Abortion in the case of rape AND the life of the mother

[markomalley]

The “morning after” pill is not at minimum, not primarily an abortifacient, and possible not one at all. The scientific evidence conflicts.

Women can only possibly become pregnant following ovulation. Until ovulation occurs, pregnancy is simply impossible. There is approximately a three day window during which pregnancy is possibly, including a short time before ovulation when sperm are still viable to fertilize an egg. The morning after pill primarily blocks ovulation from occurring, and blocks the sperm from entering the egg if ovulation has occurred. Thus no conception occurs. No conception = no child = no abortion.

There is conflicting evidence as to whether oral contraception administered after intercourse could interfere with a fertilized egg, a child, from implanted. The evidence at worse, shows a slight increase over the rate of spontaneous miscarriage (where a child dies prematurely of natural causes ) Other studies have shown no difference whatsoever. In any case, there is no difference between “morning after” and “regular” contraceptive use.

Contraception is taught definitively by the Holy Catholic Church to be immoral for all persons; its immorality however is distinct from the immorality of abortion. There is a small exception in the case of rape, where a Catholic hospital may offer emergency contraception if tests show ovulation has not occurred, and this is because of the potential slight increase of harm to an undetected fetus.

Even if this increased risk were true, it would be grossly inaccurate to classify all use of emergency contraception as a procurement of an abortion or as morally equivalent to abortion.

If you take a look at the “mechanisms of action” for ANY, ANY hormonal contraceptive, be it oral, implants (e.g., Norplant), injection (e.g., Depo-Provera), or emergency contraceptive (e.g., “Plan B”), there are always three mechanisms of action listed:

1. The med inhibits ovulation
2. The med causes thickening of cervical mucous which inhibits transport of sperm to the ovum
3. They make changes to the endometrium (thinning of the uterine wall) which inhibit implantation.

I defy you to show me a hormonal contraceptive that does not state (in the manufacturer’s own technical literature) that it uses those mechanisms of action.

Here are some samples:
Depo-Provera

Depo-Provera CI (medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA]), when administered at the recommended dose to women every 3 months, inhibits the secretion of gonadotropins which, in turn, prevents follicular maturation and ovulation** and results in endometrial thinning**. These actions produce its contraceptive effect.

Nexplanon (implant)

The contraceptive effect of Nexplanon is achieved by suppression of ovulation, increased viscosity of the cervical mucus, and alterations in the endometrium.

Yasmin

Contraceptive, systemic— Drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol act to suppress gonadatropins. This is achieved through inhibition of ovulation and alterations to both the cervical mucus and the endometrium.

Plan B One Step

Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step (levonorgestrel tablet) is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

Mechanism #3 is what makes hormonal contraception abortifacient. I defy you to find a sample that, in its professional literature (not the stuff they hand out to patients) that does not discuss this alteration of the endometrium.

(Note: I am not claiming that #3 is the primary mechanism…therefore, it would be irresponsible to say that a woman who takes EC has definitively aborted her baby. A baby may not have been conceived. However, by design, these drugs encourage the expulsion of a blastocyst prior to he/she being implanted in his/her mother’s womb. That much is undeniable, unless you choose to totally ignore the professional literature on these meds)

 

[Miserissima]

THIS is why all women, not just Catholic women, need to understand their menstrual cycle.

A simple blood test, called the LH:FSH RATIO can be requested at the time a rape kit is done…or at any Dr. visit. This test confirms whether or not ovulation has taken place by comparing the Luteinizing Hormone (LH) with the Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH).

Results are available in three hours at the ER (on average) or 24 hours at the primary physicians or OB/Gyn’s office. If neither option is available, PP has same day results.

If ovulation has not taken place, then a woman may use “Plan B” as a defensive measure per the USCCB and the Pope Paul VI Institute. If ovulation has taken place, she may not use an abortifacent.

 

[Prodigirl]

“Women can only possibly become pregnant following ovulation. Until ovulation occurs, pregnancy is simply impossible. There is approximately a three day window during which pregnancy is possibly, including a short time before ovulation when sperm are still viable to fertilize an egg.” ~ runningdude

“Inside a woman’s body, sperm can live for up to five days depending on the conditions. If you have unprotected sex even a few days before your partner ovulates, there is a chance of achieving a pregnancy.” ~ webmd

The window is larger than you might think. Just sayin’.

