological grounds. If you have had personal revelation on the matter for everyone else (which I feel you have every right to), then go ahead and preach it. However, I have the feeling that you hold the position that Connor Boyack cannot receive revelation for everybody.

2- If you think that birth control is morally wrong, then sure, Plan B is morally wrong. If you think that birth control is “a personal decision for each couple,” then quit telling people that they are being immoral and let them make that person decision for their own selves. Unless, of course, you believe that God has revealed the truth of the matter to you for everyone else (which, again, I believe you have every right to receive and preach).

It is no surprise that early church leaders spoke out harshly against contraception.

Just like early church leaders taught the Adam-God Doctrine, blood atonement for murder, adultery, rape, apostacy, and inter-racial marriage, an eternal ban on black priesthood, a 13,000 year old universe, and a myriad of other teachings that are rejected today by the current church.

Thank you for your comments and your insight. Indeed, there are many things in our world that can be used for both good and evil purposes. This can be classified in that group. As you state, there are circumstances where the use of this drug would be permissible. My post takes aim at the “evil” use of it—that being the selfish ending of life (or the potential thereof) or predatory men using it as a new weapon in their arsenal of lust.

I also strongly agree that it should not be OTC.

Also, not to throw the gender card in there, but it seems that you only presented the male view of the situation-the man getting out of his raping a woman without any consequences. Perhaps looking at it from the woman’s point of veiw would change your mind just a little. My husband and I are expecting our first baby right now. I’m so excited for our little one, but I can’t think of the hell it would be if I were all on my own and had been raped. The emotional scars and shame that could follow from such an experience would be hard for anyone to face. To have to go through a full term pregnancy, with all its physical, emotional, and mental struggles all alone after such an horrific event would be hard. Hard doesn’t even describe it really. The knowledge that I wouldn’t have to go through a full pregnancy before putting the child up for adoption (which is what I would do, I hope) on top of all that, might be a comfort and solice for those victims. Did you ever think of how hard it could be going through with that type of pregnancy? I think taking a little time to think of all the situations, people and circumstances invloved before condemning a thing is perhaps the best way to go about it.

PS. All that being said, I don’t think this should be OTC.

As this page explains:

Does EC kill some embryos, or doesn’t it? The answer is, we don’t know. We can’t know, because, as the Catholic Health Association explains, “There is no current method for ascertaining that an ovum has been fertilized until implantation.” It takes a week and a half for hormones to register in pregnancy tests. To verify fertilization before then, you’d have to open the woman up. And that would kill the embryo.

Plan B claims to not touch a fertilized egg, and only prevent ovulation, but such claims are inconclusive. I know the Plan B makers hype it in that direction, but this is not proven, as the above quote explains. Therefore, while also being a potential method of contraception, Plan B is also a potential method of abortion.

2- Contraceptives are okay.

Yes and no. It is a personal decision for each couple. I have mixed feelings myself on the issue, and will not decide one way or the other until I am married and my wife and I need to make the decision. It is no surprise that early church leaders spoke out harshly against contraception. Some of their quotes can be found here and here.

3- There is nothing immoral about breaking up a cause and an effect. In fact, it is often VERY moral to step in and stop/prevent an effect that a person should have caused upon themselves (such as in the Atonement or saving a child from drowning).

Yes and no. There is nothing immoral when you are changing the “effect” for own life. But once there is a possibility that you have the beginnings of another life within you, changing the effect (and preventing the possibility of that life flourishing) is immoral and wrong, just like abortion.

Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. As I explained in my last comment, it does not affect a human life any more than a condom, birth control, or a menstral cycle. I saw your picture. I saw your attempt to equate Plan B with abortion. And that is why I pointed out (and quoted the FDA) to show that Plan B is not an abortion pill. Because your Plan B as abortion premise was untenable, I was also going to show that your cause and effect premise was also fallacious.

Contraceptives are a preventative measure. A menstrual cycle is a naturally occurring process. Plan B is a retroactive attempt to cover up your mistake, erase a problem, and bring a different “effect” to the “cause”.

Plan B is a contraceptive. I’m not sure what is so difficult with grasping that. It’s a preventative measure against getting pregnant. It is not an ‘oops i’m pregnant, now I have got to do something’ measure. Plan B PREVENTS pregnancies.

Let me say that again. It PREVENTS pregnancies. IT DOES NOT TERMINATE PREGNANCIES. It is not an abortion pill. It doesn’t matter that you see abortion and murder as nearly identical, because Plan B is neither.

