German bishops agree Catholic hospitals can prescribe emergency contraception to rape victims

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EphelDuath said:
Sperm can survive in the body up to 5 days before ovulation occurs, no?
Click to expand...
Aren’t the instructions to take the medication for several days after intercourse?

My understanding is that the pill which John Rock designed was to prevent fertilization. Pills developed after that could have been abortifacients. It is hard to prove in any individual case, however, if indeed there was an abortion, but I could be wrong.
 
comrade1789 said:
Yeah, you got a point. In fact, I’ve seen some NFP sources report even up to 7 days.
Click to expand...
I heard 3 days is the “standard” and having sperm live 5 days has the probability comparable to winning the lottery.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Why did Catholic Medical Association not accept directive 36 in their annual meeting in 2003? They said

And
Click to expand...
You have pretty much nailed it. I thought ALL contraception was capable of aborting a fertilized egg, no?🤷 How would one ever really know if they caused an abortion or just prevented a pregnancy?
 
Teelynn said:
I thought ALL contraception was capable of aborting a fertilized egg, no?🤷
Click to expand...
The newer pill, EllaOne or Ella (just 2 or 3 years old) hasn’t been proven to cause abortion. There are only theories that it could cause abortion because it contains a substance that could cause abortion. But this has not been proven. On the contrary, it has been proven that the drug has no effect once fertilisation has occurred. But others do not believe the research and disagree (without presenting any scientific proof to justify their position.)
How would one ever really know if they caused an abortion or just prevented a pregnancy?
Click to expand...
How would one ever really know if other drugs cause an abortion or just prevent a pregnacy? 😉
 
Problem is that people will look for a Church-approved birth control pill but will never find it. So the dilemma for them continues.
 
I notice this thread is rife with the false authority fallacy claiming theology and science as fact that are not clearly fact.
 
ProVobis said:
Problem is that people will look for a Church-approved birth control pill but will never find it. So the dilemma for them continues.
Click to expand...
What does a “Church-approved birth control pill” have to do with the morning-after-pill? Or is contraception after rape disapproved by the Church? Not to my knowledge.
 
pnewton said:
I notice this thread is rife with the false authority fallacy claiming theology and science as fact that are not clearly fact.
Click to expand...
That’s the whole problem. The mindset in which material objects (rather than the way we use them) are always infallibly good or bad, is the same mindset which will travel to Mars to find a justification for continuing to believe - with or without real evidence - that a particular material object can never have a licit use.
 
seekerz said:
What does a “Church-approved birth control pill” have to do with the morning-after-pill? Or is contraception after rape disapproved by the Church? Not to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
I see what you’re saying but I was thinking about the pharmacist who won’t sell you either because of conscience concerns stemming from Humanae Vita inter alia.
 
ProVobis said:
I see what you’re saying but I was thinking about the pharmacist who won’t sell you either because of conscience concerns stemming from Humanae Vita inter alia.
Click to expand...
To properly apply Humanae Vitae to someone who is not self, a person would need all of the facts of the person’s sexual history and diagnoses, no? So where is a pharmacist in a position to obtain that kind of information? At a public pharmacy counter?
 
ProVobis said:
Problem is that people will look for a Church-approved birth control pill but will never find it. So the dilemma for them continues.
Click to expand...
Ah, I get it. You’re worried that catholics are on the cusp of gaining a monopoly in the pharmacy business so that unbelievers and rape victims will be unable to get their “morning after” pill. :rolleyes:

We should have such problems. Should this dream world come to be, the dire danger you anticipate for rape victims will still not come to pass. The protocol proposed will be in place at catholic hospitals and the staff will fully assist them in resisting the aggression of the rapist. But not to the point of intentionally killing the rapist’s children.

Besides, if we achieve this world where people on the whole actually believe in catholic values to that extent, we aren’t going to be having many rape victims. That’s a symptom of a society that raises people WITHOUT well formed consciences.
 
kelvinf said:
The newer pill, EllaOne or Ella (just 2 or 3 years old) hasn’t been proven to cause abortion. There are only theories that it could cause abortion because it contains a substance that could cause abortion. But this has not been proven. On the contrary, it has been proven that the drug has no effect once fertilisation has occurred. But others do not believe the research and disagree (without presenting any scientific proof to justify their position.)
Click to expand...
So the question then would be, would the drug, at the prescribed dosages, more likely than not cause an abortion? If we assume correctly that a preborn child is a human, that would seem to be a reasonable bright-line rule.
 
