contreception

[Podo2005]

I’m not the one who is calling “plan b after rape” an “abortion”. It’s not an abortion. To equate it to abortion, IMOHO, is utter nonsense. Plan B after rape is intended to prevent conception and prevent pregnancy, not abort.

If someoneA throws a punch at personB, and personA is forced to block the punch or risk incurring a broken jaw, and the personB breaks his arm because personA had a tool in his hand when he was forced to block, PersonA is not responsible for breaking the assailants arm. It’s the assailant’s responsiblity. Person A was protecting himself, and had no intention of breaking anyone’s arm. But Person B hit the tool as well as the blocking arm. It’s his fault for throwing the punch in the first place.

When a rapist is raping a woman, his semen is part of the assault and is an assailant as it is part of the rapist. The rape victim can choose to take plan B to further hinder the assault on her body by her rapist, including his semen. If she attempts to hinder ovulation in order to not get pregnant as a result of her rapist’s act of violence, she is not sinning. If there happens to be a 10 minute zygote that gets flushed out, that’s the rapist’s fault. Not hers. Her intent was not to abort a zygote. Her intent was to prevent conception. Just like the broken bone example above. A woman cannot just roll over and play dead whenever a man decides to forcibly hold her down and rapes her. I don’t accept that she must accept the semen as a parting gift. If a woman chooses to not take plan B that’s her choice, but if she wants to fight back and take plan b, that’s her perogative.

Few things come to mind here
Plan B is a form of contraception, so I agree with you there… however in the event that a zygote is flushed out then it is no longer contraception, but abortion since it is aborting the new pregnancy that has just occured… how can you possibly know whether or not an egg has or has not been fertilized?

And I don’t understand your analogy of person B fighting person A… are you comparing the zygote to a mere tool (an object??)

And noo, that 10 minute zygote being flushed out is in no way the fault of the rapist ( the fault of the rapist is the sin of rape) but the fault of the woman who took Plan B because had she not taken Plan B that unborn zygote would still be alive. I agree that a woman should not “roll over & play dead” ( I don’t see how sparing the life of an innocent unborn baby is rolling over & playing dead, how dare we catholics think of vengence against the innocent to compensate for the evil act of the rapist!), but why should the unborn baby have to suffer because of what happened to the mother? Shouldn’t more emphasis be placed on getting the rapist in jail (punishing the rapist) for the crime he commited instead of punishing the unborn zygote by denying him/her the right to life? Or rather shouldn’t we be focusing on taking care of the woman who was raped & taking care of her throughout her pregnancy so that the woman will not do something intrinsically evil?

 

[ThomasToo]

I find it hard to believe that a newly concieved zygote has the power to debate whether or not it wants to be in the womans womb… but this is what you seem to be implying. How is the zygote “forcibly” attaching itself to the woman? It seems to me that the zygote doesn’t really have a choice in the matter…

Of course it doesn’t have a choice but neither does the woman. I think that doing something to someone without giving him or her a choice–at least at my reading–constitutes ‘forcibly.’

And no I don’t see the parallel…in the first case the innocent zygote is murdered, in the 2nd case the person chooses not to help the dying violinist…a few questions come to my mind… 1) how is it that the person almost “magically” finds himself in this scenario 2) would there be anything wrong with the person giving his time to save the violinist? (John 15:13) 3) how do you know that that person is the ONLY person who can donate his blood? suppose this society hasn’t looked hard enough?

1. Kidnapped, I neglected to include that. My apologies
2. Not strictly speaking, regardless of any relevant Biblical citation. It’s also not required that one die in the course of this treatment simply that one must remain attached to the machine for 9 months.
3. Because that’s the parameters of the thought experiment. We could assume, for example, that this society includes a person who has access to computerized medical records.

