Emergency contraception for Rape?

[fix]

Brendan:

Contraception has not been defined as intrinsically evil.

By definition, something that is intrinsically evil can never be permitted. But contraception, unlike abortion, has not be ruled to evil instrinsically, but is defined as intrinsically grave matter.

How about this:

Answer by Judie Brown on 11-26-2004: Dear John

Contraception is intrinsically evil.

If the practitioner of contraception KNOWS what the Church teaches and persists, he or she is committing a mortal sin.

Humanae Vitae is Infallible. Please see the following documents, each of which are on the Internet:

Contraception: Fatal to the Faith by Father John Hardon, S.J. at catholic-pages.com/morality/fatal.asp

and “Humanae Vitae and Infallibilty” by Father Brian Harrison, O.S. at www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/FR93102.TXT

By the way, the Vatican is very clear; but the sad thing is that the American moral theologains and

many of the Bishops are NOT! Judie Brown

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=419942&Forums=0&Experts=10&Days=30&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

fix:

I thought serum HCG detected fertilization after it has been embedded in the uterous which is a few days. Ovulation is detected by LH levels?

Yes, the LH is released at the same time as the egg, and it triggers the uterine lining to thicken in anticipation of implantation. When this doesn’t occur (usually about 5 days after ovulation), then the levels of lh decrease, signaling the begining of menstruation. SO, that is the time window, if a woman is raped within 5 days of her ovulation, then emergency contraception is permitted. However, there is not way of detecting an unimplanted, yet fertilized egg.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There is a deep misunderstanding here.

There is no such thing as “emergency contraception”. Especially if it is used after the sex act.

What is used, or proposed to be used, is RU-486. This is not a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient. As it does not stop the egg from being fertilized, it stops the fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uterus.

So in reality the question should read, “Emergency abortion for Rape??”

Recently I have heard that the FDA has grave concerns as the instance of infection following the administration of RU-486 is very high. They are requiring new labeling. There are even a couple of recent deaths attributed to the use of RU-486. They want to now require or stongly suggest that the user of RU-486 see a doctor soon after use.

If this drug was for other things it would be pulled from the market but because of PC attitudes, it will keep making sick and, in some cases, killing those who use it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That is the point that I have been trying to make Byz. The window is so incredibly narrow for it to be considered “contraception” that it is practically non-existant. Additionally, since there is no way to tell if the ovum is fertilized prio to implantation, it in effect becomes a pre-implantation abortion.

ByzCath:

There is a deep misunderstanding here.

There is no such thing as “emergency contraception”. Especially if it is used after the sex act.

What is used, or proposed to be used, is RU-486. This is not a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient. As it does not stop the egg from being fertilized, it stops the fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uterus.

So in reality the question should read, “Emergency abortion for Rape??”

Recently I have heard that the FDA has grave concerns as the instance of infection following the administration of RU-486 is very high. They are requiring new labeling. There are even a couple of recent deaths attributed to the use of RU-486. They want to now require or stongly suggest that the user of RU-486 see a doctor soon after use.

If this drug was for other things it would be pulled from the market but because of PC attitudes, it will keep making sick and, in some cases, killing those who use it.

 

[fix]

Scott_Lafrance:

Yes, the LH is released at the same time as the egg, and it triggers the uterine lining to thicken in anticipation of implantation. When this doesn’t occur (usually about 5 days after ovulation), then the levels of lh decrease, signaling the begining of menstruation. SO, that is the time window, if a woman is raped within 5 days of her ovulation, then emergency contraception is permitted. However, there is not way of detecting an unimplanted, yet fertilized egg.

Yes, this is what I thought. I was confused by Brendan’s post.

If they can be reasonably certain no fertilization has occurred, then a spermicide douche may be used to repel the unjust aggressor.

How about some combination of female hormones used to make the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation of a fertilized egg? That would seem to be illicit.

 

[Monicathree]

ByzCath,

That is the problem, my friend was taught in RCIA that it was not abortion, but that since no conception has taken place it is permissable to prevent it. That is what the theme is here. Is it alright to prevent conception in the case of rape. I know very well that obviously abortion in any case is unacceptable. They never said what specific treatment they meant either. They never said the RU drug or anything specifically. I wouldn’t have bothered posting the question if it was a case to condone abortion. I am just trying to figure out what these people have put in the RCIA students ears.

peace

 

[Brendan]

What is used, or proposed to be used, is RU-486. This is not a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient. As it does not stop the egg from being fertilized, it stops the fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uterus.

So in reality the question should read, “Emergency abortion for Rape??”

No, David, that is NOT what is being proposed.

What is being proposed is the prevention of ovulation using hormonal supression. That is ‘The Pill’ NOT RU-486!!

If a blood test shows that ovulation has not occured within the previous 72 hours, there can be abortive effect as there is nothing there to abort!

