Isn't Plan B against Catholic social teaching?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Plan B can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. The drug works by stopping ovulation and has no effect on an existing pregnancy.” It’s definitely not abortion, though technically it may be against God’s will- after all, God can make great good out of the aftereffects of great sin, and who’s to say God doesn’t want the unfortunate victim to be a mother 9 months later? Just as long as they don’t turn it into another kind of contraceptive for unwilling mothers…
 
fish90 said:
I was astonished at reading that Plan B will now be given after APPROVAL FROM THE BISHOPS!!!

Please read:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298310,00.html

Any comments?
Click to expand...
Yes of course it is, if it is known or suspected that conception has taken place, then it would possibly be an abortion. I understand that it could possibly terminate a pregnancy by preventing implantation. However if is is reasonably certain that ovulation or conception has not taken place it can be used for serious reasons like rape or incest. This is my understanding of the Bishops approach.
 
fish90 said:
Is it not a form of contraception, then?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Your link is from 2007, so it is not current information. The Bishops in one state have decided that the use of Plan B *for rape victims only *might be morally allowed. Their argument is that emergency contraception in the case of rape is different than using contraception ordinarily. There has been a lot of debate since 2007 on this and I don’t think there is a definitive answer from the Church.
 
With the deepest and sincere respect, I cannot find the idea of emergency contraception for rape victims to be different than a married couple whose “contraception failed.”

My understanding of the Catholic understanding of abortion and contraception is that it is never permissible, because ending a life by preventing implantation and disallowing God to be present is wrong. How can emergency contraception be morally allowed in any case when there is no difference between any child born from rape or true marital love?
 
Corki said:
Yes, it is. Your link is from 2007, so it is not current information. The Bishops in one state have decided that the use of Plan B *for rape victims only *might be morally allowed. Their argument is that emergency contraception in the case of rape is different than using contraception ordinarily. There has been a lot of debate since 2007 on this and I don’t think there is a definitive answer from the Church.
Click to expand...
Good, I think that’s very compassionate towards rape victims.
 
One of Plan B’s earliest champions, Princeton’s James Trussell, Ph.D., widely promoted claims that it was 89% effective in preventing pregnancy and would reduce abortions in the U.S. by half. But in January 2007, Trussell and others published a review of 23 studies evaluating Plan B effectiveness. They found that “no study has shown that increased access to [Plan B] reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates on a population level.” They concluded that individual use of Plan B may reduce pregnancy risk by “more than 23%,” but that efficacy claims of 80% “may overstate actual efficacy, possibly quite substantially.” In short: Plan B works poorly in the individual woman and not at all in large groups of women!
Click to expand...
There is also evidence that, depending on the timing of Plan B relative to ovulation, the drug may act as an abortifacient by indirectly altering protein levels in the uterine lining so the week- old embryo cannot implant to receive nutrition from his or her mother. Girls and their parents deserve the truth about Plan B—not more deception and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
Taken from: usccb.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/050109.shtml
 
fish90 said:
What about the life that has been denied existence? No one is better than anyone else even when they are the product of a rape or incest.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it’s very traumatic when a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, and I think it’s inhumane to deny them Plan B because there just might be a fertilized egg there. I think, in those cases, we should consider actually putting the woman first.
 
fish90 said:
With the deepest and sincere respect, I cannot find the idea of emergency contraception for rape victims to be different than a married couple whose “contraception failed.”

My understanding of the Catholic understanding of abortion and contraception is that it is never permissible, because ending a life by preventing implantation and disallowing God to be present is wrong. How can emergency contraception be morally allowed in any case when there is no difference between any child born from rape or true marital love?
Click to expand...
You need to read the Bishops document from back when this happened.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7836&CFID=11097112&CFTOKEN=16244596
The rationale, which I am not convinced about, goes that in rape, the sperm can be considered the product of an unwelcome agressor. The sin in contraception is not that sperm are killed or that ovulation is prevented. The sin is that contraception interferes with the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. In rape, there is no marital act - only a violent attack which happens to be genital.

Ending the life of a newly conceived child is always wrong, even in the case of rape. That is why the Bishops wanted to only give Plan B if a test confirmed that ovulation had not already occurred.
 
