When Catholic Academics Abandon the Unborn

Dr. Lisa Fullam

A few weeks ago Lisa Fullam, a featured blogger at dotCommonweal, the blog of the politically liberal magazine Commonweal, posted “Hobby Lobby and Science” in which she clarifies for us how the “science” does not support the claims made by the Hobby Lobby plaintiffs and, incidentally, the Catholic Church.

She writes, “In medical terminology, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo implants in the uterine wall, approximately a week after fertilization, (so on average about 7-10 days after ovulation). Since one can’t have an abortion until one is pregnant, by medical standards contraceptives that block implantation by changing the uterine lining are not abortifacient.”

Fullam then says, “Roman Catholic magisterial teaching on the other hand, holds that the developing embryo should be treated as a person from conception.” Have you ever noticed it is usually those with a thing about the Church who use “Roman” rather than just “Catholic?”

Having established the fact that pregnancy begins not with fertilization but with implantation, Fullam explains how none of the contraceptives objected to by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood—Plan B, Ella, and two forms of IUDs—could cause abortions because each of them only inhibits ovulation and none of them harm the implanted embryo.

She states that she is not a “pharmacologist or an MD” and neither am I but about ten seconds of Internet research shows Fullam is simply wrong. Any layman can read the Wiki article on pregnancy, “The event of fertilization is sometimes used as a mark of the initiation of pregnancy….”

Don’t like Wikipedia, try WebMd which explains the hormone human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) can be detected within the first week after conception. This hormone “is a pregnancy hormone present in your blood from the time of conception.”

Just consider the experience of any woman getting the news she’s pregnant. Do she and her doctor begin counting her pregnancy from implantation? Actually, they begin counting from her last menstrual cycle. As to actual conception, it is calculated as two weeks after that and up to two weeks prior to implantation. It would be absurd for him to suggest she had a baby in there for two weeks but she’s only been pregnant since yesterday.

Fullam insists the medical establishment agrees with her when in fact it is mostly the highly politicized American Association of OB-Gyns (ACOG), a group that has been campaigning since before the dawn of the abortion age for the definition of pregnancy to change from conception to implantation. The Guttmacher Institute, the research group founded by Planned Parenthood, joins them in this fight.

Nearly 50 years ago, as the sexual revolution was revving, three years before Humanae Vitae, ACOG wrote in its first Terminology Bulletin that, “Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

In 2005, a Guttmacher publication said, “The medical community has long been clear: Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman’s uterus.”

Do ACOG’s members even agree with their position on implantation? Not according to a 2011 study.

A professor at the University of Chicago surveyed 1,000 ob-gyns and the results were published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He found that 57 percent said pregnancy begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. That would be 31,350 of ACOG’s own members disagree with ACOG and Fullam. Only 28 percent said pregnancy begins at implantation. The rest were not sure.

Dr. Farr Curlin, senior author of the study said, “People say the medical profession has settled on this. And what our data show rather clearly is that it is not at all settled among the medical profession.”

Christopher Gacek of the Family Research Council was also curious about this implantation claim being settled and he spent some weeks in the Library of Congress poring over medical dictionaries to find out. His results were published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.

Gacek found of the four major medical dictionaries—Dorland’s, Stedman’s, Taber’s, and Mosby’s—only one consistently backed Fullam’s claim.

What he found in the medical dictionaries was there is no consensus for the implantation claim. Granted, some of them make the claim but not all of them and among those that have made it, they have actually gone back and forth between fertilization being the start of pregnancy and implantation being the start. Sometimes they have switched from fertilization to implantation and then back again.

According to Gacek, “Dorland’s has never presented a purely implantation-based definition of either ‘conception’ or ‘pregnancy.’ Dorland’s definitions are heavily weighted to a fertilization-based viewpoint.” Dorland’s is the oldest of the medical dictionaries.

Gacek found Stedman’s, the second oldest of the medical dictionaries, to be back and forth on the issue. From 1961 on their definition of conception and pregnancy has been “fertilization-based six times and implantation-based three times.” Oddly, the 1982, 1990, and 1995 editions all used a fertilization-based definition. In 2000, they switched to implantation, but in 2006 went back to fertilization. At the very least, Stedman’s does not support Fullam’s proposition.

Taber’s is the dictionary that most closely supports the Fullam proposition. From its founding in 1940 until 1997 it consistently defined conception as fertilization-based. However, in 1973 the dictionary began defining pregnancy in the Fullam way, at implantation.

The dictionary most consistently fertilization-based has been Mosby’s, founded in 1980. Gacek says, “Mosby’s has not wavered from a fertilization-based analysis of conception or pregnancy. Furthermore, Mosby’s has never hinted at acceptance of an implantation-based definition for ‘conception’ and ‘pregnancy.’”

So, it is clear that Fullam is simply wrong in her assertion that “In medical terminology, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo implants in the uterine wall….”

So, what’s with Lisa Fullam? The medical dictionaries disagree with her. A large majority of ob-gyns disagree with her. Clearly she is wrong in her assertion that it is an agreed upon scientific fact that pregnancy begins at implantation.

Besides blogging for dotCommonweal, Lisa Fullam is an associate professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkley. She holds graduate degrees from Cornell University and also the Harvard Divinity School. She teaches courses in sexual ethics, moral theology, and virtue and vice, among others.

In 2010 at dotCommonweal she wrote approvingly of embryo destructive research. Her only qualm was that the research was being done by a private company rather than a university and therefore ethical considerations come into play. Once more she mocked Catholics and Catholic teaching. She says Catholics who hold to the teaching of when life begins “will be in a difficult spot if these therapies prove successful.” She says even these faithful Catholics will want to avail themselves of all the treatments and cures, none of which have panned out.

In an article on virtue ethics, she said some of the Church’s teachings on masturbation, fornication, contraception, adultery, and homosexuality are “grounded in bad biology, bad psychology, or bad theology and should be discarded.”

Fullam is a partisan in a semantics war the purpose of which is to allow drug companies to convince women to buy their sometimes-deadly products. After all, a woman is far more likely to buy a contraceptive than a pill or device that would kill her unborn baby. This is really manipulation and fraud and Fullam is a party to it.

The science is abundantly clear; a human life begins at conception. Whether you call it a pregnancy or something else is entirely irrelevant to the fact that this human embryo is not just alive but growing. Her nature does not change at implantation. She has a full complement of distinct DNA, a particular sex, a certain hair color, and is only days away from a heartbeat.