Is the zygote murdered or not given those things that are needed for its life to continue (i.e. the ability to implant)? So too with the violinist; by the act of walking out of that room he or she will die as sure as if you shot him or her yourself.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’m sorry for the confusion. Please, if possible, accept the fact that you are being told the truth and that your life is not at risk from this procedure. This thought experiment was created by Judith Jarvis Thompson, professor of philosophy at M.I.T. so I’m not trying to blow smoke.

My next question was going to be nothing of the kind. If we assume that the violinist can get off the table and go about his or her life after nine months and so can you I want to know how you distinguish this case–with the two provisos I included above–from the case of a woman whose rapist gets her pregnant. Especially when she wants to use Plan B and keep the embryo from implanting in the first place. While both the embryo and the violinist can be said to have the right to life (though I do not grant this in the first case I am for this example) they do not, as you have implied, have the right to what is necessary for the continuation of life (e.g. use of someone else’s body for the better part of a year).

But no medical case is such a slam-dunk; there are always risks and probabilities. I can’t assume the certitude of the violinist’s recovery any more than I can assume the certitude of a woman’s recovery from a radical hysterectomy – even though her recovery chances are probably quite good.

The difference between the embryo and the violinist is this: the embryo has a right not just to life, but to sustenance it will receive from the mother to enable life. Even assuming the violinist’s recovery, there is no moral claim he can make on the body of another. If there were, one could argue that a dialysis patient could claim my kidney, or a leukemia patient could claim your bone marrow, etc.

The embryo is the epitome of the weak and defenseless; it is incapable of sustaining itself in any way whatsoever. Thus, as un-PC and harsh as it may seem, its mother has the responsibility of sustaining it even if she was impregnated against her will. Your hypothetical music preservers are able to recognize that it is immoral to force their kidnapped victim to do things against his will, and the violinist would too if he were conscious. The two situations are not analogous.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

But no medical case is such a slam-dunk; there are always risks and probabilities. I can’t assume the certitude of the violinist’s recovery any more than I can assume the certitude of a woman’s recovery from a radical hysterectomy – even though her recovery chances are probably quite good.

Fair enough I suppose but the chance of morbidity of a laparoscopic hysterectomy is about 1 in 1,000 which are, at least to me, good enough odds to be just about certain. So too, however, it is not 100% sure that an implanted zygote will be born alive.

The difference between the embryo and the violinist is this: the embryo has a right not just to life, but to sustenance it will receive from the mother to enable life. Even assuming the violinist’s recovery, there is no moral claim he can make on the body of another. If there were, one could argue that a dialysis patient could claim my kidney, or a leukemia patient could claim your bone marrow, etc.

I agree with the second half of this claim but how is it then that the embryo can claim the right to the use of the woman’s body?

The embryo is the epitome of the weak and defenseless; it is incapable of sustaining itself in any way whatsoever. Thus, as un-PC and harsh as it may seem, its mother has the responsibility of sustaining it even if she was impregnated against her will. Your hypothetical music preservers are able to recognize that it is immoral to force their kidnapped victim to do things against his will, and the violinist would too if he were conscious. The two situations are not analogous.

I don’t care about being PC so no need to worry about that but I vehemently disagree with you. I think that in the instance of rape at the very least–doubly so before implantation–that a woman has the right to protect herself against pregnancy. I don’t see how one given being can have the right to use of my body and another cannot (assuming as in this case that my body is the only one that can keep them alive). I think you actually said it (almost) best, ‘there is no moral claim [one] can make on the body of another.’

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I agree with the second half of this claim but how is it then that the embryo can claim the right to the use of the woman’s body?

The unborn child makes no cliam – it merely is entitled to its mother’s care. This is the nature of motherhood. It is a crying shame that humanity has come to see motherhood as an imposition – even a curse – upon women. It is an integral part of a woman’s nature, one that establishes a relationship with the child that no man can ever fully have: that of nurturer and life-giver. The unborn child is not “using” the woman’s body; it is a part of her and yet also a distinct person (let’s not debate the nature of personhood here). That a woman doesn’t WANT that relationship is completely immaterial – the relationship and its accompanying responsibilities merely ARE.