Corki said:
Yes, it is. Your link is from 2007, so it is not current information. The Bishops in one state have decided that the use of Plan B *for rape victims only *might be morally allowed.
Click to expand...
Yes, it appears this decision was only for Connecticut and not any other state.
 
The problem would be that it is not proven that Plan B is 100% effective in preventing ovulation. When breakthrough ovulation occurs, the secondary action of Plan B in preventing implantation kicks in.
 
Corki said:
You need to read the Bishops document from back when this happened.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7836&CFID=11097112&CFTOKEN=16244596
The rationale, which I am not convinced about, goes that in rape, the sperm can be considered the product of an unwelcome agressor. The sin in contraception is not that sperm are killed or that ovulation is prevented. The sin is that contraception interferes with the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. In rape, there is no marital act - only a violent attack which happens to be genital.

Ending the life of a newly conceived child is always wrong, even in the case of rape. That is why the Bishops wanted to only give Plan B if a test confirmed that ovulation had not already occurred.
Click to expand...
Please excuse my lack of biology. I always was taught that Plan B was a way to prevent pregnancy. Is the justification that since the Church has not infallibly defined its teaching on Plan B there is a little loophole so to say? Will someone explain the biology behind the bishops justification?
 
Corki said:
You need to read the Bishops document from back when this happened.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7836&CFID=11097112&CFTOKEN=16244596
The rationale, which I am not convinced about, goes that in rape, the sperm can be considered the product of an unwelcome agressor. The sin in contraception is not that sperm are killed or that ovulation is prevented. The sin is that contraception interferes with the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. In rape, there is no marital act - only a violent attack which happens to be genital.

Ending the life of a newly conceived child is always wrong, even in the case of rape. That is why the Bishops wanted to only give Plan B if a test confirmed that ovulation had not already occurred.
Click to expand...
FYI - Women are not tested to see if they have ovulated after being raped.
 
I am not sure of the biology behind the Connecticut bishops’ justification either.
At any rate, it appears to run counter to the statement of the Vatican through
the Pontifical Academy for Life issued in 2000: STATEMENT ON THE SO-CALLED
“MORNING-AFTER PILL”.

(excerpts - emphasis mine)
/
  1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation (it can contain oestrogens, oestrogen/progestogens or only progestogens) which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly “anti-implantation” function, i.e., it prevents a possible fertilized ovum (which is a human embryo), by now in the blastocyst stage of its development (fifth to sixth day after fertilization), **from being implanted **in the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself.
The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo.

Only if this pill were to be taken several days before the moment of ovulation could it sometimes act to prevent the latter (in this case it would function as a typical “contraceptive”).

However, the woman who uses this kind of pill does so in the fear that she may be in her fertile period and therefore intends to cause the expulsion of a possible new conceptus; above all, it would be unrealistic to think that a woman, finding herself in the situation of wanting to use an emergency contraceptive, would be able to know exactly and opportunely her current state of fertility.
…
4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it…
/
 
I have been looking more into the issue of emergency contraception.

The Catholic hospital must ensure that the victim was not in her fertile period and that no contraception has occurred. If she is, no form of emergency contraception would be given and this is found through pregnancy tests and/or other correct means. If she is not in her fertile period, the bishops find that there is no immoral act to extend the infertile period since the victim was invaded by an aggressor. A woman who was not a victim of rape would not be entitled to emergency contraception.
Also, many pregnancies are canceled everyday when the fertilized egg does not attach due to natural reasons without the intervention of Plan B.

This is essentially what Corki said.
 
fish90 said:
I have been looking more into the issue of emergency contraception.

The Catholic hospital must ensure that the victim was not in her fertile period. If she is, no form of emergency contraception would be given and this is found through pregnancy tests and/or other correct means. If she is not in her fertile period, the bishops find that there is no immoral act to extend the infertile period since the victim was invaded by an aggressor. A woman who was not a victim of rape would not be entitled to emergency contraception.

This is essentially what Corki said.