It is a puzzle why anyone, particularly someone teaching at a Catholic university and writing at a Catholic publication would want to define her out of existence.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    “Since one can’t have an abortion until one is pregnant…” is a rather dubious assumption.

    All the old writers on the criminal law (in Scotland, at least) speak of abortion as causing a woman “to part in an untimely manner with the child in her womb.” Why this would not apply as well before implantation as after it is not obvious.

    • Rock St. Elvis

      Perhaps the phrase “in her womb” is what they are looking at?

      The problem here is the attempt to distinguish conception and pregnancy, as if it matters to the larger issue. The Church opposes the snuffing out of an innocent human life, period. A zygote/embryo/fetus is alive regardless whether it is yet implanted in the womb. To argue definitions of pregnancy is to distract from the definition of life.

  • Objectivetruth

    “Besides blogging for dotCommonweal, Lisa Fullam is an associate professor of moral theology at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkley. ”

    When are the Deans at these “faux Catholic” Jesuit schools and universities going to finally walk in to someone like Ms. Fullam’s office and utter the words “You’re fired.”

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      Sadly, they’re more likely to can anyone who takes Catholic teaching seriously.

    • DavidS

      Unfortunately, the Deans and the majority of the Theology and Philosophy faculty at many of the Jesuit schools agree with her position so don’t hold your breath waiting for any discipline to be administered. All you have to do is research whether the school in question has signed onto Ex Corde Ecclesiae to find out what kind of theology it will teach. I’m sure you’re aware but the Cardinal Newman Society is a good starting point to find those colleges…sadly I doubt you will find a Jesuit institution on there.

      Some time ago I re-read Ignatius’ rules for thinking with the Church…and Peter Kolvenbach’s commentary on another document. Within the first page Kolvenbach, then Superior General of the Jesuits had “qualified” and redefined what St. Ignatius meant by the term “hierarchical Church”. In doing so I discovered that (according to Kolvenbach), St. Ignatius didn’t mean thinking with the magisterial Church but some ephemeral sensus fidei that, to a layman like myself, sounded suspiciously similar to the Protestant doctrine of scriptural interpretation…every man for himself. Here’s a quote from his presentation…

      “We must take care to avoid misinterpreting Ignatius when he speaks of “the
      hierarchical Church.” He does not take it to mean the world of popes and bishops,
      ecclesiastics and clergy. It would seem that Ignatius was among the earliest to appreciate the hierarchical Church as a church of mediation. The divine grace that is given to the world is mediated by each believer, of high and low estate, according to his or her life and place [189]. Each person, as a member of the Church, exercises a responsibility in the work of salvation”.

      If you have any interest, here’s a link to the document itself:

      http://www.sjweb.info/documents/cis/pdfenglish/105padregen.pdf

      After reflecting on this, I’m not sure who exactly it is (according to Kolvenbach) that Ignatius is referring to as the hierarchical Church…I wonder if Ignatius would either.

      • Objectivetruth

        Very enlightening. Thank you.

      • RC

        Thank you for the Cardinal Newman reference. The two schools my son and I have discussed are on the list!! But the three schools he discussed with his counselor, all Jesuit, are not! I had already removed them from our list and this confirms my thoughts about them!

        • Asmondius

          You are a loving parent – evils have pervaded many Jesuit institutions of late under the guise of ‘diversity’. Four years is a fair amount of time in which to indoctrinate and mislead young adults.

          • Ruth Rocker

            Especially when the errors, okay, let’s go ahead and call them lies, are constantly reinforced by the surrounding culture. Good for you, RC!!

    • Beth

      Wish our Jesuit pope would come down on his own wayward order. Raise your hand if you’ve been asked by a protestant to explain the Jesuits. We are all sinners, of course, but allowing such non-sense which leads only to confusion makes the church look sly, sloppy, ignorant and unfaithful.

      • fredx2

        I read an article recently where the students at Georgetown were asked to decide whether they believed in the Catholic Church’s position, or the Jesuit position on some controversial subject. They apparently had been taught that there actually was a legitimate Jesuit position.

        Wow.

        • Asmondius

          The position of some Jesuits seems to be that any teaching which might offend someone is optional.

          • DE-173

            Unless it offends orthodox Catholics, then it’s rigorously instilled.

            • Asmondius

              Naturalissimo.

        • DE-173

          I attended a Jesuit school (MBA, missed the indoctrination undergrads get). They won’t leave me alone in their persistent efforts to get money.

          The appeals are always the same, alumni telling you just how intellectually superior they due to their “Jesuit education”.

          The acrid smell of gnosticism exudes from the their ever-growing real estate empire in a bankrupt city….

          • John Fisher

            A Jesuit education only meant something Before the order was supressed in the 17th century. That is why suppression occurred. Anti clericals wanted to curb their influence.

            • DE-173

              I have an acquaintance who wasn’t around in the 17th century. He was a classmate of Antonin Scalia in high school and a Georgetown, describing his experience as when “the Jesuits were the Pope’s marines”.

              I’m sure the cancer had already begun almost six decades ago, but the metastasis went with blinding speed.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        He’s too busy trusting God to convert hearts for him to actually do any evangelization himself:
        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thejesuitpost/2014/07/be-not-afraid-francis-and-the-15th-annotation/

    • fredx2

      I don’t mind if those departments have people who disagree wit the church. Disagreement is always fine. The problem is when they define themselves as an alternate Magisterium, as Charles Curran tried to do.

      • MHB

        I mind! Any parent who is helping their kid with college tuition and supporting their choice of a (so- called) Catholic college expects that the professors will be well versed in Catholic theology and teaching it! Let’s face it: Jesuits are operating under false pretenses. Jesuit colleges are not secular colleges where dissent from Church teaching is expected. They are wrong to hold up the banner of Catholicism and then allow professors to get away with this.

    • Micha Elyi

      Has Pope Francis suppressed the Jesuits yet?

      If Nixon could go to China…

  • Guest

    Commonweal? Not just politically liberal but hardly orthodox in terms of the faith. Bunch of propagandists.

  • Rock St. Elvis

    In an article on virtue ethics, she said some of the Church’s teachings
    on masturbation, fornication, contraception, adultery, and homosexuality
    are “grounded in bad biology, bad psychology, or bad theology and
    should be discarded.”

    Well, it’s no secret what she’s doing this weekend!

    Joking aside, I’ve heard of attacks on the teachings on all these issues but adultery. Now adultery is also good! So much for the need for gay “marriage” to encourage monogamy, when monogamy is “grounded in bad biology, bad psychology, or bad theology.”

