Medicine vs. philosophy
Published: Monday, Jan. 28, 2013, 8:59 p.m.
Obstetrician/gynecologist Rachel B. Rapkin did quite a sleight-of-hand giving us some razzle-dazzle in her letter “Contraception confusion” (Jan. 24 and TribLIVE.com) regarding emergency contraception.
She first deals with supposed confusion of “emergency contraception with medication abortion.” She is probably following the World Health Organization, Department of Health and Human Services and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists standards that a pregnancy does not exist until the fertilized ovum implants in the uterus. Thus, an abortion only occurs with uterine implantation of the fertilized ovum.
Dr. Rapkin follows this standard correctly, stating: “Once a pregnancy has occurred, emergency contraception does not work” — but only if you espouse her belief in the definition of what a pregnancy is, something that has nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with the philosophical perspective of when human life begins.
The good doctor further discredits her philosophical argument by stating: “There are no circumstances in which emergency contraception causes an abortion.” You might be able to do your philosophical tricks with medical students, Dr. Rapkin, but not with those of us trained in philosophy.
The Rev. James
The writer is a Catholic priest serving Transfiguration Parish.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Open more public land to hunting
- Pipeline & pols
- Deserve, don’t demand
- Keep state stores
- ACA deserves support
- Raise minimum wage
- Hunt where the deer are
- Handled it well
- Harming, not improving
- Shallow & uninformed
- Remember Pearl Harbor