There simply is no analog between an unborn child and a rapist.

While I would never expect a rape victim to be happy about being impregnated by her attacker, to kill the child because one does not want to bear the offspring of a rapist is, at its heart, a greater injustice than the rape.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

The unborn child makes no cliam – it merely is entitled to its mother’s care. This is the nature of motherhood. It is a crying shame that humanity has come to see motherhood as an imposition – even a curse – upon women. It is an integral part of a woman’s nature, one that establishes a relationship with the child that no man can ever fully have: that of nurturer and life-giver. The unborn child is not “using” the woman’s body; it is a part of her and yet also a distinct person (let’s not debate the nature of personhood here). That a woman doesn’t WANT that relationship is completely immaterial – the relationship and its accompanying responsibilities merely ARE.

I apologize if I misunderstood but I thought you said the unborn child has a right to use of the woman’s body; I see that as a rights claim. I don’t think it’s fair to say the embryo is both part of a woman and not the same. If the embryo is part of the woman’s body then she has the right to remove it. If it’s not then I think it remains to be shown that this separate entity is entitled to use of someone else’s body even if that person is the only one who can keep him or her alive.

There simply is no analog between an unborn child and a rapist.

I’m sorry if I gave the indication there was. I think the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, however, are morally significant.

While I would never expect a rape victim to be happy about being impregnated by her attacker, to kill the child because one does not want to bear the offspring of a rapist is, at its heart, a greater injustice than the rape.

Peace,
Dante

I think there’s a morally significant distinction between preventing the zygote from implanting and a willful and deliberate killing. I think the former case is a deprivation of those things needed to sustain life (as would be unplugging oneself from the violinist’s machine) not murder.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I apologize if I misunderstood but I thought you said the unborn child has a right to use of the woman’s body; I see that as a rights claim. I don’t think it’s fair to say the embryo is both part of a woman and not the same. If the embryo is part of the woman’s body then she has the right to remove it. If it’s not then I think it remains to be shown that this separate entity is entitled to use of someone else’s body even if that person is the only one who can keep him or her alive.

Rights are not always things we claim; they are often denied, however. The unborn child does not claim its right to life; but it is often denied him/her.

I’m sorry if I gave the indication there was. I think the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, however, are morally significant.

The circumstances are significant when it comes to determining the mother’s culpability – which, in a rape, is zero. The conception, though a direct result of the rape, is the beginning of a new life, and that new life must be nurtured regardless of the circumstances of its beginning.

I think there’s a morally significant distinction between preventing the zygote from implanting and a willful and deliberate killing. I think the former case is a deprivation of those things needed to sustain life (as would be unplugging oneself from the violinist’s machine) not murder.

Deliberately taking a step that is intended to cause the end of a life is murder. Freeing oneself from an unjust bondage and, as a side effect, possibly ending someone’s life is not murder. The evil is in the act itself, not merely in its consequences; freeing oneself from bondage is not, in itself, immoral.

Additionally, since the circumstance you describe is unrealistic, I see no value in using it as an analogy.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

And that was my 1500th post, apparently!

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

Rights are not always things we claim; they are often denied, however. The unborn child does not claim its right to life; but it is often denied him/her.

Fair enough but I think rights are, necessarily, something we can claim (or have claimed on one’s behalf as is the case in this instance). Do you disagree on that point?

Deliberately taking a step that is intended to cause the end of a life is murder. Freeing oneself from an unjust bondage and, as a side effect, possibly ending someone’s life is not murder. The evil is in the act itself, not merely in its consequences; freeing oneself from bondage is not, in itself, immoral.

Couldn’t one make the argument that carrying a rapist’s child to term unjust bondage?