    Just when you think the libertines can’t top themselves . . .

    • Guest

      All heresy begins below the belt.

      • Rock St. Elvis

        All the modern day ones do, anyway. Not sure about Arianism, Donatism, etc. But on further reflection, I might find that those did, too.

        A pretty captivating book that supports your thesis as pertains to more recent history is Intellectuals by Paul Johnson.

        • DE-173

          A pretty captivating book that supports your thesis as pertains to more recent history is Intellectuals by Paul Johnson.

          Indeed. A devastating indictment of the moral cretinism of the secular, statist, collectivist pantheon of “heros”.

        • Guest

          Note every single fight is about genital sexuality or gender issues. Are they fighting the hypostatic union?

      • Ruth Rocker

        I disagree. All heresy begins in the mind. The mind that thinks it’s better than God, more intelligent than God and therefore in no need of God. But after that, it doesn’t take long for it to head south :(

        • Guest

          I did not make it up. It is a saying as old as the world. There are no new heresies. The wise men of the past knew all too well that sexual license rules many people.

          The people we are talking about here are not intellectuals in any authentic sense. They are barbarians. They always, and I mean always, fight about genital sexuality and gender issues. You think they are some pie in the sky academics contemplating there place in the universe? No, they have unfulfilled desires and they think if only the Church would confirm them in their desires then they could finally engage in these behaviors and have peace.

    • DE-173

      The biggest marijuana legalization advocates are usually potheads…
      I wonder …

      • Art Deco

        Or libertarians whose outlook on life was frozen at age 17.

        • DE-173

          Many of them are potheads too. I’ve never understood how they think legalized cannabis is some sort of important victory for their cause, given the metastatic growth of the federal government.

          • Art Deco

            Richard Leonardi, who is not blogging anymore, is a lapsed libertarian who once was director of the Buckeye Institute in Ohio. He said he began to abandon the libertarian cause when it occurred to him one day that the leading libertarians he knew of were generally childless (Leonardi has at least five, IIRC).

            There are a number of different flavors of libertarianism an a number are not all that unpalatable. However, the modal strain articulated is manifest in the Reason Foundation and the Libertarian Party. Ann Coulter proposed some years ago that she stand as the Libertarian candidate in her area against Christopher Shays; she said their discussions went nowhere once she realized that the only thing they cared about was the drug laws (which she had no issue with).

            I will wager the modal strain of libertarianism among the man in the street is the suburban resident who despises inner-city dwellers; their thinking is dominated by the idea that someone they do not care for might benefit from services purchased by their property tax payments. Very common type where I grew up (and dead set against metropolitan policing).

            • DE-173

              “I will wager the modal strain of libertarianism ”

              If there is such a thing. My experience is that they are a herd of cats.

              In all seriousness, I tend to agree with you, but I’ll see your childlessness and raise you latent anti-natalism.

    • John Fisher

      She is having a “happening!”

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    Commonweal and a Jesuit school of theology? Frankly, I am astonished that Fullam is not more loopy than she obviously is.

  • Gail Finke

    What implants in the womb, if it’s not a living organism (in this case, a human organism)? Eggs don’t implant. FERTILIZED eggs do, and the moment a human egg is fertilized it’s (ta-dah) it’s a living human being that only one of two things can happen to: it can implant, develop, and be born, or it can die. Her thesis is just semantics pretending to be science.

    • Therese

      Actually, it’s only a “fertilized egg” for the very brief time it takes for the sperm DNA to unite with the egg DNA in the pronucleus. At that point it becomes a zygote – the complete first cell of the new organism, human if it is human DNA. By the time implantation occurs, at least a week later, this zygote, with its own metabolism, has undergone meiosis multiple times as it begins the process of development into the full human being programmed into its DNA. At that point it has undergone several name changes and is now called an embryo.
      In 1964, the ACOG changed it’s definition of pregnancy to get around the sensitivities of people who knew exactly what the hormones of oral contraceptives were capable of.

      • Gail Finke

        True. But my point is simply that it’s absurd to say that you’re not pregnant until the “correct term for a living human being at a particularl stage” implants. You are pregnant first, with a human being that implants into the womb.

        • Therese

          We are in total agreement. In my head, I was actually supporting your first comment. Sorry it didn’t turn out that way….

          • Gail Finke

            That’s the impression I got, actually… I just wanted to clarify.

  • JP

    “She writes, “In medical terminology, a woman is not considered pregnant
    until the developing embryo implants in the uterine wall, approximately a
    week after fertilization, (so on average about 7-10 days after
    ovulation). Since one can’t have an abortion until one is pregnant, by
    medical standards contraceptives that block implantation by changing the
    uterine lining are not abortifacient.” ”

    How convenient. This is how Progressives work. Control the terms of the debate and you control the debate. Most abortifacient drugs prevent the implantation of the embryo; ergo, Fullam cannot lose. Yet, we’re not talking about pregnancy, but life – more explicitly the life of the unborn child. By making the debate about pregnancy and not the life of the unborn, the entire debate is changed

  • Fred

    I trust nobody is really surprised as it has been well documented for a long time how secular our Catholic schools have become. Imagine complying with a request by some prominent figure to give a speech in our sanctuary and to cover up Christ on the Cross with a blanket because it is offensive to some. Now imagine allowing someone who feels that after birth abortion is morally tolerable as a choice to share those views. By that standard I can almost welcome Lisa’s moderate views.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    Jesuits again. I wonder if they are even Christian anymore, or have they taken the Charitable interpretation all the way to infifferentism?

    • Art Deco

      “Indifferentism”? No, single-malt scotch and sodomy.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        Single-malt scotch and sodomy is but one stop among many in the indifferent universe, because after all, who am I to judge?

  • Guest

    Part of the problem is that it is not fundamentally a “medical” issue but a philosophical issue. Bad morals give us bad medicine. Bad reasoning gives us this Nazi-like propaganda from the Left.

    Arbitrarily mis-defining life is not about medical taxonomy or “science”. It is politics and bad philosophy.

    • lifeknight

      AND MONEY

      • DE-173

        Money doesn’t talk, it screams.

      • Guest

        Yes money but do not discount ideology. There are many true believers that are as brainwashed as shallow.

