Emergency Contraception

[jaf46]

I really try to be a good Catholic but I have a real problem with this issue. Where is the compassion for the 15 year old mother-to-be? Most of what I am reading here seems to gloss over the suffering and pain of this girl. What about her life?

I know the position of the Church on the question of when life begins. But, why is the life of the unborn fetus of more value than the life of the mother in a situation such as this?

Someone suggested that the fetus could grow up to become the person to discover a cure for cancer. That is always a possibility. However, reality doesn’t seem to agree with that hopeful outcome. It is much more likely that this child will always be a reminder to the mother of a violent crime that was perpetrated against her. As a result, it is very likely that she may never be able to bond appropriately with the baby. Also, the girl is gay. Therefore, she will never marry a man. The fantasy of the baby being raised the “Leave It to Beaver” world of Mom, Dad and apple pie is never going to happen.

The 15 year old rape victim will be fortunate to even finish high school let alone go to college. What about her ability to raise this child?

Some would say she could always give the baby up for adoption and that could potentially work out, if you are white and if the child is 100% perfect. Otherwise, the child will be raised in a variety of horrible state run programs.

Look, I don’t know the answers but I do know something about this topic. I try to be a good Catholic but reality and theology are not always compatible.

 

[kage_ar]

Some would say she could always give the baby up for adoption and that could potentially work out, if you are white and if the child is 100% perfect. Otherwise, the child will be raised in a variety of horrible state run programs.

A mother who chooses to PLACE HER CHILD FOR ADOPTION chooses a selfless act.

I am a nobody and live in the middle of nowhere, USA. I personally know six couples who would be willing to adopt ANY baby; black, white, green, oblong, polkadotted, ugly or imperfect in any way.

 

[onmyknees]

I really try to be a good Catholic but I have a real problem with this issue. Where is the compassion for the 15 year old mother-to-be? Most of what I am reading here seems to gloss over the suffering and pain of this girl. What about her life?

I know the position of the Church on the question of when life begins. But, why is the life of the unborn fetus of more value than the life of the mother in a situation such as this?

We do have compassion for the 15 yr. old that is why we want what is best for her and her baby. You, being Catholic know what is best for us right. It is to get to the Kingdom of heaven! Yes, this girl may have to suffer but Jesus teaches us all, even the young to pick up our cross and follow me. Many saints were very young and suffered much for HIm. We always must help our neighbor to see the Truth of Christ’s teachings. God bless.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I really try to be a good Catholic but I have a real problem with this issue. Where is the compassion for the 15 year old mother-to-be? Most of what I am reading here seems to gloss over the suffering and pain of this girl. What about her life?

I know the position of the Church on the question of when life begins. But, why is the life of the unborn fetus of more value than the life of the mother in a situation such as this?

Someone suggested that the fetus could grow up to become the person to discover a cure for cancer. That is always a possibility. However, reality doesn’t seem to agree with that hopeful outcome. It is much more likely that this child will always be a reminder to the mother of a violent crime that was perpetrated against her. As a result, it is very likely that she may never be able to bond appropriately with the baby. Also, the girl is gay. Therefore, she will never marry a man. The fantasy of the baby being raised the “Leave It to Beaver” world of Mom, Dad and apple pie is never going to happen.

The 15 year old rape victim will be fortunate to even finish high school let alone go to college. What about her ability to raise this child?

Some would say she could always give the baby up for adoption and that could potentially work out, if you are white and if the child is 100% perfect. Otherwise, the child will be raised in a variety of horrible state run programs.

Look, I don’t know the answers but I do know something about this topic. I try to be a good Catholic but reality and theology are not always compatible.

If someone right now gave you the choice of living “in a variety of horrible state run programs” or being killed instantly, which would you choose? Aren’t you at least glad you got to make the choice?

 

[Seatuck]

I really try to be a good Catholic but I have a real problem with this issue. Where is the compassion for the 15 year old mother-to-be? Most of what I am reading here seems to gloss over the suffering and pain of this girl. What about her life?

I know the position of the Church on the question of when life begins. But, why is the life of the unborn fetus of more value than the life of the mother in a situation such as this?

