C
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bishops Conferences Admit to Approving Abortifacient Drugs for Rape at Catholic Hospitals
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
1 Corinthians 14:8And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?
C
childofmary1143
Guest
Is there another thread discussing this???
M
manualman
Guest
Careful, this is not a knee jerk issue as it might appear to be.
Rape victims are entitled to defend themselves against their agressor. If the best of medical science indicates that a victim has NOT ovulated yet after the rape AND a pill is available that medical science determines will most likely suppress that ovulation long enough for the aggrressor’s sperm to die off, then that is NOT abortion, nor is it a violation on church teaching about contraception (which fundamentally presumes the couple are married).
The fact that there might be residual risk of a failure in the ovulation test or a failure to suppress ovulation no more makes the doctor or victim of the rape guilty of murder than a mother who puts her kids in the car to go to the grocery store knowing that there is a VERY real risk that they will all die in a horrible car crash. It might be admirable or even heroic for a parent to carefully scrutinize the need for EVERY car trip with kids in it, but it is by no means morally required!
Rape victims are entitled to defend themselves against their agressor. If the best of medical science indicates that a victim has NOT ovulated yet after the rape AND a pill is available that medical science determines will most likely suppress that ovulation long enough for the aggrressor’s sperm to die off, then that is NOT abortion, nor is it a violation on church teaching about contraception (which fundamentally presumes the couple are married).
The fact that there might be residual risk of a failure in the ovulation test or a failure to suppress ovulation no more makes the doctor or victim of the rape guilty of murder than a mother who puts her kids in the car to go to the grocery store knowing that there is a VERY real risk that they will all die in a horrible car crash. It might be admirable or even heroic for a parent to carefully scrutinize the need for EVERY car trip with kids in it, but it is by no means morally required!
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
OK, here’s the problem with this, as I understand it.
If a woman takes the RU486, after a rape, there is no guarantee that she is not already pregnant. The French doctor who invented RU486 stated way back, when France began using it, that if a woman takes the RU486 too late and discovers she is pregnant, she should then have a surgical abortion, because there is a strong chance that the pill will cause deformity in the developing fetus.
Jim
If a woman takes the RU486, after a rape, there is no guarantee that she is not already pregnant. The French doctor who invented RU486 stated way back, when France began using it, that if a woman takes the RU486 too late and discovers she is pregnant, she should then have a surgical abortion, because there is a strong chance that the pill will cause deformity in the developing fetus.
Jim
L
littlepaperstar
Guest
hmmm, they say that it’s not true, that it won’t cause deformity. Maybe back then it did?OK, here’s the problem with this, as I understand it.
If a woman takes the RU486, after a rape, there is no guarantee that she is not already pregnant. The French doctor who invented RU486 stated way back, when France began using it, that if a woman takes the RU486 too late and discovers she is pregnant, she should then have a surgical abortion, because there is a strong chance that the pill will cause deformity in the developing fetus.
Jim
R
Rach620
Guest
I wasn’t aware of this. I thought that emergency contraception was never allowed, because there was the potential of the always objectively evil act of killing the fertilized egg.Rape victims are entitled to defend themselves against their agressor. If the best of medical science indicates that a victim has NOT ovulated yet after the rape AND a pill is available that medical science determines will most likely suppress that ovulation long enough for the aggrressor’s sperm to die off, then that is NOT abortion, nor is it a violation on church teaching about contraception (which fundamentally presumes the couple are married).
I knew that for a Catholic who has been raped, using spermicide etc. as a ‘defense’ against pregnancy was allowed, but it seems like it’s too tricky to be giving guidelines about using the morning after pill. I think that the general rule in Catholic hospitals should be that it is not allowed–as the article points out, the theologians just do not know the minutiae of the situation, and a blanket approval for Plan B for rape victims is a dangerous step down a slippery slope.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Pax tecum!OK, here’s the problem with this, as I understand it.
If a woman takes the RU486, after a rape, there is no guarantee that she is not already pregnant. The French doctor who invented RU486 stated way back, when France began using it, that if a woman takes the RU486 too late and discovers she is pregnant, she should then have a surgical abortion, because there is a strong chance that the pill will cause deformity in the developing fetus.
Jim
Jim, RU-486 is not the pill referred to in this article. Plan B is a completely different pill.
In Christ,
Rand
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
From what I remember, they asked the inventor of the RU486, if this could happen. He said, the decision was to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, so proceeding with an surgical abortion should not be a problem and should be done.hmmm, they say that it’s not true, that it won’t cause deformity. Maybe back then it did?
Jim
M
manualman
Guest
Yes, to clarify RU486 is NOT what we are talking about here. RU486 IS an abortion. The morning after pill is intended to SUPPRESS ovulation and prevent pregnancy.
As far as I know, obedient catholics are free to take either position on the use of this second kind of pill as long as all medical indications feasible indicate that the rape victim has NOT ovulated yet.
Be careful not to be more catholic than the pope, folks! Oversimplification to the point of callousness is convenient for armchair theologians like us, but not particularly helpful for those in difficult circumstances. This is a tough judgement call and best left to the bishops (not second guessed).
As far as I know, obedient catholics are free to take either position on the use of this second kind of pill as long as all medical indications feasible indicate that the rape victim has NOT ovulated yet.
Be careful not to be more catholic than the pope, folks! Oversimplification to the point of callousness is convenient for armchair theologians like us, but not particularly helpful for those in difficult circumstances. This is a tough judgement call and best left to the bishops (not second guessed).
R
Rach620
Guest
I agree, manualman. It’s really a very difficult issue, and I have wondered what I would do, as a young Catholic woman, in that situation.Be careful not to be more catholic than the pope, folks! Oversimplification to the point of callousness is convenient for armchair theologians like us, but not particularly helpful for those in difficult circumstances. This is a tough judgement call and best left to the bishops (not second guessed).
