Emergency contraception for Rape?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

So then a child concieved in a “loveless” marriage, or a child concieved by casual sex, were there is no conjugal love, can be aborted becasue in your terms it is not a child.

Interesting how the devaluation of human life goes.

 

[fix]

Brendan:

Fix,

Here is the only reference to contraception being intrinsically evil

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.

Yes, thank you. I have learned something from this thread. Contraception is intrnsically evil when used in the conjugal act, that means consentual intercourse, married or not. It is not intrinsically evil if one is forced. Perhaps contraception, against life, is not the best word to be used when discussing rape? The intention is to repel the aggressor sperm.

 

[Brendan]

ByzCath:

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 knew that the USCCB had issued guidlines on the subject, I just didn’t have the link.

I was mostly using points I learned in my Moral Theology class at the Seminary ( I’m a Deacon Candidate), and since I learned it from one of the best authorities on Humane Vitae, Dr. Janet Smith, I knew it had to be an orthodox view.

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

I fully agree. That is why it is so dangerous and can only be used in such limited circumstances.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I am not devaluing children or human life. I am merely stating what the church teaches, that children are INTENDED to be the fruit of conjugal love. That is why contraception in marriage is condemned. However, rape is NOT a conjugal union, and the prevention of conception is desired if it is possible. You are comparing apples to oranges. Children, regardless of the circumstances of their conception, are equally valued in the eyes of God. But you cannot deny that preventing the conception, if it is possible, of a child that is the result of an act of sexual violence is desirable, do you not? However, if a child is conceived, it must be protected, just like any other child should be.

ByzCath:

So then a child concieved in a “loveless” marriage, or a child concieved by casual sex, were there is no conjugal love, can be aborted becasue in your terms it is not a child.

Interesting how the devaluation of human life goes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Scott_Lafrance:

I am not devaluing children or human life. I am merely stating what the church teaches, that children are INTENDED to be the fruit of conjugal love. That is why contraception in marriage is condemned. However, rape is NOT a conjugal union, and the prevention of conception is desired if it is possible. You are comparing apples to oranges. Children, regardless of the circumstances of their conception, are equally valued in the eyes of God. But you cannot deny that preventing the conception, if it is possible, of a child that is the result of an act of sexual violence is desirable, do you not? However, if a child is conceived, it must be protected, just like any other child should be.

Now that you have spelled it out better, I can agree with you.

But as I referenced the document of the USCCB on this issue, “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.”

And I will also say again, when making such statements it is always a good idea to link to the proper documents, if this had been done I do not think this discussion would have run the course it has.

 

[Almeria]

ByzCath:

Now that you have spelled it out better, I can agree with you.

But as I referenced the document of the USCCB on this issue, “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.”

And I will also say again, when making such statements it is always a good idea to link to the proper documents, if this had been done I do not think this discussion would have run the course it has.

Read post #9. It’s been here, and quoted several times. I think some missed reading that post, though.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There exists non-abortifacient measures.

Here’s what I’ve found …
sffaith.com/ed/articles/2002/0702so.htm

One faithful theologian who comes down squarely on the side of emergency contraception as abortifacient is Dr. Germain Grisez, professor of Christian Ethics at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland. He claims that douching with spermicide as an immediate post-rape intervention would be morally licit since such means are not abortifacient in nature.

This avoids the need to wonder if one is already pregnant or not, which is a bit tricky.

However, from the same article,

In keeping with the Directives’ admonition to do appropriate testing and thus prevent these unwitting abortions, the Catholic Health Association in St. Louis observes that two doctors in Illinois have recently devised a method known as the "Peoria protocol." Using this process, doctors can accurately measure whether and when a woman has ovulated. “[T]he obstetrician first gives the rape victim a progesterone level test and then uses a urine ‘dip stick’ (Ovu Kit) to test for the presence of luteinizing hormone (LH). If the LH test is negative and supported by progesterone level findings, ovulation is not occurring and Ovral [a type of emergency contraceptive containing synthetic progesterone and estrogen that delays ovulation] may be used. If the LH test is positive, the process of ovulation is under way and Ovral should not be used. The method seems to obviate the quandary that occurs when a rape victim is unsure whether she has ovulated.”