 

[minkymurph]

The “morning after” pill is not at minimum, not primarily an abortifacient, and possible not one at all. The scientific evidence conflicts.

Women can only possibly become pregnant following ovulation. Until ovulation occurs, pregnancy is simply impossible. There is approximately a three day window during which pregnancy is possibly, including a short time before ovulation when sperm are still viable to fertilize an egg. The morning after pill primarily blocks ovulation from occurring, and blocks the sperm from entering the egg if ovulation has occurred. Thus no conception occurs. No conception = no child = no abortion.

There is conflicting evidence as to whether oral contraception administered after intercourse could interfere with a fertilized egg, a child, from implanted. The evidence at worse, shows a slight increase over the rate of spontaneous miscarriage (where a child dies prematurely of natural causes ) Other studies have shown no difference whatsoever. In any case, there is no difference between “morning after” and “regular” contraceptive use.

Contraception is taught definitively by the Holy Catholic Church to be immoral for all persons; its immorality however is distinct from the immorality of abortion. There is a small exception in the case of rape, where a Catholic hospital may offer emergency contraception if tests show ovulation has not occurred, and this is because of the potential slight increase of harm to an undetected fetus.

Even if this increased risk were true, it would be grossly inaccurate to classify all use of emergency contraception as a procurement of an abortion or as morally equivalent to abortion.

That you for this information runningdude. If you are saying taking the morning after pill as a consequence of rape does not constitute an abortion, then I would say the rape argument can be removed from the equation, but add what you say further enforces the necessity of reporting rape.

 

[Prodigirl]

One more take:

“Women can only possibly become pregnant following ovulation. Until ovulation occurs, pregnancy is simply impossible.”

Ovulation for many women is NOT like clockwork. Many women suffer endocrine or other problems that disallow any predictability in ovulation. Conditions include:

A hormone imbalance
A tumor or cyst
Eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia
Alcohol or drug use
Thyroid gland problems
Excess weight
Stress
Intense exercise that causes a significant loss of body fat
Extremely brief menstrual cycles

This subject is not cut and dried.

 

[Hans_W]

Nope I am saying that the woman will suffer, yet the child is a person created by God. So since God created that person in her womb then he must know about her suffering as well.
…

Milasol, I am still trying to get my head around your question in post #61:

“If God didn’t want the woman to suffer, why did He create that child?”

I cannot imagine God “wanting” us to suffer. I think that pain and suffering has two causes: Firstly the laws of nature. Earthquakes cause suffering and death. They in turn are caused by continental plates moving, and without continental plates there would be no life. I don’t think that God wanted my friend’s 12-year old daughter to die of leukemia – that’s caused by the laws of physics and chemistry. Again, without those laws life wouldn’t have developed into that magnificent diversity we see around us.

Secondly, God gave us free will. That’s why there is so much pain and suffering in the Middle East at the moment. That’s why a 9-year old child gets raped by her stepfather. The reason why she got pregnant is biological, not because ”God wants her to suffer”.

Now, our function as God’s children is to minimize pain and suffering. I have no sympathy for a woman who wants to get rid of her baby because it doesn’t fit her lifestyle. But every normal person, Christian and non-Christian, will be moved by the trauma, the anguish and pain of a woman who was raped.

Let’s get back to the case under discussion here. You ask us to ignore the pain and suffering, physical and psychological, of this 9-year old child. She just needs to endure her ordeal because “God wants her to suffer”.

But let’s move on. Two doctors, themselves Catholics, diagnosed her situation as life-threatening. Her pelvis is too small (not surprising with 35 kg), her uterus is likely to rupture – in short, her life is in danger. What do you suggest, since abortion is out of question? Keep her in hospital for the next few months and treat her like a breading machine? Keep her alive, then cut the twins out, just before her uterus ruptures? If she doesn’t survive – well, bad luck. But we have done our duty.

 

[Rau]

…
But let’s move on. Two doctors, themselves Catholics, diagnosed her situation as life-threatening. Her pelvis is too small (not surprising with 35 kg), her uterus is likely to rupture – in short, her life is in danger. What do you suggest, since abortion is out of question? Keep her in hospital for the next few months and treat her like a breading machine? Keep her alive, then cut the twins out, just before her uterus ruptures? If she doesn’t survive – well, bad luck. But we have done our duty.