Someone suggested that the fetus could grow up to become the person to discover a cure for cancer. That is always a possibility. However, reality doesn’t seem to agree with that hopeful outcome. It is much more likely that this child will always be a reminder to the mother of a violent crime that was perpetrated against her. As a result, it is very likely that she may never be able to bond appropriately with the baby. Also, the girl is gay. Therefore, she will never marry a man. The fantasy of the baby being raised the “Leave It to Beaver” world of Mom, Dad and apple pie is never going to happen.

The 15 year old rape victim will be fortunate to even finish high school let alone go to college. What about her ability to raise this child?

Some would say she could always give the baby up for adoption and that could potentially work out, if you are white and if the child is 100% perfect. Otherwise, the child will be raised in a variety of horrible state run programs.

Look, I don’t know the answers but I do know something about this topic. I try to be a good Catholic but reality and theology are not always compatible.

The Catholic philosophy is love them both. A baby does not deserve the death penalty for the crime it’s father perpetrates.

 

[06convert]

Helen,
Here is something you should read. You never said if you were Catholic or not? Maybe I missed it?

Homosexuality

People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

Basically gay or straight, you are only allowed to have desires toward your spouse. That is your spouse in the eyes of the Church.

If you don’t feel like you can ever have a relationship with a man, then you are called to be chaste and have a closer relationship with God. Kind of like a priest. A priest has to stay away from desires from both men and women. You are called to do the same.

 

[AliciaCL]

Here’s the thing I’d like to see: religious arguments in favor of pro-choice and homosexual acts. I’ve been waiting for it for years.

All I ever here is the extreme poignancy of young women in dire circumstances who have no money, no education, no personal fortitude, etc., etc., and whose only reasonable option is to kill the fetus.

On homosexual acts, marriage, etc. all I ever here is how tormenting it is not to be allowed to be who they are. Sexuality is not an identity.

While we ARE to have compassion for women with unwanted pregnancies and to sympathize with persons who have SSA, these arguments don’t even address morality, at all.

The popular arguments remind me of a very old pop song “Mrs. Jones” recounting an adulterous love affair. The man singing says “if this is wrong, I don’t want to be right.” In my mind it seems to fit the pop culture’s argument for abortion and honoring homosexual acts. I NEVER here anybody even try to make a religious argument other than the feel good one-- if it feels good, God must be in favor of it.

Anybody know of a real religious argument favoring abortion and homosexuality which concludes they are moral?

 

[turtle18]

Seatuck, I believe what you posted is an opinion from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Their opinion contradicts the teaching of the Vatican, which does not permit birth control. If you are confused, you should always look to what the Vatican says on these issues not the USCCB.

Their position also makes no sense and is poorly thought out. According to the USCCB, emergency contraception is okay only if there is not an imminent chance of the woman conceiving–the only way this condition could be met is if the woman is NOT ovulating. If she is not ovulating, she would not need birth control.

 

[taylorc]

Seatuck, I believe what you posted is an opinion from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Their opinion contradicts the teaching of the Vatican, which does not permit birth control. If you are confused, you should always look to what the Vatican says on these issues not the USCCB.

Their position also makes no sense and is poorly thought out. According to the USCCB, emergency contraception is okay only if there is not an imminent chance of the woman conceiving–the only way this condition could be met is if the woman is NOT ovulating. If she is not ovulating, she would not need birth control.

If she is ovulating Plan b can prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg, preventing conception. Contraception is morally permissable in the case of rape. As far as the “she might have conceived a child that cured cancer argument”, I might have conceived a child who cured cancer last night if I had sex, but I didn’t. That is hardly immoral. It only becomes immoral when we intentionally end already conceived life and contracept during a consensual marital act.

 

[Ruthie]

From Dignitatis Personae:

When there is a delay in menstruation, a contragestative is used,44 usually one or two weeks after the non-occurrence of the monthly period. The stated aim is to re-establish
menstruation, but what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted.