In the case of rape, it is perfectly licit, moral and desired to supress ovulation using these drugs, as long as there is no chance of an abortive effect.

 

[Brendan]

Fix,

I certainly agree that Humanae Vitae is an infallible document.

Can you quote me the line where Humanae Vitae says the contraception is Intrinsically evil?

I have read it many times. It isn’t in there!

Or how about any other Vatican document?

If you read the links you provided, they both say that the use of contraception by married couples is mortal sin. I certainly agree.

So it’s is use in any consensual sex.

But the use of spermicide or ovulation supressants in the case of rape is perfectly licit.

fix:

Yes, this is what I thought. I was confused by Brendan’s post

Sorry if my post was confusing. I fully agree that there is no way of detecting a recent fertilization. There is only a way of detecting recent ovulation.

If a recent ovulation has occured, any treatment that has an abortive effect should NOT be used.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brendan:

No, David, that is NOT what is being proposed.

What is being proposed is the prevention of ovulation using hormonal supression. That is ‘The Pill’ NOT RU-486!!

If a blood test shows that ovulation has not occured within the previous 72 hours, there can be abortive effect as there is nothing there to abort!

In the case of rape, it is perfectly licit, moral and desired to supress ovulation using these drugs, as long as there is no chance of an abortive effect.

The Pill also acts as an abortifacient.

Saying that though, artifical contraception is never allowed.

Please tell me why a child who might be concieved is less human and therefore not allowed to be born? Is it this child’s fault that one of its parents committed such an evil act?

 

[Brendan]

ByzCath:

The Pill also acts as an abortifacient.

Saying that though, artifical contraception is never allowed.

Please tell me why a child who might be concieved is less human and therefore not allowed to be born? Is it this child’s fault that one of its parents committed such an evil act?

David,

The Pill does 2 things.

1. It surpresses ovulation
2. It prevents an fertilized egg (a person) from implanting. This is 100% wrong.

But the first one is not.

Answer these questions please:

a- If there has been no ovulation within the last 72 hours, can a fertilized egg be present, or the possibilty of an egg becoming fertilized…

b - If there is no fertilized egg\baby present, can an abortion occur?

( premise 1 does have a caveat. There exists the case where the woman is already pregnant from another sexual encounter previous to the rape (days\weeks eariler), it which case the question become mute - there is no chance a child will result from this rape)

 

[Brendan]

Fix,

Here is the only reference to contraception being intrinsically evil

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception — that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony) and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.”

Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, 1997.

Note the qualifier on exactly when it is intrinsically evil - when used in the bounds of the marital act. What is intrinsically evil is “every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.”

Rape is not a marital act.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

In the case of emergency contraception it is an action against an outsider invader (the sperm of the attacker) that is present against the will of the woman. You are allowed as a matter of defense to use equal repulsive force. However, once a child is conceived then you are dealing with an innocent human and could not do anything to bring about abortus conceptus.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brendan:

David,

The Pill does 2 things.

1. It surpresses ovulation
2. It prevents an fertilized egg (a person) from implanting. This is 100% wrong.

But the first one is not.

Well now, how about showing some proof of what you say? I will show you proof that the Pill is an abortifacient.

Fact Sheet - Contraceptive Pills Abortifacient
How the Pill and Other Contraceptives Work
The Pill - How it works and fails.
Whether the “Morning-After Pill” Can Be Abortifacient

I think that is enough to support my statement that 1) the pill is an abortifacient and 2) the morning-after pill is also an abortifacient.

Answer these questions please:

a- If there has been no ovulation within the last 72 hours, can a fertilized egg be present, or the possibilty of an egg becoming fertilized…

b - If there is no fertilized egg\baby present, can an abortion occur?

( premise 1 does have a caveat. There exists the case where the woman is already pregnant from another sexual encounter previous to the rape (days\weeks eariler), it which case the question become mute - there is no chance a child will result from this rape)

The answer to questions a & b are no, but if both are no then where is the need for an emergency abortifacient?

Now as the pill and the morning-after pills are abortifacient and if the woman in question is pregnant from another sexual encounter as you state in your caveat, the use of this abortifacient could very well kill an innocent child.

I say this because you seem to put forward (as do all those who support emergency abortifacient use after a rape) that a child concieved after a rape is not innocent and deseves to die.

 

[SeekerJen]

ByzCath,

Yes, the Pill can act as an abortifacient and should not be used if there is a chance of a fertilized egg. But if it is determined by hormone levels that the woman has not ovulated, or if the woman is charting and knows that she has not ovulated, I see no sin in administering hormonal treatment to prevent ovulation (which the Pill also does).

The reason for using a spermicide or emergency contraception (in this case, NOT abortifacient) to stop ovulation is because sperm can live up to 5 days in a healthy woman’s cervical crypts. Even if she has not yet ovulated, if ovulation is due anytime in the next few days, she could still conceive from that forced agressive encounter.