  • lifeknight

    I have noted that many educated medical persons are lamenting when life begins. Check out on John L. Merritt, MD. He has his own reasons for saying (essentially) that life begins at eight days. http://www.whendoeshumanlifebegin.com Reading between the lines is the notion that he and his son, also an MD, are interested in the research opportunities—if only that darn Roman Catholic Church would just “give in” on fertilization. NOT!

  • http://eisbrener.info/blog Michael Eisbrener

    How idiots are allowed to rule. Labeling them otherwise is a form of either kindness or abuse.

  • AcceptingReality

    Clearly an attempt to run a sweep around the left side of the truth.

  • Cincinnatus1775

    “A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction as to its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible amongst us.” — St. Basil the Great

    And anyone who formulates such “fine distinctions” and from a seat of authority at a nominally Catholic institution leads people astray with them is equally anwerable. I seem to recall a few verses referring to millstones and the deep blue sea…

  • Joe De Carlo

    Doesn’t the church still teach that life (the soul) begins at conception? The medical treatises have no relevance to the doctrine concerning the soul.

    • Asmondius

      There has never been any definitive theological statement concerning the exact time the soul is created (before, after, during conception).

      However no human has ever existed who did not have a soul, therefore the soul must be present at the time a new human life begins.

  • fredx2

    “Fullam insists the medical establishment agrees with her when in fact it is mostly the highly politicized American Association of OB-Gyns (ACOG)…”

    Beware of any argument that lists a professional organization as authority. They almost never actually ask their members what they think, in fact often run contrary to what their members think. They are usually political organizations. Those who want to run for those offices often are the most politically active among their members, and find it natural to use their positions to advocate for the things they want to see, not what the members want to see.

    Ignore them. Demand opinions of their members, not the opinions of a few who are elected or appointed by a few other politically active members.

    • Asmondius

      Example – LCWR.

  • ForChristAlone

    Can I submit Fullam’s name for a session with the next available diocesan exorcist in her area?

    • Asmondius

      Rumor has it she adores pea soup.

      • DE-173

        Adores it or regurgitates it at high velocity?

        • Asmondius

          Equally useful as an appetizer or projectile.

    • DE-173

      You might need Father Amorth for this one.

  • fredx2

    [Fullam] … holds graduate degrees from Cornel University and also the Harvard Divinity School.”

    Harvard Divinity school? Try reading “The Search for God at Harvard” by Ari Goldman. He was a New York Times reporter that decided to return to Divinity school:

    What he found at Harvard Divinity school:

    “Already at orientation, Goldman saw that the pervasive politics of Harvard Divinity School exhibited what he, with admirable understatement, terms “a decided left-wing tilt.” Indeed, his narrative suggests that political correctness has taken the place of theological orthodoxy. The chapel services, for example, were usually just a political forum on matters like the Sandinista revolution or gay rights. A course on “The American Catholic Bishops and Public Policy: A Feminist Perspective” proved to be one long diatribe against Catholic teaching on the vexed question of the status of the unborn, with Cardinals Ratzinger and O’Connor predictably cast in the role, as Goldman puts it, of “unmistakable villains.” A female student complained to him that the women’s-studies courses often involved “a declaration of war on men,” a point vividly brought home when he happened upon a women’s martial-arts course held in the formal reception room of the school:

    I peered in through a window in the door one day, and the instructor gave me a look that said, “You are the enemy. Get lost.” Inside, several women were pummeling an imaginary man into submission on the floor.

    The vacuum into which all this politicization and radicalization rushed was created in large part by the relative inattention of Harvard Divinity School to what one would have expected to be its central preoccupation: Christianity.”

    And Yale is worse.

  • Carol Leeda Crawford

    The fertilized egg makes the journey to the womb and then implants itself in its tough wall. It already has a will to develop. In fact, once it implants itself in the womb it begins to take what it needs from the mother’s body. The mother’s role is to maintain her health. The baby takes what it needs to develop and grow. I’d say it is a human being at conception because it already has a will to survive.

    • Asmondius

      It also has a unique set of DNA which has never existed.

    • Stilbelieve

      The “will” and the means.

      • Carol Leeda Crawford

        I love these additions for our little ones. I hope all of you are participating in the day of prayer for an end to abortion and the conversion of those who see it as a human right to end a life of an unborn Human Being. I will be saying the Divine Mercy Chaplet at 3 today. Please join me.

  • RC

    I have so many issues with Fullam. If she is an example of what is being taught in Jesuit Universities no wonder there are so many graduating as Atheists. The statement ” Have you ever noticed it is usually those with a thing about the Church who use “Roman” rather
    than just “Catholic?” She also seems to represent that quarter who is seeking a more “American Catholic Church” that will decide based on current politically approved thought as to what should be believed and considered proper. This is not for me!!!

    As I have stated before, my son will not be attending a University that is not in total Communion with the Roman Catholic Church!

    • Asmondius

      At least at a public institution you know upfront what to expect.

  • Scott W.

    “In medical terminology, a woman is not considered pregnant until the developing embryo implants in the uterine wall, approximately a week after fertilization, (so on average about 7-10 days after ovulation). Since one can’t have an abortion until one is pregnant, by medical standards contraceptives that block implantation by changing the uterine lining are not abortifacient.”

    A great example of positivism making people stupid.

    • DE-173

      Stupid is as stupid reasons…

  • Andy

    My six year old daughter has a better grasp of moral truths than this woman

    • grzybowskib

      Your daughter is very smart. :)

    • Ruth Rocker

      Children tend to cut right to the heart of things. This is why we are instructed by Jesus to be like children.

    • Guest

      Yes, because she is uncorrupted. That is the key.

  • Asmondius

    If the owners of Hobby Lobby were Catholic, they would not have made any distinction about whether a particular artificial contraceptive was an abortifacient or not. They would have objected to providing any at all. For a supposed theologian at a Catholic institution to argue against the right of conscience to exclude any contraceptive is bizarre indeed.

  • Jen*

    As a fairly new Catholic, I am constantly confused by the blurred lines out there. Why is it, someone please explain, that schools like Georgetown and so many others that teach against the Magisterium get to be “Catholic?” Couldn’t they just be secular universities and we be done with it? We don’t have as much to worry about with the world as we do all the people who want an elastic, pliable faith, a Jesus who confirms their beliefs.