President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said in 2008, that the morning after pill should not be provided by Catholic physicians -
“But the position of the church is the same,” he told LifeSiteNews.com. “The morning after pill is dangerous; is an abortifacient when there is a conception and so illicit to prescribe by doctors.”
Click to expand...
“Thus,” added the Bishop, “there is the same position from the beginning of the presentation of this pill. It is not medicine, not a composition for health, so physicians are not obliged to prescribe it. It is forbidden for Catholic doctors to prescribe it and also to be requested by Catholics.”
Click to expand...
LifeSiteNews.com asked Bishop Sgreccia if there was an exception in cases of rape. The President of the Pontifical Academy for Life replied, “No. It is not able to prevent the rape. But it is able to eliminate the embryo. It is thus the second negative intervention on the woman (the first being the rape itself).”
Click to expand...
This means what the USSCB was prescribing in directive 36 from 2001 was not in line with the Pontitical Academy of Life

Current president of the Pontifical academy for life does approve the German Bishops position on allowing the morning after pill for rape victims, if ovulation has not occured, but this is such a change from what was said by the previous president 5 years ago
 
_Abyssinia said:
President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said in 2008, that the morning after pill should not be provided by Catholic physicians -

This means what the USSCB was prescribing in directive 36 from 2001 was not in line with the Pontitical Academy of Life

Current president of the Pontifical academy for life does approve the German Bishops position on allowing the morning after pill for rape victims, if ovulation has not occured, but this is such a change from what was said by the previous president 5 years ago
Click to expand...
Knowledge changes, evidence changes, therefore opinions can naturally be expected to change as well.

At some point we have to take a stand on the morning-after-pill’s propensity to interfere with implantation: there is evidence for it and against it, so that stand would have to be an educated assumption. If for example, we choose to accept that that pill does not act as an abortifacient, based on the evidence available, the principle of double effect would apply even if it was later found out that one’s stance was wrong. I don’t see the big problem with that, the principle of double effect already covers the possibility of unintended side effects in cases of medical use of the pill.
 
seekerz said:
Knowledge changes, evidence changes, therefore opinions can naturally be expected to change as well.
Click to expand...
This is especially true in area of science. Bioethics is tough and ever evolving.

I had to go back to Humanae Vitae to see that contraception is not intrinsically evil. I understand the need to be cautious in the defense of life, but stopping a rape is also a moral good. Preventing a rape person from becoming pregnant, and thus continuing to live in this violated state, is a moral good. We can never act though to commit a moral good that results in a greater moral evil. However, this does not mean that a greater moral evil must be 100% avoided.

For example, if we came upon a rape in progress, we are not obliged to let it continue unless we can 100% guarantee the safety of the rapist. We could morally use all sorts of less than lethal means to stop the violation, even though the means might result in killing the rapist. Why? the intent is not to kill, nor is killing guaranteed by our action, but only a possibility. The moral good is definite.
 
Can someone help me out here. I am not Catholic so I am having trouble understanding this. I know and agree 100 percent that abortion is wrong but this article is basically talking about birth control which is a separate issue but I thought Church teaching forbade birth control of any kind. So how is it ok in some cases and not I there’s ? I know rape is a most horrible crime but if conception takes place is that not Gods will ? Only he can determine when life takes place and when it doesn’t.

I think this path would change the birth control argument if allowed.
 
brierpatch1974 said:
Can someone help me out here. I am not Catholic so I am having trouble understanding this. I know and agree 100 percent that abortion is wrong but this article is basically talking about birth control which is a separate issue but I thought Church teaching forbade birth control of any kind. So how is it ok in some cases and not I there’s ? I know rape is a most horrible crime but if conception takes place is that not Gods will ? Only he can determine when life takes place and when it doesn’t.

I think this path would change the birth control argument if allowed.
Click to expand...
Here is the official Church teaching on contraception after rape (page 21).

My personal understanding is that consent is integral to human reproduction and conception. God did not create sex (or parenthood) to be forced upon others. We can take example from the Gospels as to how He respects the gift of free will which He gave to all people. Human beings on the other hand, are much too prone to resort to use of force (not just regarding their desires, but also their beliefs).

If we want to talk about God’s will, there are any number of natural consequences of human acts or events which we intervene in everyday in a morally acceptable way. Why should rape be different? If my house burns down, does God will for me to be homeless? If I contract a deadly bacteria does God will that I die? Just because God allows some mishap or even some unjust act, does not necessarily mean that He does not want us to intervene to prevent or change the natural consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top