Additionally, since the circumstance you describe is unrealistic, I see no value in using it as an analogy

The problem is that we cannot create a perfect analogous situation within the bounds of reality. We could try but creating a good thought experiment (as I think the famous violinist is) is–at least to me–a better situation. Then again, I like to ponder thought experiments just for fun.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Fair enough but I think rights are, necessarily, something we can claim (or have claimed on one’s behalf as is the case in this instance). Do you disagree on that point?

We’re not talking about legal rights - we are talking about natural rights that belong to us by virtue of our existence. These are bestowed upon us by God, not claimed because we want them. This is the case with the right to life.

Couldn’t one make the argument that carrying a rapist’s child to term unjust bondage?

No.

As I pointed out earlier, motherhood is an innate facet of womanhood. When a woman is pregnant – whether she intends it or not – she is now the mother of a child. To kill that child for any reason is an act of selfishness, not motherhood. The bond between that mother and her unborn child is a profound one, and to sever it is to reject an essential component of womanhood.

The problem is that we cannot create a perfect analogous situation within the bounds of reality. We could try but creating a good thought experiment (as I think the famous violinist is) is–at least to me–a better situation. Then again, I like to ponder thought experiments just for fun.

I agree – there is no analogous situation. In particular, the example you provided is distasteful because those in support of using the pill are effectively weighing a woman’s peace of mind against the life of a human being. We’re not merely debating the validity of one person’s claim against another; we’re talking about trying to lessen the suffering of a rape victim by allowing her to kill her own child.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

We’re not talking about legal rights - we are talking about natural rights that belong to us by virtue of our existence. These are bestowed upon us by God, not claimed because we want them. This is the case with the right to life.

Of course but I don’t mean claimed insofar as we can say ‘that’s my right I want it give it to me,’ but the claim ‘I have a fundamental moral right to X, you have a moral duty to give it to me.’ Sorry for the confusion. If we still don’t agree I’m curious to see what you think a right means insofar as pay out. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic or flippant way but I honestly am curious to see what you think. I know some moral theologians don’t like to use rights language at all for one of several reasons but you don’t seem to be amongst them.

No.

As I pointed out earlier, motherhood is an innate facet of womanhood. When a woman is pregnant – whether she intends it or not – she is now the mother of a child. To kill that child for any reason is an act of selfishness, not motherhood. The bond between that mother and her unborn child is a profound one, and to sever it is to reject an essential component of womanhood.

My mother just had a hysterectomy for health reasons, is she somehow less of a woman now? Again I ask this without spite or sarcasm but I’m curious how, since fertility is so tied to this conception of womanhood, women without such a capacity stack up–as it were.

I agree – there is no analogous situation. In particular, the example you provided is distasteful because those in support of using the pill are effectively weighing a woman’s peace of mind against the life of a human being. We’re not merely debating the validity of one person’s claim against another; we’re talking about trying to lessen the suffering of a rape victim by allowing her to kill her own child.

I don’t think yours is a good parallel either. ‘Allowing her to kill her own child’ conjures up images of a woman drowning a four year old and not preventing a single cell from implanting in her uterus. Frankly, I also think you underestimate the value of peace of mind and the effect of being reminded every day in a real, solid and literally sickening way that you were raped.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Of course but I don’t mean claimed insofar as we can say ‘that’s my right I want it give it to me,’ but the claim ‘I have a fundamental moral right to X, you have a moral duty to give it to me.’ Sorry for the confusion. If we still don’t agree I’m curious to see what you think a right means insofar as pay out. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic or flippant way but I honestly am curious to see what you think. I know some moral theologians don’t like to use rights language at all for one of several reasons but you don’t seem to be amongst them.

Well, perhaps those who don’t like to use such terminology are on to something. It does have a lot of baggage.

Rights, in the context of this discussion, are gifts from God that cannot be revoked by anyone but God. No person’s “right” to happiness supersedes anyone else’s Right to live.

With regards to “pay out”, there is none. I’m speaking of things which are proper to our nature. This is what I meant when I said earlier that rights are not always claimed, but often denied.