    • Objectivetruth

      As time goes by, these universities might have their “Catholic” designation pulled from them. This is the decision of the local bishop on whether a university is Catholic, or not. Personally, I think such a crackdown needs to take place. Of the approximately 215 universities in the US that call themselves Catholic, at least 100 need to have their Catholic designation repealed (with G-town number one on the list.) I’d rather have 100-115 truly Catholic universities to choose from, rather than so many borderline-heretic colleges that call themselves Catholic. Time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

      • ForChristAlone

        it’s easy to define the list…just identify those that describe themselves as “in the jesuit tradition.” But now that we have a jesuit in the white house…sorry vatican…no bishop would ever have the guts to remove the appellation from places like g.town.

    • ForChristAlone

      Simple answer: it is the bishop of a diocese who holds the authority over whether any entity gets to use the title “Catholic.” Bishops do not exercise their authority as they should because during the ordination rite when a priest becomes a bishop there is a special intervention that takes place which effectively removes their spine. Once you know the manner bu which all our bishops are ordained, all else falls into easy understanding.

    • DE-173

      You confusion has nothing to do with the recency of your entry. It’s a sign of a functioning intellect and an informed conscience.

      Welcome to the hospital for sinners.

    • msmischief

      I find it useful to reflect on the parable of the wheat and the tares, and remember that they will grow together until harvest.

  • Sal

    Long convention holds that “he” means means “this particular human whether male or female.” Does it make you feel edgy and feminist to subvert convention and play along with man-jaws like the one you’re discussing?

  • donna

    another Catholic poseur willing to believe in any authority other than the authority of the Church. This is the issue; Jesuits are at forefront corrupted through the pride of intellect warned about in Old Testament. Lucifer at his most seductive. I believe Catholics are obliged to follow Church teachings on faith and morals whether they agree intellectually or in conscience. Conscience may not be formed or deficient and these conflicts are to be examined with a confessor. She may say as she wishes as long as clearly stating that her ideas and beliefs are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Church. The american medical societies and their often incorrect advice about many issues does not have the authority to absolve Catholics from this obligation

  • Ford Oxaal

    To all you ‘progressive’ utopians out there: We should never expect science to dictate law, because science is fuzzy and unprincipled. It is unwise to put science over reason, and for that matter, to put reason over revelation. Let’s compromise and at least make an attempt to rediscover reason before the lights go completely out. Justice is reciprocal. Here is what is justice regarding our own kind: if there is reasonable doubt as to whether a certain biological entity constitutes a person, then the law should err on the side of the entity. It may be scientific and utilitarian to kill off people you find undesirable, but it is unreasonable and unjust to do so, and all you will achieve is your own depraved and insane bestiality.

    • DE-173

      Progressive =Atavistic. They are all Neanderthal Clan Leaders searching for the biggest club. Ug leader. Ug do what Ug want. You do what Ug say.

  • Hank

    A consequence of all this science is that we find that sexually active women have no idea, at all, of how many times they have been pregnant.

    From a non-scientific perspective, I’d have expected women to have some clue, as to the number of their offspring.

    This is not, of course, a consideration that should determine the medical understanding of when pregnancy begins. But it is a curious result.

    • ForChristAlone

      I have often thought that mental health examinations should always ask the following questions of women:
      #1 How many times have you been pregnant?
      #2 How many children do you have?
      #3 Presuming the answer to #1 is not equal to the answer to #2, how did your other pregnancies end.

      The reason why this is a true health issue: because there is a significant undiagnosed incidence of depression among women who have had abortions that is NEVER treated by mental health professionals because they prefer to believe that you can end the life of your child and it not impact you at all.

      I would investigate the same reaction among men who have been involved in procuring abortions for their girlfriends and wives.

      • DE-173

        #1 How many times have you been pregnant?
        #2 How many children do you have?
        #3 Presuming the answer to #1 is not equal to the answer to #2, how did your other pregnancies end.

        I used to audit MA healthcare. I don’t know about the mental health side, but on the physical health side.. standard disclosure in patient/case notes.

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

  • Art Deco

    Newsflash: Commonweal is a legacy institution kept afloat, like the gosizdat press in Soviet Russia, by institutional subscriptions (and the subscriptions and donations of the Church’s careerist middle management). Their self-concept is dependent upon a residual Church affiliation inasmuch as they understand their function as providing talking points for those ‘educating’ people they regard as rubes (which would be any straightforward Catholic). A generation ago, Andrew Greeley of all people referred to their editorial staff as ‘intellectual crooks and elitist poseurs’.

    Once upon a time, it may have been worth something, but is no longer. Sort of like 90% of the ‘Catholic’ colleges in this country.

    The wretched business is, you go to your nearest Newman Center or to a suburban parish which has some subscriptions, you’re as likely to see Commonweal on the racks as any serious Catholic publication. Our clergy stink too (by and large).

    • ForChristAlone

      “The wretched business is, you go to your nearest Newman Center or to a suburban parish which has some subscriptions, you’re as likely to see Commonweal on the racks as any serious Catholic publication.”

      It’s de rigueur at those effete Jesuit colleges (pardon me, ‘universities’)

      • DE-173

        “(pardon me, ‘universities’)”
        You get an insight into just how much currency pretense has in academia when you see some institution crowing about its meeting the criteria of “university”.

        • Art Deco

          It’s largely terminological inflation. Boston College, Fordham, Duquesne, Notre Dame, De Paul, Loyola of Chicago, Marquette, St. Louis, Georgetown, and Catholic University actually are research institutions. St. John’s, Seton Hall, the University of Dayton, Villanova, and the University of Dallas might just make it in under the envelope.

          The University of Dallas is the most ethereal of these and arguably the only one which is Catholic in a straightforward way. The corporate architecture of Catholic University makes it salvageable in a way the others are not. There are supposedly redoubts of Catholicism at Notre Dame (the law school) and Seton Hall (Chesterton Institute). There are faculty here and there (James Hitchcock at St. Louis).

    • DE-173

      I am so fortunate to have two good and orthodox priests at my Parish.

      • Objectivetruth

        It seems the newly minted seminarians are more orthodox. They might be fewer in number than 40 years ago, but actually know what’s inside the Catechism.

        • DE-173

          One is 60ish, the other 30ish…

  • rbcurti

    Still, once fertilization takes place and the individual blastocyte is formed, the human life cycle has begun.

  • Stilbelieve

    After conception, nothing is added to the embryo except nutrition, oxygen and protection. It is what it is – a life dependent on its mother, continuously for years after its birth.

  • DE-173

    ” associate professor of moral theology”

    Cues old music…

    Don’t know much about bi-ol-o-gee.
    Don’t know much about the science she took.

    I really am tired of theology professors lecturing people on everything but theology.