Hans, the circumstances of the mother are tragic and well understood. She is an innocent. She is a patient of the doctors. The circumstances of the baby are tragic and well understood. S/he is an innocent. S/he is a patient of the doctors. Do you agree that both have a right not to be murdered? The same right? Do you agree that the medical prognosis of one does not alter that right?

 

[Milasol]

Milasol, I am still trying to get my head around your question in post #61:

“If God didn’t want the woman to suffer, why did He create that child?”

I cannot imagine God “wanting” us to suffer. I think that pain and suffering has two causes: Firstly the laws of nature. Earthquakes cause suffering and death. They in turn are caused by continental plates moving, and without continental plates there would be no life. I don’t think that God wanted my friend’s 12-year old daughter to die of leukemia – that’s caused by the laws of physics and chemistry. Again, without those laws life wouldn’t have developed into that magnificent diversity we see around us.

Secondly, God gave us free will. That’s why there is so much pain and suffering in the Middle East at the moment. That’s why a 9-year old child gets raped by her stepfather. The reason why she got pregnant is biological, not because ”God wants her to suffer”.

Now, our function as God’s children is to minimize pain and suffering. I have no sympathy for a woman who wants to get rid of her baby because it doesn’t fit her lifestyle. But every normal person, Christian and non-Christian, will be moved by the trauma, the anguish and pain of a woman who was raped.

Let’s get back to the case under discussion here. You ask us to ignore the pain and suffering, physical and psychological, of this 9-year old child. She just needs to endure her ordeal because “God wants her to suffer”.

But let’s move on. Two doctors, themselves Catholics, diagnosed her situation as life-threatening. Her pelvis is too small (not surprising with 35 kg), her uterus is likely to rupture – in short, her life is in danger. What do you suggest, since abortion is out of question? Keep her in hospital for the next few months and treat her like a breading machine? Keep her alive, then cut the twins out, just before her uterus ruptures? If she doesn’t survive – well, bad luck. But we have done our duty.

I have answered your question yet you haven’t answered whether or not the life of the young girl is more valuable than the life of the baby to God.

 

[Milasol]

Milasol, I am still trying to get my head around your question in post #61:

“If God didn’t want the woman to suffer, why did He create that child?”

I cannot imagine God “wanting” us to suffer. I think that pain and suffering has two causes: Firstly the laws of nature. Earthquakes cause suffering and death. They in turn are caused by continental plates moving, and without continental plates there would be no life. I don’t think that God wanted my friend’s 12-year old daughter to die of leukemia – that’s caused by the laws of physics and chemistry. Again, without those laws life wouldn’t have developed into that magnificent diversity we see around us.

Secondly, God gave us free will. That’s why there is so much pain and suffering in the Middle East at the moment. That’s why a 9-year old child gets raped by her stepfather. The reason why she got pregnant is biological, not because ”God wants her to suffer”.

Now, our function as God’s children is to minimize pain and suffering. I have no sympathy for a woman who wants to get rid of her baby because it doesn’t fit her lifestyle. But every normal person, Christian and non-Christian, will be moved by the trauma, the anguish and pain of a woman who was raped.

Let’s get back to the case under discussion here. You ask us to ignore the pain and suffering, physical and psychological, of this 9-year old child. She just needs to endure her ordeal because “God wants her to suffer”.

But let’s move on. Two doctors, themselves Catholics, diagnosed her situation as life-threatening. Her pelvis is too small (not surprising with 35 kg), her uterus is likely to rupture – in short, her life is in danger. What do you suggest, since abortion is out of question? Keep her in hospital for the next few months and treat her like a breading machine? Keep her alive, then cut the twins out, just before her uterus ruptures? If she doesn’t survive – well, bad luck. But we have done our duty.

I just read your post again. Unreal that some even have the audacity to try and frame the abortion debate with the esoteric almost non-existent case.

Explain 56 million deaths then.

Your problem is that deep down inside you don’t believe the baby is a life. Otherwise you will never think that killing a life, under any circumstances, is not a problem.

I know many try to bring in the typical rape incest danger to the mother type of scenario. Guess what? You shall not kill. Learn that commandment.

So now let me ask you, how do you think the baby should be killed in the case you presented? Saline? Vacuum? Arms first? You know those vacuums usually are pretty small and limbs would get stuck. Saline solution burns badly. How do you think the child should die? Do you at least support anesthesia for the baby? Actually perish your thought it is not even an option in most, if not all, cases.