What we really need are good Catholic doctors who will care for women in this circumstance with the fullest knowledge of Catholic teaching…ie, who will actually try to determine if she has ovulated and operate from there, rather than forcing or not offering a medication which is permissible as a form of self-defense.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Note that the U.S. Bishops are in conflict with Cardinal Cormac Murphy’s new code of ethics for the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth.
The Cardinal wrote a letter to the hospital in March stating that a newly revised code would be produced and the hospital would abide by it.
The Cardinal discussed this matter with Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005, before he became pope.
**
The Cardinal wrote a letter to the hospital in March stating that a newly revised code would be produced and the hospital would abide by it.
A draft of the new code says that services will not be provided if they conflict with Catholic teaching regarding the value of life or sexual ethics. This includes provision of the morning-after pill (aka Plan B), amniocentesis to detect Down syndrome, and in vitro fertilization.There must be clarity that the hospital, being a Catholic hospital with a distinct vision of what is truly in the interest of human person, cannot offer it patients, non-Catholic or Catholic, the whole range of services routinely accepted by many in modern secular society as being in the patient’s best interest.
The Cardinal discussed this matter with Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005, before he became pope.
**
C
childofmary1143
Guest
renewamerica.us/columns/brown/070503
What stands out in that link is when Judie says this:
The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life condemns the morning-after pill and makes no exceptions for cases of rape treatment, whether or not conception/fertilization has occurred. The academy goes so far as to say that this pill represents a good example of the absolute unlawfulness of any drug that has the potential to be an abortive agent. The academy makes it perfectly clear that anyone who is an agent in the provision of this drug is morally responsible for the outcome. Apparently this warning has not been taken seriously by either the Connecticut or Wisconsin Catholic hierarchy.
I am very confused on this as I was told the following also:
A woman who is raped is a victim of violence, and she is not required to ‘give of herself’ or be open to life when someone has attacked her and used her body without consent. It’s not really sex at all. Rape is about violence and control not about sex. It’s totally different than consensual and especially married sex where the spouses are to give of themselves for the other’s benefit in accordance with God’s co creative plan. In a rape situation none of this applies. Offering women Plan B under these circumstances helps to prevent fertilization or implantation and under the principal of double effect what is intended is not to abort a baby, but to prevent the woman from bearing the burden of another person using and exploiting her human nature as a woman, and her fertility which she has no control of.
I think this article misses the mark when it goes on explaining the efficacy of Plan B, but it fails to recognize that there ARE and have always been circumstances where the Church recognizes that there may be sufficient reason to risk causing the death of a human fetus i.e. ectopic pregnancy. This falls under the principal of double effect also where the intention is to save the mothers life by removing a fallopian tube where a fetus is lodged thereby endangering the mother’s life. In removing the tube where the fetus is, the mother’s life is saved and the fetus, as a consequence of removing the tube, dies.
What stands out in that link is when Judie says this:
The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life condemns the morning-after pill and makes no exceptions for cases of rape treatment, whether or not conception/fertilization has occurred. The academy goes so far as to say that this pill represents a good example of the absolute unlawfulness of any drug that has the potential to be an abortive agent. The academy makes it perfectly clear that anyone who is an agent in the provision of this drug is morally responsible for the outcome. Apparently this warning has not been taken seriously by either the Connecticut or Wisconsin Catholic hierarchy.
I am very confused on this as I was told the following also:
A woman who is raped is a victim of violence, and she is not required to ‘give of herself’ or be open to life when someone has attacked her and used her body without consent. It’s not really sex at all. Rape is about violence and control not about sex. It’s totally different than consensual and especially married sex where the spouses are to give of themselves for the other’s benefit in accordance with God’s co creative plan. In a rape situation none of this applies. Offering women Plan B under these circumstances helps to prevent fertilization or implantation and under the principal of double effect what is intended is not to abort a baby, but to prevent the woman from bearing the burden of another person using and exploiting her human nature as a woman, and her fertility which she has no control of.
I think this article misses the mark when it goes on explaining the efficacy of Plan B, but it fails to recognize that there ARE and have always been circumstances where the Church recognizes that there may be sufficient reason to risk causing the death of a human fetus i.e. ectopic pregnancy. This falls under the principal of double effect also where the intention is to save the mothers life by removing a fallopian tube where a fetus is lodged thereby endangering the mother’s life. In removing the tube where the fetus is, the mother’s life is saved and the fetus, as a consequence of removing the tube, dies.
M
manualman
Guest
The crux of the issue is knowing how exactly the Plan B pill works. Does it almost always provide its function by suppressing ovulation, or does it often fail to suppress ovulation and effectively kill the young child via uterine wall changes.
The answer to this medical question is crucial to deciding the answer to the moral question. And I’m NOT totally sute medical science can answer it confidently. Sadly, the reason is probably that current medical science doesn’t care about the distinction!
And we no longer seem to have enough of a catholic culture in this world to put together our own resources to determine the answer. sigh.
The answer to this medical question is crucial to deciding the answer to the moral question. And I’m NOT totally sute medical science can answer it confidently. Sadly, the reason is probably that current medical science doesn’t care about the distinction!
And we no longer seem to have enough of a catholic culture in this world to put together our own resources to determine the answer. sigh.
S
seekerz
Guest
You are so right about that. We do need our own resources that are truly Catholic and abide by Church teachings. In the absence of that we need to reach out to the secular professionals and get them on our side. We also need to do something about the loud, knee-jerk Catholics who know they already have the answer to every difficult question because they turn people off who really need help and they frustrate the genuine search for truth.And we no longer seem to have enough of a catholic culture in this world to put together our own resources to determine the answer. sigh.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.