    • ForChristAlone

      better she stick to biology…at least we’re confident she’s operating within the parameters of her incompetence.

      • John200

        I don’t think she can stick to biology. She does not know biology. That seems to be her main problem in understanding the beginning of life.

        Fake professor, fake Catholic, nobody needs her “wisdom.”

        • ForChristAlone

          Please don’t take what I said seriously. Actually, she ought to return to undergrad studies and this time pay attention (and not at a Jesuit school)

  • Edward Mulholland

    Interestingly, the redefinition of pregnancy only matters if you also redefine abortion. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, and abortion is “1.The expulsion or removal from the womb of a developing embryo or fetus, spec. (Med.) in the period before it is capable of independent survival, occurring as a result either of natural causes (more fully spontaneous abortion) or of a deliberate act (more fully induced abortion);2. the early or premature termination of pregnancy with loss of the fetus; 3. an instance of this.”
    Thus, according to the first and most attested to definition, the “contraceptives” that the Hobby Lobby owners found objectionable are abortifacients, regardless of when one defines pregnancy to begin.

  • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

    It’s worth noting that the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception is a very recent development. For much of Church history, the ensoulment of the developing fetus was thought to happen sometime after conception — anywhere from one to three months, depending on which theologian was doing the thinking. Most scholastics, for example (including Aquinas), followed Aristotle’s view that ensoulment or “quickening” took place at 40 days after conception for male children and 90 days after conception for female children. (Of course, in that regard, Aristotle got the biology backwards, as in embyronic development, the “default” in humans is actually female, from which the production of testosterone then differentiates males.)

    • Guest

      This is the usual mish mash revisionist pseudo academic deflection we have come to expect from the intellectually dishonest and facile academy.

      • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

        Quoting from the CDF’s 1974 “Declaration on Procured Abortion”, II.7:

        In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine – the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous.

        • Guest

          No, the document is quite clear. That document is not agitprop used against the Church. It points out the truth of the matter. The issue of ensoulment does not change anything in Church teaching on faith or morals.

          • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

            You seem to be making the elementary mistake of thinking that I am saying otherwise. I’m not trying to justify abortion, so stop assuming that I am.

            • Guest

              Your first post claimed the Church only recently claimed life began at conception indicating the Church used to teach otherwise. You used “proof” of this assertion by saying ensoulment has been debated.

              The point is using the issue of ensoulment is a red herring in this discussion. Even the document you cited does not support your position.

              Your argument is the one used against the Church frequently by pro abortion propagandists. They mistakenly claim the Church has ” changed ” Her position on ensoulment therefore Her teaching on others things can change.

              It is an admixture of truth with error. It confuses several different issues.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      The medieval thoughts ion “ensoulment” were based on the imperfect science of the age. They thought a pregnancy was a blood clot, since menstruation ceased. Regardless, at no time was it preached that abortion or contraception (anonism) was acceptable.

      • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

        I never said that abortion or contraception were ever considered acceptable — but thanks for drawing the strawman. The level of vitriol around here to anybody who points out historical facts is a little unsettling.

        • Objectivetruth

          I fail to see any vitriol in those that have responded to you.

          • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

            Just below your comment appears one from “Guest” that reads: “This is the usual mish mash revisionist pseudo academic deflection we
            have come to expect from the intellectually dishonest and facile
            academy.” He’s calling me an idiot, a liar, and a fraud.

            • Objectivetruth

              No, he’s not. He’s attacking your argument, not you.

              • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

                I didn’t realize “the intellectually dishonest and facile academy” was an argument. Are there any academic theologians who are excepted from this intellectual dishonesty and superficiality?

                • Objectivetruth

                  The discussions not whether your feelings were hurt, it’s concerning academics at Catholic colleges making claims against Catholic teachings. Don’t let it bother you.

                  But you keep bringing ensoulment in to the discussion. Why? I’ll agree with the comment below that the Church’s historical debate on ensoulment has been used in the past to falsely attack the Church. I’m not saying that is what you are doing, but it does cause one to pause.

                  Are you Catholic? Do you agree with the Church’s teaching on life?

            • Guest

              I was referring to those in the article. It was not referring to you or any poster.

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          Vitriol? You made a clarification, and I offered a further clarification. I fail to see a problem her, with your comment or with mine. Peace.

    • Joe Bruce

      You’re just repeating the same nonsense as the PhD in the article, Nathaniel. Ever since society knew what conception was, everybody has known that life begins at conception, not just the church. Arguing about obvious reality is a tactic of anti-life to make debate meaningless by wasting time debating obvious facts instead of actual morality – and that is because they actual morality is very obvious, so something has to be done to obfuscate the issue.

      • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

        Quoting from the CDF’s 1974 “Declaration on Procured Abortion”, II.7:

        In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine – the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous.

        I’d highly recommend the an article on Thomas Aquinas’ thought on this (he gives the Aristotelian answer I mentioned in his Commentary on the Book of Sentences, Bk. III, dist. 3, q. 5, a. 2, Responsio) by John Haldane and Patrick Lee, available online at Franciscan: http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm

        • Guest

          What that shows is that the laws for punishment vary. It does not mean the truth of the illicitness of abortion changed.

          The subject of ensoulment is mostly a red herring. It is wrongly used as evidence against the Church.

          • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

            But I never claimed that “the truth of the illicitness of abortion changed” — y’all seem quite good at constructing strawmen arguments around here.

            What I wrote concerned the differing thoughts on when the fetus receives its soul, which seems directly apropos to Prof. Fullam’s arguments.

            • Guest

              No, that is not the issue. And the CDF document reveals that.

            • Objectivetruth

              But……

              The article never even touches the topic of ensoulment. We have no idea what Prof. Fullam’s opinion is on the subject.

              The gist of the article is human LIFE begins at conception. The question of ensoulment is entirely a different subject.

    • Objectivetruth

      From William May on “Augustine and ensoulment.” You might find this helpful:

      Augustine on ensoulment
      But when, according to Augustine, does human life begin? He is not certain. In commenting on the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-23 he observes that the Mosaic law does not treat the accidental abortion of an “unformed” fetus as a homicide. He opines that the “unformed conceptus” might in some way he anitmated, i.e., that there might be a human life before there is a recognizably human fetus, but he was not certain that there was a living soul in a body lacking in senses, and an unformed fetus lacked senses. Elsewhere, considering the Resurrection, Augustine says he is inclined to think that all who have begun life will rise again, even if they were not developed to the point of being “formed.” Here he evidently assumes that life precedes form and that this life is human in some way.

