Isn't Plan B against Catholic social teaching?

[peary]

“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…

It’s a delicate situation. Government funds are involved and if Plan B (which slows ovulation and is not an abortifacent) isn’s addressed due to state/federal law, Catholic hospitals would be closing by the dozens all over the country, and rather quickly. That would be a disaster.

Is it a contraceptive? That depends too. I am sure the bishops discussed this with the Vatican before any decisions were made.

 

[fish90]

It’s a delicate situation. Government funds are involved and if Plan B (which slows ovulation and is not an abortifacent) isn’s addressed due to state/federal law, Catholic hospitals would be closing by the dozens all over the country, and rather quickly. That would be a disaster.

Is it a contraceptive? That depends too. I am sure the bishops discussed this with the Vatican before any decisions were made.

Here is my issue. This is from a page from

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=968.

“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. 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”. (1)

My problem is that it seems to be contraception first and foremost. I find the argument about the sperm being an unwanted aggressor to be invalid because the morning after pill is stopping God from doing his will, one of the chief problems with contraception.

I am not trying to be an ignorant fool. I find that a baby conceived from a rape should have the same opportunity as any other baby to be conceived and be born according to God’s will. Then again, I am no bishop.

Please be respectful.

God Bless

 

[Flopfoot]

Sorry to go OT, but I read this thing about nuns who wanted to take a normal contraceptive pill (the kind you take regularly, not just after sex) in case they got raped. If these bishops’ decision was accepted, and if the normal pill was developed to only be contraceptive and never abortifacient, would that mean they would be allowed to do so?

This is interesting to me, I think that the bishops have a point here.

 

[maryjk]

My problem is that it seems to be contraception first and foremost. ** I find the argument about the sperm being an unwanted aggressor to be invalid because the morning after pill is stopping God from doing his will, one of the chief problems with contraception. **

I am not trying to be an ignorant fool. I find that a baby conceived from a rape should have the same opportunity as any other baby to be conceived and be born according to God’s will. Then again, I am no bishop.

Please be respectful.

God Bless

But that means that, according to you, God is willing someone to be raped.

Does the rapist have a choice? Is free will involved?

 

[yesukristus]

But that means that, according to you, God is willing someone to be raped.

Does the rapist have a choice? Is free will involved?

Why should a baby have less chance to live because of his/her parents? Why should God only give children to parents who love each other or at the very least consent to the sexual act which begot the abovementioned children? Why can’t God use a terrible event to bring about good?

 

[maryjk]

Why should a baby have less chance to live because of his/her parents? Why should God only give children to parents who love each other or at the very least consent to the sexual act which begot the abovementioned children? Why can’t God use a terrible event to bring about good?

Because if there isn’t ovulation there isn’t a baby. What you are talking about is allowing ovulation to happen so a baby might be conceived.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

So what is the difference between that situation (rape) and a married woman who might have a medical condition that might endanger her life if she became pregnant?

Or a teenager who would be “very traumatized” if she became pregnant?

A “fertilized egg” is a human being. It doesn’t matter if it is the result of a “whoops” or a violent act, that human being deserves the same protection as a 1st, 2nd, third trimester fetus, a born infant, as small child, a teenager, an adult or an aged person.

“Inhumane?” Let’s apply the standard of being humane equally if we’re going to pull out that card.

 

[survive]

The “fertilized egg” doesn’t try to implant into anyone anyway. By five to eight days fetal age, the embryo has organized into functional systems and has hundreds of cells. There is already the beginning bud (knot) of a heart and head, in their places, determined by the point of sperm/egg contact. There is lymphatic fluid, a layer of skin (exodermal cells) and the first muscle and red blood cells in their appropriate places. Nerve cells are forming. When the baby fails at implantation, drugs or environmental chemical disruption, or uterine damage from previous injury to the mother, or other not-exactly-natural causes, generally account for the early death of the child.

 

[Arwen037]

But what about an unfertilized egg? If the woman hasn’t ovulated, then a couple day delay caused by Plan B could save the woman a lot of pain and trauma. If she has ovulated then we should try to protect both lives.