Thanks for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Click to expand...
It is much complicated, I guess. I may be wrong but I think even if doctors must “ensure that the victim was not in her fertile period”, there is no absolute guarantee that conception will not take place. Sperm may live up to 5 days, and an infertile woman at the time of testing may be fertile a few days afterwards, and conceivably may conceive. And even if morning pill is administered, there is no absolute guarantee that breakthrough ovulation will not occur. Add to the fact that ovulations fluctuate from cycle to cycle, so it may be impossible to ensure.
 
Willy_Jose said:
It is much complicated, I guess. I may be wrong but I think even if doctors must “ensure that the victim was not in her fertile period”, there is no absolute guarantee that conception will not take place. Sperm may live up to 5 days, and an infertile woman at the time of testing may be fertile a few days afterwards, and conceivably may conceive. And even if morning pill is administered, there is no absolute guarantee that breakthrough ovulation will not occur. Add to the fact that ovulations fluctuate from cycle to cycle, so it may be impossible to ensure.
Click to expand...
Once a woman has ovulated, she would not be eligible for the morning after pill, according to Catholic teaching. If she hasn’t ovulated, the morning after pill would stop ovulation. It has nothing to do with being fertile, but everything to do with ovulation. For a Catholic woman using NFP, p(name removed by moderator)ointing ovulation isn’t difficult.

Breakthrough ovulation is when a woman is taking a low dose birth control pill. The morning after pill is high dose.
 
maryjk said:
Once a woman has ovulated, she would not be eligible for the morning after pill, according to Catholic teaching. If she hasn’t ovulated, the morning after pill would stop ovulation. It has nothing to do with being fertile, but everything to do with ovulation. For a Catholic woman using NFP, p(name removed by moderator)ointing ovulation isn’t difficult.

Breakthrough ovulation is when a woman is taking a low dose birth control pill. The morning after pill is high dose.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, we should caution against unequivocably accepting the Connecticut Bishops’ position as representative of “Catholic teaching”. This is a matter of ongoing research and debate, the Magisterium has not definitively weighed in on the specific application of Church teaching when it comes to developing protocols for providing contraceptives to rape victims. It is worthwhile to note the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s comments on the matter:

“In matters that have not yet been decided definitively by the Holy See, The National Catholic Bioethics Center has refrained from adopting one or another position on a disputed question. However, in the matter of protocols for sexual assault, there is virtual unanimity that an ovulation test should be administered before giving an anovulant medication. The protocol the NCBC has supported requires the ovulation test because it provides greater medical and moral certitude that the intervention will have its desired anovulatory effect. The NCBC objects strongly to state mandates, such as those passed by Connecticut and Massachusetts, that do not allow health care professionals and facilities to exercise their best medical judgment and which do not protect the consciences of all parties. We also object to state mandates that do not allow the victim of sexual assault to have all the information necessary for a medical intervention so that she might make an informed judgment. However, the NCBC understands the judgment of the Connecticut bishops that the administration of a contraceptive medication in the absence of an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act. However, it is immoral to violate one’s conscience, including the corporate consciences of health care agencies, and the unwillingness of the state to allow an exemption of conscience makes the law unjust and onerous.”
*
Thus the issue is far more than an issue of ovulation. In this respect, it must further be noted that the Conecticut bishops’ position is that an ovulation test is NOT required, as they state:“Nonetheless, to administer Plan B pills in Catholic hospitals to victims of rape a pregnancy test to determine that the woman has not conceived is sufficient. An ovulation test will NOT be required.”*.

I medical parlance, pregnancy starts at implantation. Consider what are the effects of plan B to the fertilized egg traveling down the fallopian tubes on the way to implant in the womb (typically in a week’s time) against the capability of Plan B to render the uterus inhospitable to implantation.

As to the contention about “low dose” vs “high dose” with respect to preventing ovulation, such could only decisively weigh on the matter once it is proven beyond scientific doubt that Plan B is an absolute guarantee for preventing ovulation (breakthrough or whatever). All medical resources point to Plan B’s effectiveness at only 75-89%. The Connecticut bishops’ statement admits thus: “such doubt about how Plan B pills and similar drugs work and because of the current impossibility of knowing from the ovulation test whether a new life is present”. Note that this statement does NOT rule out the possibility of the occurrence of chemical abortion, once Plan B is administered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top