Again, can you explain the 56 million deaths so far in this country plez
Can you also tell me if God thinks the life of the baby is less valuable than that of the mother?

 

[LoganBice]

I just read your post again. Unreal that some even have the audacity to try and frame the abortion debate with the esoteric almost non-existent case.

Explain 56 million deaths.

Your problem is that deep down inside you don’t believe the baby is a life. Otherwise you will never think that killing a life, under any circumstances, is a problem.

I know many try to bring in the typical rape incest danger to the mother type of scenario. Guess what? You shall not kill. Learn that commandment.

So now let me ask you, how do you think the baby should be killed in the case you presented? Saline? Vacuum? Arms first? You know those vacuums usually are pretty small and limbs would get stuck. How do you think the child should die?

Again, can you explain the 56 million deaths so far in this country plez
Can you also tell me if God thinks the life of the baby is less valuable than that of the mother?

This is absolutely correct! Instead of defending the entirety of abortion based of a very rare case we need to eliminate abortion and then deal with these very rare cases when they happen. This “well what if” mentality dosnt do justice to the massive atrocities that our being commited. That’s like saying we should gun down every single illegal crossing the border because one if them might be a cartel member.

 

[davidv]

Hans W. was originally referring to the horrendous rape of a 9 year old child. O.k, physically the poor lamb was able to conceive, but mentally and emotionally she was a little girl - a cruelly abused little girl.
Surely no-one could possibly believe that our priority should be other than to try to save her sanity and that of all other young victims, whose innocent lives are violated in such a terrible way.
Perhaps those who are so vehement in their ‘umbrella assumption’ of the evil of all abortion should consider that each situation is different and temper their judgement with mercy.

God bless you.

Did the child in her womb rape her? What crime did the child commit that deserves the death penalty.

Those who so vehemently justifying the murder of an innocent child should consider the danger to their immortal soul.

 

[runningdude]

If you take a look at the “mechanisms of action” for ANY, ANY hormonal contraceptive, be it oral, implants (e.g., Norplant), injection (e.g., Depo-Provera), or emergency contraceptive (e.g., “Plan B”), there are always three mechanisms of action listed:

1. The med inhibits ovulation
2. The med causes thickening of cervical mucous which inhibits transport of sperm to the ovum
3. They make changes to the endometrium (thinning of the uterine wall) which inhibit implantation.

I defy you to show me a hormonal contraceptive that does not state (in the manufacturer’s own technical literature) that it uses those mechanisms of action.

Here are some samples:
Depo-Provera

Depo-Provera CI (medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA]), when administered at the recommended dose to women every 3 months, inhibits the secretion of gonadotropins which, in turn, prevents follicular maturation and ovulation** and results in endometrial thinning**. These actions produce its contraceptive effect.

Nexplanon (implant)

The contraceptive effect of Nexplanon is achieved by suppression of ovulation, increased viscosity of the cervical mucus, and alterations in the endometrium.

Yasmin

Contraceptive, systemic— Drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol act to suppress gonadatropins. This is achieved through inhibition of ovulation and alterations to both the cervical mucus and the endometrium.

Plan B One Step

Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if a woman is already pregnant. Plan B One-Step (levonorgestrel tablet) is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

Mechanism #3 is what makes hormonal contraception abortifacient. I defy you to find a sample that, in its professional literature (not the stuff they hand out to patients) that does not discuss this alteration of the endometrium.

(Note: I am not claiming that #3 is the primary mechanism…therefore, it would be irresponsible to say that a woman who takes EC has definitively aborted her baby. A baby may not have been conceived. However, by design, these drugs encourage the expulsion of a blastocyst prior to he/she being implanted in his/her mother’s womb. That much is undeniable, unless you choose to totally ignore the professional literature on these meds)

You are correct to point out that some contraceptives do more clearly target the blocking of implantation.

I did not clearly state that my comments were limited to the particular class of hormonal contraception used in “Plan B” brand emergency contraceptives. Plan B is a “Progestin” (artificial estrogen) based contraceptive. There is conflicting evidence as to whether this class of contraceptive could block implantation.

Non-Progestin based contraceptives pose a much clearer danger to an unborn children. The recently approved “ella” brand emergency contraceptive is “progesterone” based, which is a class that is dangerous to a fertilized fetus’ ability to implant. (source:ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html)

That you for this information runningdude. If you are saying taking the morning after pill as a consequence of rape does not constitute an abortion, then I would say the rape argument can be removed from the equation, but add what you say further enforces the necessity of reporting rape.