My mother just had a hysterectomy for health reasons, is she somehow less of a woman now? Again I ask this without spite or sarcasm but I’m curious how, since fertility is so tied to this conception of womanhood, women without such a capacity stack up–as it were.

My mother had the same issue years ago; both of our mothers are still women. Is it unreasonable, however, to say that there’s something missing from both of our mothers – both an anatomical void as well as a void in their natures? This does not reduce their worth in any sense, but it’s obvious that their conditions are not the intended design of Woman.

I don’t think yours is a good parallel either. ‘Allowing her to kill her own child’ conjures up images of a woman drowning a four year old and not preventing a single cell from implanting in her uterus.

This is the key: it is not merely a single cell; it is a tiny, embryonic human being with a soul. It is a human life, whether science wants to admit it or not.

Frankly, I also think you underestimate the value of peace of mind and the effect of being reminded every day in a real, solid and literally sickening way that you were raped.

I do not underestimate it at all. I know it is a horrific, traumatizing experience that I could never fully understand. But it does not justify murder – and certainly not that of the most innocent person involved.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

Well, perhaps those who don’t like to use such terminology are on to something. It does have a lot of baggage.

Now look what I’ve done. =P

Rights, in the context of this discussion, are gifts from God that cannot be revoked by anyone but God. No person’s “right” to happiness supersedes anyone else’s Right to live.

With regards to “pay out”, there is none. I’m speaking of things which are proper to our nature. This is what I meant when I said earlier that rights are not always claimed, but often denied.

I guess I’m still confused. What good are rights (or rights language) if the object of the right cannot be claimed? Or is your point that the object of the right can be claimed but does not have to be for the right to still exist?

My mother had the same issue years ago; both of our mothers are still women. Is it unreasonable, however, to say that there’s something missing from both of our mothers – both an anatomical void as well as a void in their natures? This does not reduce their worth in any sense, but it’s obvious that their conditions are not the intended design of Woman.

Anatomically I think we can obviously say something is missing but I’m hard pressed to say that something in their natures is missing. Then again my mother was in the beginning stages of menopause and I don’t think that diminishes her womanly nature either. I think that insofar as I deny design (in a supernatural sense) we have a very different conception on this point.

This is the key: it is not merely a single cell; it is a tiny, embryonic human being with a soul. It is a human life, whether science wants to admit it or not.

Is it not, whatever else it is, a single cell? I didn’t mean that in a ‘merely’ sense but I think it’s a relevant point that it’s one (or 2 or 100) cells and not a baby or a fully grown person (in the biological or the moral sense). I grant, as I think you would argue, that science (on its own) cannot make any claims on whether or not something is a human life for moral purposes.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Casti Connubii, n. 56.

“any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Thank you. This would seem to bear out the fact that it is not venial sin.

 

[StevenFrancis]

CCC
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

Thank you also. The CCC as well. No venial in nature. Intrinsically evil. Grave sin. These were the ideas I had always gleaned from Church teaching as well.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I guess I’m still confused. What good are rights (or rights language) if the object of the right cannot be claimed? Or is your point that the object of the right can be claimed but does not have to be for the right to still exist?

I think we’re splitting hairs on this part of the discussion. To answer your question: the second one.

Anatomically I think we can obviously say something is missing but I’m hard pressed to say that something in their natures is missing. Then again my mother was in the beginning stages of menopause and I don’t think that diminishes her womanly nature either. I think that insofar as I deny design (in a supernatural sense) we have a very different conception on this point.

Perhaps a better way to put it would be that something in their nature is unfulfilled.

Is it not, whatever else it is, a single cell? I didn’t mean that in a ‘merely’ sense but I think it’s a relevant point that it’s one (or 2 or 100) cells and not a baby or a fully grown person (in the biological or the moral sense). I grant, as I think you would argue, that science (on its own) cannot make any claims on whether or not something is a human life for moral purposes.

Of course - just as you are, whatever else you are, a huge mass of trillions of cells. Nonetheless, your worth is not determined by the quantity of cells in your makeup, and the embryo’s worth is not determined by its being one cell.