As is known, abortion is “the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from
conception to birth”.45 Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law.46

P. 14

46 Cf. CIC, can. 1398 and CCEO, can. 1450 § 2; cf. also CIC, can. 1323-1324. The Pontifical Commission for the
Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law declared that the canonical concept of abortion is “the killing of the
fetus in whatever way or at whatever time from the moment of conception” (Response of 23 May 1988: AAS 80 [1988],
1818).

Footnote, P. 14

57 Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 73: AAS 87 (1995), 486: “Abortion and euthanasia are
thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection”. The right of conscientious objection, as an expression of the right to freedom of conscience, should be protected by law.

Footnote, p. 21

 

[Seatuck]

Seatuck, I believe what you posted is an opinion from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Their opinion contradicts the teaching of the Vatican, which does not permit birth control. If you are confused, you should always look to what the Vatican says on these issues not the USCCB.

Their position also makes no sense and is poorly thought out. According to the USCCB, emergency contraception is okay only if there is not an imminent chance of the woman conceiving–the only way this condition could be met is if the woman is NOT ovulating. If she is not ovulating, she would not need birth control.

I’m not confused at all. The Vatican has no dispute with the health care directive. If you have proof of such then we can discuss it. A woman has a right to defend herself against an unwillilling non conjugal act of sex- rape. I hope you are not disagreeing with that.
The major problem I have is that the Connecticut Bishop’s approved a plan that allows for the administration of the drug without testing for ovulation.That was thier original stance. But I’ve seen several moral theologians agree with that since the intent is to prevent conception -prevent ovulation then the principal of double effect holds.

Here’s an article that describes some of what I’m talking about.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=226&repos=6&subrepos=1&searchid=382015

Keep in mind that there is scientific doubt that Plan B actually is abortifacient despite manufacturer claims.

catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=200

Another important point in the matter is that a married woman is allowed to use the birth control pill as a medicine despite the fact (scientifically unproven also) that it might cause an abortion. She and her husband may enjoy conjugal relations. Why? The intent is to provide therapuetic relief to a disease and not to abort. The principal of double effect. There has been no Vatican document issued to refute this.

If the Vatican chooses to issue a clarification on the subject and clearly and precisely says that the pill is not permitted in marriage as a treatment and plan b must have an ovulation test or not be used at all I’d be happy to recieve the teaching.But for now DP does not address it clearly enough.

Most experts say Dignitas Personae does not offer definitive resolution of the debate over Plan B.
The document deals with emergency contraception in section 23, introducing a distinction between what it calls “interceptive” methods, if they interfere with the embryo before implantation, and “contragestative,” if they cause the elimination of the embryo after implantation. Footnotes identify the best-known interceptive methods as “the IUD … and the so-called ‘morning-after pills,’” and the principal means of contragestation as “RU-486 (Mifepristone), synthetic prostaglandins or Methotrexate.”
In either case, Dignitas Personae holds, these methods are illicit: “The use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law.” Significantly, this is the only point at which Dignitas Personae raises the prospect of canonical sanctions.
Doerflinger of the U.S. bishops’ conference told NCR he does not believe this language means the practice of administering Plan B in Catholic hospitals is illicit.
“It clarifies that this is a very important moral issue, but it doesn’t say that what Catholic hospitals are doing to prevent pregnancy in rape victims has been established as an abortifacient and therefore can’t be used,” Doerflinger said. “That has to be settled by more definitive science, not in a church document.”
Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, chair of the Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the U.S. bishops’ conference, agreed.
“I don’t think the document explicitly addresses the rape protocols, nor does it specifically address Plan B,” Lori told NCR. “If it had wanted to, it could have and would have. It doesn’t settle that question.”
Talking points on Dignitas Personae prepared by the Catholic Health Association assert that current practice in Catholic hospitals will “remain unchanged.” The CHA text says that “Plan B, the medication of choice for emergency contraception, does not appear to have a post-fertilization effect, given the results of repeated scientific studies.”

ncrcafe.org/node/2327

So I await clarification.

 

[Ruthie]

A woman has a right to defend herself against an unwillilling non conjugal act of sex- rape.

Of course she does. But you are saying that she is “defending herself” against a baby. That is a different thing.

