Boston, Dec. 16, 2008 (CWNews.com) - A young woman calls a hospital emergency room, to ask if the staff will dispense an abortifacient pill to a rape victim. The response: “No, we don’t do that, you know we’re a Catholic hospital.”
That, according to the Boston Globe, was “an illegal answer.”
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60261The Globe explains that under Massachusetts law, all hospitals are required to provide the “morning-after” pill on request to women who report that they have been raped. To test compliance with the law, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts had someone call 70 emergency rooms around the state, to ask if the pill was available. It was, in 68 cases. But two hospitals-- both affiliates of the Caritas Christi Health Care chain which is operated by the Boston archdiocese-- said they would not furnish the pill. So the Globe story carried the headline: “In survey, Caritas hospitals gave illegal answer.”
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!Emergency contraception is not RU-486. It usually acts by preventing a pregnancy through preventing ovulation and killing sperm. There is a possibility it may reduce the chance of implantation, but the intent is not to abort but prevent pregnancy. There is nothing morally wrong with a woman who has been raped taking measures to prevent conception as long as the intent is not abortion.
Plan B is the drug used for emergency contraception. It does not kill sperm, but it acts in 3 different ways depending on when the woman takes it in relation to her monthly cycle. 1) It can stop ovulation, if the woman hasn’t ovulated yet. 2) It can change the viscosity of the cervical mucus and prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. 3) It can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.Emergency contraception is not RU-486. It usually acts by preventing a pregnancy through preventing ovulation and killing sperm. There is a possibility it may reduce the chance of implantation, but the intent is not to abort but prevent pregnancy. There is nothing morally wrong with a woman who has been raped taking measures to prevent conception as long as the intent is not abortion.
What a great way to support your argument.WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
The bishops in CT for example have stated that as long as a woman tests negative for pregnancy she can take this to prevent conception even though there is a risk it could prevent implantation. The point is to prevent ovulation and conception not to cause an abortion. This would be no different than a woman taking birth control pills for endometriosis with the result being temporary infertility. Since the intent is not contraception(but rather endometriosis treatment) it’s morally acceptable. The intent with plan b for rape victims is to prevent conception(which is morally acceptable in the case of rape) not abortion. There are many different medications that can affect fertility and cause early miscarriages, but it’s only morally wrong to take with the intent of causing an abortion. Of course if a woman wants to forego any treatment out of fear of miscarriage/abortion that is her choice.Plan B is the drug used for emergency contraception. It does not kill sperm, but it acts in 3 different ways depending on when the woman takes it in relation to her monthly cycle. 1) It can stop ovulation, if the woman hasn’t ovulated yet. 2) It can change the viscosity of the cervical mucus and prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. 3) It can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
Since life begins at conception (not at implantation), the third method (preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb) is interceptive and is thus unacceptable. The recent document issued by the CDF *Dignitas Personae *discusses interceptive methods of birth control in paragraph 23.
usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/
Since Plan B has interceptive activity, I don’t see how one can justify using it, even in a rape case, unless one were sure that fertilization had not taken place. And if you cannot determine if fertilization has occurred, you should error on the side of life.
Read paragraph #23 of Dignitas Personae.The bishops in CT for example have stated that as long as a woman tests negative for pregnancy she can take this to prevent conception even though there is a risk it could prevent implantation. The point is to prevent ovulation and conception not to cause an abortion. This would be no different than a woman taking birth control pills for endometriosis with the result being temporary infertility. Since the intent is not contraception(but rather endometriosis treatment) it’s morally acceptable. The intent with plan b for rape victims is to prevent conception(which is morally acceptable in the case of rape) not abortion. There are many different medications that can affect fertility and cause early miscarriages, but it’s only morally wrong to take with the intent of causing an abortion. Of course if a woman wants to forego any treatment out of fear of miscarriage/abortion that is her choice.
Wrong again.The bishops in CT for example have stated that as long as a woman tests negative for pregnancy she can take this to prevent conception even though there is a risk it could prevent implantation. The point is to prevent ovulation and conception not to cause an abortion. This would be no different than a woman taking birth control pills for endometriosis with the result being temporary infertility. Since the intent is not contraception(but rather endometriosis treatment) it’s morally acceptable. The intent with plan b for rape victims is to prevent conception(which is morally acceptable in the case of rape) not abortion. There are many different medications that can affect fertility and cause early miscarriages, but it’s only morally wrong to take with the intent of causing an abortion. Of course if a woman wants to forego any treatment out of fear of miscarriage/abortion that is her choice.
I was unawhare I needed to say much more. You are wrong. In fact, you are flat out wrong.What a great way to support your argument.
Yes. The Church’s teachings against artificial contraception in Humanae Vitae, apply to sex only within marriage.What about using a spermicide/douching in the case of a rape? Does the Church allow this?
Most Catholics would instinctively “feel” that in the event of rape, a woman would be justified in taking reasonable steps to prevent the attacker’s sperm from fertilizing one of her eggs, and in this case most Catholics would be correct. Certainly she must avoid intending to kill a newly formed child if he is present, and she must avoid any techniques which are designed to kill a child unless she can be reasonably certain that no child is present. But she is perfectly justified in attempting to prevent conception, by a thorough flushing or any other genuinely contraceptive means. It is only those Catholics who have gotten the Church’s natural law teaching wrong who fall into the contrary mental trap.
The point is to prevent ovulation and conception not to cause an abortion. QUOTE]
If you are not ovulating, then you won’t get pregnant & you don’t need a pill to prevent ovulation.
If the women has not yet ovulated, then chances are she is not in fertile period & would not get pregnant anyway. Therefore, there would be no need to take the pill, except to act as a placebo for emotional reasons. Therefore, the bishops’ “loophole” for emergency contraception makes absolutely no sense.Wrong again.
The Bishops of CT have said that emergency contraception might be permissable if test show the woman has not yet ovulated. In such a case, the drug would prevent ovulation. If the woman had already ovulated, there is a chance that conception has taken place and the drugs action would be abortifacient and unacceptable.
Hi taylor,The intent with plan b for rape victims is to prevent conception(which is morally acceptable in the case of rape) not abortion. There are many different medications that can affect fertility and cause early miscarriages, but it’s only morally wrong to take with the intent of causing an abortion. Of course if a woman wants to forego any treatment out of fear of miscarriage/abortion that is her choice.
The “chances” of a rape resulting in pregnancy are incredibly small anyway. It isn’t about playing the odds. Sperm can survive for days in the reproductive tract. By preventing ovulation, you prevent a possible pregnancy. This is light years away, ethically and moraly, from taking a drug to effect an early abortion.If the women has not yet ovulated, then chances are she is not in fertile period & would not get pregnant anyway. Therefore, there would be no need to take the pill, except to act as a placebo for emotional reasons. Therefore, the bishops’ “loophole” for emergency contraception makes absolutely no sense.