      Moreover, when directly confronted with this question Augustine declares that not only does he not know but that he doubts the question can be surely answered. There seems to be no empirical test because no one remembers when he began life and the process has not been observed. He is certain that every man is created by God but he cannot presume to know the details of the way.

      But whether the life generated is “ensouled” or not makes no difference with regard to abortion. For Augustine this is always gravely immoral, and is in fact a particularly heinous deed, an insult to the God who gives us life.

  • billlang

    She’s really saying ” God told you that if you eat of the fruit of this true you shall die. you certainly shall not die. God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.”

  • ArnoldPalmer9999999999999

    I don’t understand why people like this insist on trying to change core beliefs of the Catholic faith and don’t simply join the Episcopal Church where they would be more “at home”.

    If fundamental moral teachings can so casually be thrown out the window after 2000 years, then one would presume that Lisa Fullam and her cohorts do not really believe the Catholic Church to be the one true Church.

    • Art Deco

      “If you want to undermine something, you have to be inside it.”

      – Ralph McInerney.

      A nominal affiliation may have been necessary for her to get the job. You won’t find much work at Anglican institutions. There are only about a dozen Anglican seminaries in the U.S. and the largest has about 300 students. Bard College was founded by the Episcopal Church, I think. Otherwise, they were never much invested in the higher education biz.

      If your business is self-aggrandizement, pew-sitting Anglicans are a small and tepid audience to which to condescend. You also have no foils. The most prominent academic voice for pre-1930 Christian ethics in the Anglican communion in our time was Peter Toon, who spent most of his work life in Britain and has since died.

    • msmischief

      Because it’s a little too obvious that the Episcopals are a hollow shell. They have to latch onto a real church.

  • Senior Chick

    Interestingly enough. Many of these so called professors look like they’re radical feminists from the sixties, the ones that burned their bras, marched for women’s liberation, and hailed the Roe decision. Many of them teach things like feminist studies and are constantly attacking the church for what they consider out dated teachings re women, like women priests. Many of them are also nuns! They are harming the church from within. Her remarks will confuse Catholics and encourage Pelosi et al. This is a Jesuit institution. Pope Francis would do well to inform these places not to hire dissidents like her. Mocking the Catholic Church in other matters shows just how Catholic she really is. Alumni at these places should not be funding people like her. If they stop the money source, it would help.

  • Sg86

    In an article on virtue ethics, she said some of the Church’s teachings
    on masturbation, fornication, contraception, adultery, and homosexuality
    are “grounded in bad biology, bad psychology, or bad theology and
    should be discarded.”

    I wonder what fools like she are going to tell God at their personal judgement when they no longer have the evil one whispering in their ear defending this stupidity.

  • Ruth Rocker

    If she is flying in the face of the teachings of the Magisterium, why is she still employed by an ostensibly Catholic university? Can her!!

    • Joe Bruce

      Exactly, Ruth. It’s hard to blame only the subversive PhD when the church and the university are so bumbling that they cannot seem to control their own affairs. Her published falsehoods are actually funded and promulgated by the church in a way, and everyday Catholics who pay tuition but may not be up on what exactly their money is going. We need to complain to the church/university about this, and make it count by withholding $ until something is done. If they lost money every time this happened, it would change very quickly. And if maybe they then turn to rich liberals who will pay to put their kids in a pseudo-catholic school, the church should withdraw the catholic label for the university and advise people not to send their kids there. So it’s ultimately the fault of the administrators of the church, and the fault of the university. And I guess it’s our fault in part, although it is a full time job trying to make sure the church is doing its job nowadays.

  • Freethinker01

    I don’t really have any problem with people like Fullam redefining the issue in order to make her beliefs valid. Her dehumanizing definition is easily overcome by consistently reminding people what the real definition of abortion is.

    While pro-aborts like to say that “abortion terminates a pregnancy“, in reality “abortion ends a human life.” Since human life begins at conception, any act that purposely brings death after human life has started is correctly called abortion.

    The geographic location of the baby is immaterial. Indeed, in a partial birth abortion, the baby is no longer in the womb, but it is indeed an abortion.

  • Jay

    This article reminds of how much the Church is in trouble in the U.S. Is it any better outside the country???

  • The Truth

    Why are people like this serving in any capacity as a professor?

  • Guy McClung

    Austin-L. Fullam’s et al abandonment of the unborn is not the only abandonment of the unborn by Catholic and other scholars. Theologians in the US and around the world have committed the sin of theological silence about not only abortion, but racially targeted abortion:

    NC Register 5/18/2014

    confusing to anyone.

    Theological Silence

    In the recent article “Has the Silence Been Broken? Catholic Theological Ethics and Racial Justice” in Theological Studies Journal, Father Bryan Massingale, Ph.D., of Marquette University discusses the theological silence about racism in America.

    In his article, Father Massingale uses such words and phrases as “deafening and appalling silence,” “embarrassed silence” and “shocking theological silence” regarding racism in the United States. There is no discussion of, nor recognition of, the well-documented racially targeted abortion businesses in the United States.

    Minority mothers, especially black and Latino mothers, are purposefully targeted for abortion. Many blacks, and many of them organized, are now publicly trying to combat racially targeted abortion, referring to it as “black genocide.”

    For several reasons, this silence regarding racially targeted abortions is more shocking than the silence about racism in general. If our social order “treats the bodies of poor women with disdain,” as stated in the article, it treats the bodies of poor women’s babies with utter contempt, the contempt shown the Holy Innocents, the contempt Jesus endured on the Way of the Cross and the contempt shown to him when he was crucified on Calvary.

    The article refers to white Christians who lynched nearly 5,000 black men and women between 1889 and 1940 and describes lynching as “brutally savage, extrajudicial, sadistic torture” and “killing.” No less horrible, and in some cases more horrible, are the painful deaths of minority unborn babies targeted for abortion simply because of their race — and in any given single week in the United States, their number is well in excess of 5,000. And many of those who call themselves “Christian” — as were those in the past who were involved in lynchings — are the abortionists, their nurses, support staff and business employees.

    These folks, some of whom also call themselves “Christian,” are not only white — they are themselves black, Latino and every other race.

    What the Ku Klux Klan and other racists could not achieve — Margaret Sanger’s dream of ridding America of the black, brown and yellow “human undergrowth” — abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood have done and are doing on beyond-holocaust scale.