I’d love to say that it is a simple thing. Of course it’s not. I’d love to be able to wave a magic wand and say, “The rape was yesterday, and is over; today you must love this baby.” If I could, I would.

The difference in point of view is this. You say that only the girl is the victim; that the baby is part of the crime. I say that the girl and the baby are both victims of this horrible attack.

My heart runs over with grateful tears when I hear of a girl or woman who has chosen to lovingly raise the child that resulted from rape. They really “get it.” And I’m proud of those who generously choose to have the baby and give it up for adoption, too.

But the idea that the baby is part of the crime… no. Abortion scars women, whatever the reason. I know enough women, victims of having an abortion, to say that.

Heart of Jesus, atonement for our sins, have mercy on us.

Ruthie

 

[taylorc]

Of course she does. But you are saying that she is “defending herself” against a baby. That is a different thing.

I’d love to say that it is a simple thing. Of course it’s not. I’d love to be able to wave a magic wand and say, “The rape was yesterday, and is over; today you must love this baby.” If I could, I would.

The difference in point of view is this. You say that only the girl is the victim; that the baby is part of the crime. I say that the girl and the baby are both victims of this horrible attack.

My heart runs over with grateful tears when I hear of a girl or woman who has chosen to lovingly raise the child that resulted from rape. They really “get it.” And I’m proud of those who generously choose to have the baby and give it up for adoption, too.

But the idea that the baby is part of the crime… no. Abortion scars women, whatever the reason. I know enough women, victims of having an abortion, to say that.

Heart of Jesus, atonement for our sins, have mercy on us.

Ruthie

There is a difference between abortion and contraception. Unless conception has occurred there is no baby! Preventing conception is not abortion.

 

[seekdatruth]

Despite the OP’s decisions in her life, I place no judgment on her, and just hope she is OK. It can be very difficult to accept one’s own decisions they previously thought right or OK, as now sinful. (I’m in that spot right now, and it’s extremely painful. I’m not/never have been gay, but have used plan-b and contraceptives)
Some people can’t handle the attacks of others trying to break them down and understand where exactly they are wrong in instances so grave as this. What is she supposed to do, repent to you? She can discover any sins she is/has committed for herself if she is allowed to continue reading and learning on the internet and among us at Church. That’s the best and most effective way to “get it” IMO. I fear she is long gone by now though. I pray she finds forgiveness and comfort.

 

[Janet_S]

If the only activity of Plan B is to stop ovulation, I don’t know why everyone is pushing so hard to use it. A woman ovulates only once, typically, in a 28-day period, so the drug would have an extremely narrow window of opportunity to do its work. It would be effective in only a handful of cases, when a woman is ready for ovulation. The rest of the time it would be unnecessary, since no ovulation occurred within days of the rape, or, if it did, (we’re told) there would be no post-fertilization (interceptive) effects–and the pregnancy would proceed normally.

Sorry to say, but I don’t trust what the bishops or the CHA moral theologians are telling us. It’s very clear to me that section 23 of DP is describing Plan B, a morning-after pill, when it discusses interceptives and the fact that “In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods, it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood”. And that’s exactly the argument that the bishops and CHA are using to justify using Plan B.

Pro-life health care professionals are always encouraged to go along with these things, and we have to resist. I’ve also read other articles that claim IUD’s have no interceptive activity, so nothing surprises me much anymore. CHA claims there are multiple studies that prove there are no post-fertilization effects from Plan B. I’m open to the information, but I honestly don’t think it exists.

I hope they’re right, though. I’m a pharmacist, and it would make my job a lot easier if this were one less battle I had to fight.

 

[Seatuck]

Of course she does. But you are saying that she is “defending herself” against a baby. That is a different thing.

I’d love to say that it is a simple thing. Of course it’s not. I’d love to be able to wave a magic wand and say, “The rape was yesterday, and is over; today you must love this baby.” If I could, I would.

The difference in point of view is this. You say that only the girl is the victim; that the baby is part of the crime. I say that the girl and the baby are both victims of this horrible attack.