And the wife and the teenager both had a choice, that’s why they are different. The raped woman had no choice.

 

[LittleDeb]

fish,
I know your thread is a little older at this point, but I don’t know if you feel your question has been answered or not.

As another poster already stated, a rape is not an act of sexual intercourse. It is an act of violence that happens to involve the generative organs. The word “contraception” doesn’t apply.

I don’t know that there is a clear enough understanding of the definition of contraception to answer your question about Plan B. For an act to be contraceptive, it must be within the context of a sexual exchange. “Exchange” is the operative word. The term “sexual intercourse” used to be able to define the act, but has become nearly a euphemism in our current culture. To illustrate: ‘verbal intercourse’ is defined as an *exchange *of words. A ‘lecture’ would be one sided. For an act to be contraceptive an intercourse must be the context. A man walking around with a condom on is wearing a contraceptive device. (morally neutral.) For him to commit a contraceptive act it must be immediately preceding, during, or immediately after an act of intercourse. (Morally evil.)

Scenario: a deranged man attacks me and begins an assault on my reproductive organs using his own reproductive organ in the assault. My giant husband is able to rip this man off of me after penetration but before ejaculation. Has my husband just caused me to participate in coitus interruptus, a contraceptive act? Of course not. He has stopped an assault in progress.

Your confusion seems to stem from a misunderstanding of God’s **deliberate **will verses God’s **permissive **will. Yes, God allowed the attack because He allows free will. It wasn’t a surprise to God that I was attacked. But He did not *deliberately *will me to be attacked. *Preventing *a conception from taking place does not violate God’s will since the act against me was intrinsically evil. Intrinsic evil is only *permitted *by God. It is not His deliberate will. When a conception *does *take place it is because of God’s *deliberate *will. He has brought forth beauty because *He chose *to do so. He can perform miracles whenever and wherever He chooses. *All *new life is because of His *deliberate *will. Once the conception has taken place, we must protect that life.

Since the mechanism of certain ovulation delaying hormones is not fully understood they remain under debate, due to the abortion concern. Spermicide, on the other hand, is always licit for rape victims. Rape is a violation of God’s *deliberate *will.

Clear as mud?

 

[fish90]

fish,
I know your thread is a little older at this point, but I don’t know if you feel your question has been answered or not.

As another poster already stated, a rape is not an act of sexual intercourse. It is an act of violence that happens to involve the generative organs. The word “contraception” doesn’t apply.

I don’t know that there is a clear enough understanding of the definition of contraception to answer your question about Plan B. For an act to be contraceptive, it must be within the context of a sexual exchange. “Exchange” is the operative word. The term “sexual intercourse” used to be able to define the act, but has become nearly a euphemism in our current culture. To illustrate: ‘verbal intercourse’ is defined as an *exchange *of words. A ‘lecture’ would be one sided. For an act to be contraceptive an intercourse must be the context. A man walking around with a condom on is wearing a contraceptive device. (morally neutral.) For him to commit a contraceptive act it must be immediately preceding, during, or immediately after an act of intercourse. (Morally evil.)

Scenario: a deranged man attacks me and begins an assault on my reproductive organs using his own reproductive organ in the assault. My giant husband is able to rip this man off of me after penetration but before ejaculation. Has my husband just caused me to participate in coitus interruptus, a contraceptive act? Of course not. He has stopped an assault in progress.

Your confusion seems to stem from a misunderstanding of God’s **deliberate **will verses God’s **permissive **will. Yes, God allowed the attack because He allows free will. It wasn’t a surprise to God that I was attacked. But He did not *deliberately *will me to be attacked. *Preventing *a conception from taking place does not violate God’s will since the act against me was intrinsically evil. Intrinsic evil is only *permitted *by God. It is not His deliberate will. When a conception *does *take place it is because of God’s *deliberate *will. He has brought forth beauty because *He chose *to do so. He can perform miracles whenever and wherever He chooses. *All *new life is because of His *deliberate *will. Once the conception has taken place, we must protect that life.