Plan B is essentially no different than birth control pills. In case you didn’t know, birth control pills chemically cause an unnatural inhibition of ovulation. Yes that’s right. Birth control pills bring a different “effect” to the “cause”.

Sow = sexual intercourse. Reap = potential pregnancy. That was my “clear argument”.

Are you also against all forms of birth control. If you are taking on a J Fielding Smith approach, then perhaps I have made a false assumption. If not, then I really don’t understand your logic. Seriously, I don’t get it. If I am an idiot, please help me understand.

Plan B is a retroactive attempt to cover up your mistake, erase a problem, and bring a different “effect” to the “cause”.

I once spilled some juice on my mom’s new carpet. I used cleanser to clean it up. I brought a different “effect” to the “cause”. Was I immoral? Ok. That’s juice. Let’s say a married couple is having a loving session of sexual intercourse. They just recently had a child and feel it is best (for them, for the child, and for their next child) to wait at least another year to have another. After sex, they discover that the condom they were using had a tear. Do you feel that it is immoral for them to use Plan B?

Maybe this will help. Here are my key claims. Let me know which one you disagree with and maybe that can help me figure out exactly what your argument is…

1- Plan B is NOT an abortion pill.
2- Contraceptives are okay.
3- There is nothing immoral about breaking up a cause and an effect. In fact, it is often VERY moral to step in and stop/prevent an effect that a person should have caused upon themselves (such as in the Atonement or saving a child from drowning).

If you couldn’t interpret that I was alluding to this in my post, then I suppose I didn’t word it as well as I could have. I would have hoped that the picture I chose gave it away. Perhaps not.

You clearly and precisely state that “’morning after’ pills are morally wrong, because it facilitates the breakdown of cause and effect. You should reap what you sow. Period.” Your argument seems pretty clear here.

Sow = sexual intercourse. Reap = potential pregnancy. That was my “clear argument”.

Also, are you relating Plan B to abortion or murder? Plan B affects “somebody else’s life” no differently than contraceptives or a menstral cycle.

I consider abortion and murder one and the same, with rare exceptions (as were discussed in this post and its comments). Contraceptives are a preventative measure. A menstrual cycle is a naturally occurring process. Plan B is a retroactive attempt to cover up your mistake, erase a problem, and bring a different “effect” to the “cause”.

Don’t bring abortion, murder, and “somebody else’s life” into the discussion.

Last time I checked, this was my blog. I’ll do as I please, especially when I consider these subjects to be closely related to the nature of the post. Also, if you don’t want these being brought into the discussion, why did you ask “are you relating Plan B to abortion or murder?” in this same comment?

Also, are you relating Plan B to abortion or murder? Plan B affects “somebody else’s life” no differently than contraceptives or a menstral cycle.

The following is from the FDA’s website:

2. What is emergency contraception?

Plan B works like a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb), which usually occurs beginning 7 days after release of an egg from the ovary. Plan B will not do anything to a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus. The pregnancy will continue.

Don’t bring abortion, murder, and “somebody else’s life” into the discussion. They are not part of the equation. Your whole argument hinges on your extremely problematic claim that it is “morally wrong… [to] facilitate the breakdown of cause and effect.” As I easily showed, this premise is just plain false.

While your examples might lead some to find my position erroneous, they all deal with one’s self. Taking a “morning after” pill affects the potential for the life of another. Yes, you can then get into an argument of when “life” starts, yadda yadda yada. But the fact remains that “Jill’s” actions affect more than just herself, and for that reason, the action of taking such a pill is selfish and does indeed facilitate the breakdown of cause and effect. Dragging the Atonement in as a comparison is quite a stretch, because of its personal applicability. This is the reason why murder is such a serious sin – you are affecting somebody else’s life, other than just your own.

That’s why I am so against the Atonement, because it facilitates the breakdown of cause and effect. This is also why I am against the use of medication for any potentially dangerous poor hand-washing and doorknob touching. If children get sick from approaching a rabid animal, they should die of rabies for their stupidity. I am also against cancer treatments for people who willfully spend too much time in the sun, have ever smoked tobacco, or willfully put themselves at risk to radiation or chemical poisoning. I think anybody who is poor because of their own mistakes should starve. Skiers and other sportsman should not get any aid for injuries they knew could have occured during their so-called ‘recreational’ activities. Treatments for AIDS, hepatitis, and all other sexually transmitted diseases should be done away with. If someone get’s one of these, it’s their own fault. Furthermore, having these treatments available will only help increase instances of rape. It’s simple logic. You should reap what you sow. Period.