It is just as heinous for someone to kill you because you are inconvenient or burdensome or a tragic reminder of some horrible event as it is to kill the one-celled person.

I will grant that a one-celled embryo is not a “baby” or a fully developed person – but this embryonic stage is no less precious than any other in our lives.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

I think we’re splitting hairs on this part of the discussion. To answer your question: the second one.

I agree it’s a rather fine point I was just curious what you’d meant about claiming rights.

Of course - just as you are, whatever else you are, a huge mass of trillions of cells. Nonetheless, your worth is not determined by the quantity of cells in your makeup, and the embryo’s worth is not determined by its being one cell.

Fair enough.

It is just as heinous for someone to kill you because you are inconvenient or burdensome or a tragic reminder of some horrible event as it is to kill the one-celled person.

There, of course, we disagree. But I’m sure that’s not a surprise.

I will grant that a one-celled embryo is not a “baby” or a fully developed person – but this embryonic stage is no less precious than any other in our lives.

I don’t think that’s quite true–obviously. If, for example, an IVF clinic caught fire and we could save either one of its patients there for a consultation or a cooler containing frozen embryos for possible future implantation which one would you pick? I know moral intuition is not the purest form for moral analysis but I think it’s important and meaningful in its own right. Then again if you say the cooler I reserve the right to change (or even deny) that statement. =P

 

[DanteAlighieri]

There, of course, we disagree. But I’m sure that’s not a surprise.

For the sake of argument, grant that the embryo has an eternal soul created by God, and as such possesses the same dignity as any other human being, as well as the same need for salvation. If given these, it is clear why such killings are so heinous.

Frankly, though, I think this evaluation holds even without granting the above concessions. It’s a pretty thin argument that the life an embryonic human being should be subject to its mother’s whims, regardless of her reasons.

I don’t think that’s quite true–obviously. If, for example, an IVF clinic caught fire and we could save either one of its patients there for a consultation or a cooler containing frozen embryos for possible future implantation which one would you pick? I know moral intuition is not the purest form for moral analysis but I think it’s important and meaningful in its own right. Then again if you say the cooler I reserve the right to change (or even deny) that statement. =P

Obviously, saving the developed human beings is imperative - but let me point out that

1. leaving the frozen embryos is not a direct action intended to end their lives, and
2. If everyone followed Church teaching, there’d be no IVF clinic to begin with, so this question would be moot.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ThomasToo]

For the sake of argument, grant that the embryo has an eternal soul created by God, and as such possesses the same dignity as any other human being, as well as the same need for salvation. If given these, it is clear why such killings are so heinous.

I think it makes clear why you can see them as heinous but I think even in this situation, abortion can be morally justified in the case of rape. Further, I think abortion and infanticide would be the two surest roads to salvation–of the dead not the killer–but that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

Frankly, though, I think this evaluation holds even without granting the above concessions. It’s a pretty thin argument that the life an embryonic human being should be subject to its mother’s whims, regardless of her reasons.

But the argument isn’t that the life of the embryonic human should be subject to the woman’s whims but that a blastocyst of 128 cells–for example–lacks the ability to bear rights and as such has no claim on the use of this woman’s body. Grant that point for a moment, as I did above, if an embryo (and for part of its gestation a fetus) has no rights, no soul and no inherent dignity what is the harm?

Obviously, saving the developed human beings is imperative - but let me point out that

1. leaving the frozen embryos is not a direct action intended to end their lives, and
2. If everyone followed Church teaching, there’d be no IVF clinic to begin with, so this question would be moot.

1. Granted but it would seem that if we were–as it were–counting souls then the cooler is what we should save. So too if you could evacuate either a room containing five people or a room containing only one, you would–I presume–pick the former. If, however, the embryos are only potentially people then it makes perfect sense to save the one person.
2. Fair enough but it only served as an easy example of embryos in crisis.