    The article refers to an agenda that includes “a renewed understanding of both conscience and the challenge of conscience formation.” How could it be an act of virtue for a Catholic with a well-formed conscience [according to the Church’s understanding of a well-formed conscience, along with having all the factual knowledge that that entails for the well-informed Catholic, including the facts about racially targeted abortions and the politicians and parties who support them] to vote for such a politician?

    Isn’t it a sin for a Catholic with a well-formed conscience to vote for someone so that tax dollars will be used to kill minority unborn babies? In the face of such facts, the so-called “seamless garment” argument — used in the past to justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate — ends up in tattered, blood-stained shreds.

    The silence of theologians and of many others regarding racially targeted abortions is more “appalling,” “shocking” and “deafening” than the silence regarding racism in general. If theologians have been exhorted to break the silence about racism, they should be required to break the silence about racially targeted abortions or forever be silent themselves about anything to do with theology.

    Guy McClung

    San Antonio, Texas

    Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/letters-05.18.14#ixzz39KgoUwHb

    • BillinJax

      “How could it be an act of virtue for a Catholic with a well-formed conscience…… to vote for such a politician?”
      Easy.
      Because we have been feeding at the troth of politically correct tolerance for so long and learned to live with all manner of Evil disguised as tolerance of non-Christian morality with compassion for those who disagree with us or have not yet opened their hearts to the truth that we went so far as to simply think we should accept the lesser of two evils or be called (even by our own hierarchy) as single issue voters. Unfortunately this has led to an ever worse situation which has made more “good conscience” folks to stay at home on election day allowing the cooks and uninformed to become the majority voters in every election.

  • BillinJax

    Terrorism can come in many forms. What we have witnessed in
    the last few decades here in American politics is a deliberately planned and
    determined legislative and executive ordered march toward a totalitarian
    bureaucratic government operated out of Washington by a self assigned ruling
    class using their established majority or corrupted officials implanted in the
    courts or positions of power within the network of authority to terrorize and
    intimidate any opposition to their goals. Call it what you may but it has
    become all too obvious that it is in fact anti-Constitutional, anti-Capitalist,
    and definitely anti- Catholic. Those Catholics who, with false compassion
    and/or far left idealist progressive notions of grandeur, joined the ranks of
    these political terrorists seeking not the good of the people and our national
    interest but rather the opportunity to be among the favored followers of a
    revolution designed to transform American culture from dependence on divine
    providence with personal responsibility based on the Commandments of God to a
    nation of foolish pride in majority rule to set moral standards and dependence
    on an assumed benevolent bureaucracy to provide their every need.

    • Guy McClung

      BillinJax-56,000,000 dead in the USA since Roe v Wade; think about it – 56,000,000 additional citizens, 56,000,000 more voters. This was no accident-this most certainly was not the result of the efforts of a few enlightened intellectuals who cared deeply and only about “women’s rights.” Hiding behind the mantra of me-me-me-mybopy-mybody-mybody-myself-myself-myself, the population controllers [did I mention there are 56,000,000 LESS people?] enlisted rad feminists and decreased population like no one else in history, except the plague. And worse, these smart eugenists not only reduced absolute numbers, they got rid of

    • Guy McClung

      BillinJax-56,000,000 dead in the USA since Roe v Wade; think about it – 56,000,000 additional citizens, 56,000,000 more voters. This was no accident-this most certainly was not the result of the efforts of a few enlightened intellectuals who cared deeply and only about “women’s rights.” Hiding behind the mantra of me-me-me-mybody-mybody-mybody-myself-myself-myself, the population controllers [did I mention there are 56,000,000 LESS people?] enlisted rad feminists and decreased population like no one else in history, except the plague. And worse, these smart eugenists not only reduced absolute numbers, they got rid of significant numbers of St. of PP Margaret Sanger’s “human undergrowth: – 60% of the 56,000,000 are black and brown babies, although their mamas account for only about 25% of the population. And recently the most effective “negro minister” selling the minorities down the eugenic population-control river is the head of the Party of Death. Obama’s CDC says the policy is to reduce births {hmmmm? how can this be done?] concentrating on the black and brown communities, and PP [with hundreds of millions of dollar$s funneled to them by the Democrat congtolled govt] says in their US federal tax filings that one of their goals is population reduction. Spread and proclaim this: MORTAL SIN VOTE DEMOCRAT. Guy McClung

  • John Fisher

    No, to deliberately cause the fertilised ovum from implanting is a deliberate moral act. It is aimed at snuffing out a new life. It is killing the baby, killing the future. So there will never be a continuation of the chain of life. To take a drug to intervene is a very tidy type of abortion. There is nothing new about this type of behaviour. It occurred in ancient pagan times and has always been condemned by those who love life.

  • Albert, Georgetown ’53

    It is foolish to be concerned as to what is the start of pregnancy. What we are concerned with is the start of LIFE which occurs at the moment on conception. Pregnancy is, if you want to define it, the start of the mothers support of that life.

  • Rhoda Penmark

    Prioritizing the “rights” of a microscopic fertilized egg over those of a woman is deeply misogynistic. It is also absurd.

  • Howard

    It is still disappointing to see how many people fail to distinguish between science and nomenclature. Redefining conception or pregnancy and publishing the new definition in a book no more changes the reality of what is happening than when someone “names a star after someone” which is then “recorded in book form in the US copyright office.” A group of astronomers deciding to controversially define “planet” did not change anything about Pluto; it only affected how they choose to use the word in their own publications. (I’d hate to know how many people think it is “wrong” or even “illegal” to call Pluto a planet today.)

    A medical dictionary does not contain magic words that create reality.

    • RufusChoate

      Excellent point. I sense the influence of Deconstructionism.

    • Guy McClung

      Abe Lincoln allegedly said something like “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, does the dog have five legs? No, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” Calling sin virtue doesn’t make the sin into a virtuous act. The Church, the mystical Body of Christ, has a power that totalitarians envy and try to subvert – the power to say what is and what is not sin. However, those currently in power do try to produce their own list of “sins” and their own dogma about virtue – all the while destroying the family, the church, the community as the source of teaching what is moral, what isn’t, what is good, what is evil. And many folks just love this government that says we let you do whatever you want to do, whatever makes you feel good right now, it is good, just let us have your liberty. Guy McClung

  • RufusChoate

    The use of implantation as the start of pregnancy and justification for the action of “birth control” and the limitation of what is determined to be abortion or abortifacient is a very recent alteration and is simple sophistry that fools only those who wish to be deceived.

MENU