Since the mechanism of certain ovulation delaying hormones is not fully understood they remain under debate, due to the abortion concern. Spermicide, on the other hand, is always licit for rape victims. Rape is a violation of God’s *deliberate *will.

Clear as mud?

THAT WAS SO HELPFUL!!!

That answered my question.

Do you understand my concern over the Plan B method? Is my concern correct in that an abortion could occur?

Thanks again and God Bless,
fish90

 

[LittleDeb]

THAT WAS SO HELPFUL!!!

That answered my question.

Do you understand my concern over the Plan B method? Is my concern correct in that an abortion could occur?

Thanks again and God Bless,
fish90

Your concern about Plan B is a valid concern. But there is still the chance that an abortion in this case might fall under the principle of double effect. We can never do evil so that good may come. But we are permitted to do a morally neutral act that has an unintended side effect. Example: a diseased uterus can be removed (morally neutral.) Removing that diseased uterus will have a double effect of causing sterility. Sterility is not the intended purpose, but an unintended side effect.

If that same diseased uterus held a developing baby, removal of the uterus would cause the unintended double effect of miscarriage of the baby. Since the death of the baby was not the *purpose *of the act, it can be tolerated. (It is also a foundation for the ‘just war doctrine.’)

Both the Church and science make distinctions between *procured *abortion and *spontaneous *abortion. The former is always, under all conditions defined by the Church as “an intrinsic evil.” Spontaneous abortion is unintended, therefore not sinful. Plan B may or may not be licit, depending on the primary mechanism and other factors. Furthermore, a rape victim who was given improper Catholic counsel, or inadequate medical knowledge would not be culpable if she accidentally aborted. You cannot sin by accident. She did not *procure *an abortion.

I hope that helps.

 

[Benedict108]

Your concern about Plan B is a valid concern. But there is still the chance that an abortion in this case might fall under the principle of double effect. We can never do evil so that good may come. But we are permitted to do a morally neutral act that has an unintended side effect. Example: a diseased uterus can be removed (morally neutral.) Removing that diseased uterus will have a double effect of causing sterility. Sterility is not the intended purpose, but an unintended side effect.

If that same diseased uterus held a developing baby, removal of the uterus would cause the unintended double effect of miscarriage of the baby. Since the death of the baby was not the *purpose *of the act, it can be tolerated. (It is also a foundation for the ‘just war doctrine.’)

Both the Church and science make distinctions between *procured *abortion and *spontaneous *abortion. The former is always, under all conditions defined by the Church as “an intrinsic evil.” Spontaneous abortion is unintended, therefore not sinful. Plan B may or may not be licit, depending on the primary mechanism and other factors. Furthermore, a rape victim who was given improper Catholic counsel, or inadequate medical knowledge would not be culpable if she accidentally aborted. You cannot sin by accident. She did not *procure *an abortion.

I hope that helps.

I’m sorry but abortion can NEVER fall under the principle of double effect. To state this is to misunderstand the principle. For something to be considered under the principle of double effect it must be morally good on its own merit; however, abortion is not. Even when doing into the discussion of ectopic pregnancy and the conductinng of a partial or full salplingectomy, the direct action of the procedure was to removed the infected or compromised tissue, the indirect action was the termination of the baby. The same would be true of having a hysterectomy due to endometrial cancer.

Plan B is contraceptive by nature and that in itself makes not morally permissible and it is only compounded at the fact that it is abortifacient.

Double Effect should be understood as an act being licit when:

• The intended act must be good in itself. The intended act may not be morally evil.
• The good effect of the act must be that which is directly intended by the one who carries out the act. The bad effect that results from the act may be foreseen by the agent but must be unintended.
• The good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means.
• The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect which would result.
• Acts that have morally negative effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e., when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.

Pax tecum.

 

[thistle]

Plan B is forbidden by the Church.

Extract from INSTRUCTION DIGNITAS PERSONAE:

1. Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods,[The interceptive methods which are best known are the IUD (intrauterine device) and the so-called “morning-after pills”.] it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.

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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html#_ftn43