My heart runs over with grateful tears when I hear of a girl or woman who has chosen to lovingly raise the child that resulted from rape. They really “get it.” And I’m proud of those who generously choose to have the baby and give it up for adoption, too.

But the idea that the baby is part of the crime… no. Abortion scars women, whatever the reason. I know enough women, victims of having an abortion, to say that.

Heart of Jesus, atonement for our sins, have mercy on us.

Ruthie

Ruthie, she does have the right to defend herself against conception from a non conjugal act. This is not a child created as God intended during the marital act. This is not a child from her marriage. Not talking about direct abortion here but prevention of conception. If conception takes place despite treatments then the baby has the right to be carried to term.

I don’t disagree that the child is also a victim. I’m not saying and the Bishop’s certainly haven’t said that the child should be sought out and killed. That’s not the premise here. The many moral theologians haven’t said so either. They have agreed that the burden to find out if there was a pregnancy is lesser than was previously thought.Up until the Conn. Bishop’s presented their case I was convinced we’d do an ultrasound to see if there were signs of ovulation . If the Vatican issues a document that says this then of course this will be the church teaching but that is not what has happend. Yet.

We are talking about treatments that come with unintended actions.The possible abortion of a pregnancy that we don’t know about. A woman who is pregnant and has cancer of the uterus is permitted to have a hysterectomy or other agressive treatments if necessary to save her life. Everyone knows that will absolutely or perhaps quite possibley kill a child if its not past a viable age depending upon the treatment and barring any miracles which could happen. It’s not all as cut and dry as many here would like to think.

 

[Seatuck]

If the only activity of Plan B is to stop ovulation, I don’t know why everyone is pushing so hard to use it. A woman ovulates only once, typically, in a 28-day period, so the drug would have an extremely narrow window of opportunity to do its work. It would be effective in only a handful of cases, when a woman is ready for ovulation. The rest of the time it would be unnecessary, since no ovulation occurred within days of the rape, or, if it did, (we’re told) there would be no post-fertilization (interceptive) effects–and the pregnancy would proceed normally.

Sorry to say, but I don’t trust what the bishops or the CHA moral theologians are telling us. It’s very clear to me that section 23 of DP is describing Plan B, a morning-after pill, when it discusses interceptives and the fact that “In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods, it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood”. And that’s exactly the argument that the bishops and CHA are using to justify using Plan B.

Pro-life health care professionals are always encouraged to go along with these things, and we have to resist. I’ve also read other articles that claim IUD’s have no interceptive activity, so nothing surprises me much anymore. CHA claims there are multiple studies that prove there are no post-fertilization effects from Plan B. I’m open to the information, but I honestly don’t think it exists.

I hope they’re right, though. I’m a pharmacist, and it would make my job a lot easier if this were one less battle I had to fight.

It’s frustrating is what it is. Where are these studies and why can’t we see them.
In any event we need to fight FOCA or we lose all our rights and abilities to practice according to our faith.

 

[seekdatruth]

If the only

Sorry to say, but I don’t trust what the bishops or the CHA moral theologians are telling us.

Me neither, well not completely. I did see what you’re talking about on this:

I’ve also read other articles that claim IUD’s have no interceptive activity, so nothing surprises me much anymore. CHA claims there are multiple studies that prove there are no post-fertilization effects from Plan B. I’m open to the information, but I honestly don’t think it exists.

I hope they’re right, though. I’m a pharmacist, and it would make my job a lot easier if this were one less battle I had to fight.

IMO, the CHA would do better to consider *all *the available information and use it in their arguments and rulings on the subject of these things. They use half-truths and incorrect information to say why the CC does not support contraception and IUD’s. It would be better to just not give a reason other than, “because we said so” The same thing happens on the side of the drug companies in support of these methods. Sometimes, if you really search for it, you can find that interception is not the only method by which it works, but also by creating an environment where, if conception occurs, it will be aborted by the body. Drug companies and the docs usually try to say “we don’t know exactly how it works in all cases” and that pretty much means there’s an ugly side to it that can occur.
I would like to see more solid research on how things like that work. It would certainly help me put my mind at ease if they found it never causes early abortion, but sadly, I doubt it.