H
HagiaSophia
Guest
From an editorial by Bishop Chaput:
"…While conception from rape is rare, it does happen, and Catholic teaching supports the right of rape victims to defend themselves against potential conception.
Genuine emergency contraception - i.e., steps to prevent ovulation following a rape - poses no problem for Catholics. The Church and her health-care institutions already allow for this as an act of defense against violent sexual assault. But “emergency contraception” is one of those expressions that sounds compelling but easily gets twisted. HB 1042 does a bad job of defining it.
Medical science traditionally saw fertilization of a woman’s egg - not implantation in the uterine wall - as the beginning of pregnancy and life itself. The abortion lobby, of course, worked hard to change that.
If the hormonal agents used in emergency contraception are intended to suppress ovulation, and if they’re applied at a point in a victim’s cycle where they truly can prevent ovulation, Catholics can support their use.
But many backers of emergency contraception intend much more than simply blocking conception. They define it to include methods that are abortifacient - in other words, that kill the fertilized egg after pregnancy has begun by preventing it from implanting in the uterine wall…HB 1042 is a well-intentioned piece of legislation. What it needs now is the clarity of deeper moral and scientific reflection, and room for people and institutions to remain true to their consciences in responding."
denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~158~2697961,00.html
"…While conception from rape is rare, it does happen, and Catholic teaching supports the right of rape victims to defend themselves against potential conception.
Genuine emergency contraception - i.e., steps to prevent ovulation following a rape - poses no problem for Catholics. The Church and her health-care institutions already allow for this as an act of defense against violent sexual assault. But “emergency contraception” is one of those expressions that sounds compelling but easily gets twisted. HB 1042 does a bad job of defining it.
Medical science traditionally saw fertilization of a woman’s egg - not implantation in the uterine wall - as the beginning of pregnancy and life itself. The abortion lobby, of course, worked hard to change that.
If the hormonal agents used in emergency contraception are intended to suppress ovulation, and if they’re applied at a point in a victim’s cycle where they truly can prevent ovulation, Catholics can support their use.
But many backers of emergency contraception intend much more than simply blocking conception. They define it to include methods that are abortifacient - in other words, that kill the fertilized egg after pregnancy has begun by preventing it from implanting in the uterine wall…HB 1042 is a well-intentioned piece of legislation. What it needs now is the clarity of deeper moral and scientific reflection, and room for people and institutions to remain true to their consciences in responding."
denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~158~2697961,00.html