In addition to my general warning above, I do wish to emphasize that the Catholic Church teaches that all contraceptives (condoms, “the pill”, etc) are immoral. The limited exception is in the case of rape, where current practice is that “Plan B” or its equivalent may be lawfully administered when conception is already unlike (before ovulation is known to occur). Contraception is immoral independently of abortion, although the two sins are closely related.

For those struggling experiencing urgent issues regarding contraceptives and with discerning the best course of action, I can only recommend having an honest conversation with one’s doctor and priest to understand both the physical and moral issues. The National Catholic Bioethics Center (ncbcenter.org/) may be able to help provide resources to both doctor and priest in understanding the grave issues involved.

 

[Hans_W]

I have answered your question yet you haven’t answered whether or not the life of the young girl is more valuable than the life of the baby to God.

Well, if I was a physician and have to make an either/or decision on two unborn lives, I would choose the most viable one to survive.

If I had to choose between letting the already-born human or the not-yet-born foetus survive, I would opt for the already-born, fully formed human. That would be an either/or answer. I would also take the physical and psychological health of the mother into account and her future.

Your blind, fanatical, no-matter-what attitude in defence of the unborn reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene”: The function of a gene is to get replicated and pass on its DNA to the next generation. Once that’s done the previous generation becomes dispensable. Dawkins attributes the apparent cruelty we see in nature to blind physical forces. You, on the other hand, have to come up with the most silly explanation: God creates new life because He wants the mother to suffer (your post #69).

 

[Hans_W]

I am not going to waste my time arguing with irrational people.

The majority of us Catholics is against abortion. No question.

A healthy majority of Catholics is in favor of exceptions to this law, especially in cases of rape and incest. That would be a worthwhile discussion, looking at the physical and emotional implications of forced motherhood.

However, only a tiny minority of Catholics (hopefully less than 1%) of the most militant and fanatical ilk will deny an abortion in such extreme cases as we have been discussing.

 

[Rau]

Your blind, fanatical, no-matter-what attitude in defence of the unborn reminds…

I note your interlocutor made a strange remark about God wanting anyone to suffer. But I think the “blind, fanatical, no-matter-what attitude” is in defense of all “life”, not just the unborn. It is the other side of the debate that wants to make a choice.

 

[Rau]

I am not going to waste my time arguing with irrational people.

The majority of us Catholics is against abortion. No question.

A healthy majority of Catholics is in favor of exceptions to this law, especially in cases of rape and incest. That would be a worthwhile discussion, looking at the physical and emotional implications of forced motherhood.

However, only a tiny minority of Catholics (hopefully less than 1%) of the most militant and fanatical ilk will deny an abortion in such extreme cases as we have been discussing.

Rape is horrible, but why does it justify killing the baby? Do you see no alternative to that course?

 

[Emily2014]

Did the child in her womb rape her? What crime did the child commit that deserves the death penalty.

Those who so vehemently justifying the murder of an innocent child should consider the danger to their immortal soul.

Honestly this is one of the most ridiculous posts I’ve read. Think about that 9 year old child and ask what you believe Jesus would want for her.

 

[Milasol]

Well, if I was a physician and have to make an either/or decision on two unborn lives, I would choose the most viable one to survive.

If I had to choose between letting the already-born human or the not-yet-born foetus survive, I would opt for the already-born, fully formed human. That would be an either/or answer. I would also take the physical and psychological health of the mother into account and her future.

Your blind, fanatical, no-matter-what attitude in defence of the unborn reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene”: The function of a gene is to get replicated and pass on its DNA to the next generation. Once that’s done the previous generation becomes dispensable. Dawkins attributes the apparent cruelty we see in nature to blind physical forces. You, on the other hand, have to come up with the most silly explanation: God creates new life because He wants the mother to suffer (your post #69).

So now you resort to insults?

So who is more fanatical and irrational?

The one who tries to convey other people that abortion is ok because an almost non-existent case and forgets that abortion has killed 56 million human beings already?

56 million and counting…

 

[Milasol]

Honestly this is one of the most ridiculous posts I’ve read. Think about that 9 year old child and ask what you believe Jesus would want for her.

Have you thought about what Jesus wants for the baby?

 

[Milasol]

56 million and counting and some here would bring in an almost non-existent case…

God help us all.