If the woman is already pregnant at the time of rape (your final concern), the blood hormone test would indicate that, and there would obviously be no need to adminster emergency contraception.

 

[Brendan]

ByzCath:

Well now, how about showing some proof of what you say?

David,

This is from your own link.

The Pill – How it works and fails.

Q. How does the pill really work?

A. There are four ways the pill acts to stop sperm reaching an egg (ovum).

First, the hormones in the pill try to stop an ovum being released from your ovary each month. This is known as the suppression of ovulation. Research has shown that neither the progesterone-only pill nor the combined progesterone-oestrogen formulations always stop ovulation

Second, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the cervical mucus that your body produces. The cervical mucus may become thicker and more difficult for sperm to fertilize an ovum.

…

Fourth, the pill causes changes to the movement of the Fallopian tubes. This effect may reduce the possibility of the ovum being fertilised.

.

The third method listed was it’s abortive property (changing the uterine lining to prevent implantation.) This is why it cannot be used if there is fertilization. If there has been no fertilization, this property does not come into play.

The answer to questions a & b are no, but if both are no then where is the need for an emergency abortifacient?

David, why can you not see that the Pill has multiple properties that are **not abortive ** when your own evidence show that is does.

This is what ‘the pill’ how used for in an emergency in Catholic hosptials, not for it’s abortificant property, but for it’s supression property.

Since you agree that there is no abortion when there is no egg to fertilize, will you now admit that ‘The Pill’ is used to prevent an egg from being released??

Since an egg is not released, it cannot be fertilized and thus , there is no abortion. Pregnancy is PREVENTED, not TERMINATED.

Do you see the difference?

There is NO life being aborted.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That is the exact pharmacological action of the RU-486 “morning after” pill. If you make the uterine lining hostile to a fertilized egg (conceptus), then you are in effect killing that conceptus, which in Catholic moral teaching is the begining stage of a new person. It is murder. It would be like holding someone’s head underwater. It is an environment that is hostile to life. So too if you make the uterus hostile to implantation.

fix:

Yes, this is what I thought. I was confused by Brendan’s post.

If they can be reasonably certain no fertilization has occurred, then a spermicide douche may be used to repel the unjust aggressor.

How about some combination of female hormones used to make the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation of a fertilized egg? That would seem to be illicit.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

ByzCath:

The Pill also acts as an abortifacient.

Saying that though, artifical contraception is never allowed.

Please tell me why a child who might be concieved is less human and therefore not allowed to be born? Is it this child’s fault that one of its parents committed such an evil act?

Because the child is not the product of a conjugal union, but rather a forced one. Children are the fruits of conjugal love.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Jen, you have it exactly right. If the woman has not yet ovulated, hormonal treatment to prevent it is permissible. It must be noted however, that it normally takes a full mensstrual cycle for “the pill” to be effecatious. If the woman HAS ovulated recently, there is no test on the planet that can detect a fertilized, yet unimplanted conceptus. The only potential thing that could work is a spermicidal douche IF administered less than 12 hours after the assault. After that, I has to be assumed that there is a strong potential for conception to occur, and then efforts must be made to preserve the life of the new child.

SeekerJen:

ByzCath,

Yes, the Pill can act as an abortifacient and should not be used if there is a chance of a fertilized egg. But if it is determined by hormone levels that the woman has not ovulated, or if the woman is charting and knows that she has not ovulated, I see no sin in administering hormonal treatment to prevent ovulation (which the Pill also does).

The reason for using a spermicide or emergency contraception (in this case, NOT abortifacient) to stop ovulation is because sperm can live up to 5 days in a healthy woman’s cervical crypts. Even if she has not yet ovulated, if ovulation is due anytime in the next few days, she could still conceive from that forced agressive encounter.

If the woman is already pregnant at the time of rape (your final concern), the blood hormone test would indicate that, and there would obviously be no need to adminster emergency contraception.

 

[Brendan]

Scott_Lafrance:

Because the child is not the product of a conjugal union, but rather a forced one. Children are the fruits of conjugal love.

If a child is concieved, it must be allowed to be born. in the case or rape, the prevention of conception is allowed.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Brendan:

If a child is concieved, it must be allowed to be born. in the case or rape, the prevention of conception is allowed.

Ok Brendan, again I show that I can admit when I am wrong.

After reading Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition

It says what you have said, here is the relevant paragraph.

**36.**Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19

note 19: It is recommended that a sexually assaulted woman be advised of the ethical restrictions that prevent Catholic hospitals from using abortifacient procedures; cf. Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, “Guidelines for Catholic Hospitals Treating Victims of Sexual Assault,” Origins 22 (1993): 810.

We could have avoided all this wasted energy if you would have provided links to prove what you had to say rather than just throwing out statements and expecting others to believe you with no supporting documents.

I would add though, that the science shows that the “morning-after pill” as well as “the pill” can and do act as abortifacients.