Plan B and the American bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter AkronPonderer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AkronPonderer

Guest
Reading this official webite of the American bishops, I noticed this interesting statement/teaching:

nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.shtml

Read item #36.

Is this leaving moral room open for use of Plan B under certain circumstances?

As far as I know, there is no way presently, to tell when fertilization actually takes place.
 
"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."
Would seem so???!!!
 
AkronPonderer said:
Reading this official webite of the American bishops, I noticed this interesting statement/teaching:

nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.shtml

Read item #36.

Is this leaving moral room open for use of Plan B under certain circumstances?

As far as I know, there is no way presently, to tell when fertilization actually takes place.
Click to expand...
I am wondering what degree of moral certainty is needed to licitly take medication to suppress ovulation post rape? As you say I do not think there is any definite test to determine if fertilization has happened.

The problem with plan B is it is mostly taken without any knowledge of fertilization. That would not be licit and it is mostly not used to repel an unjust aggressor but is used as contraception.
 
As usual with statements from the US bishops, this is foggy, vague, open to varying interpretation, and ambiguous to a degree of nonsensicality.

More like Plan 9 From Outer Space, if you ask me.
 
This is hardly foggy. This is a clear application of the principle of double effect. As long as an effort is made to determine ovulation and it indicates that ovulation has likely not occurred then the drug may be administered. At that point, even if ovulation somehow has occurred, the abortion is an unintended and unknown side effect since the intention here was to prevent ovulation.
 
The fogginess here is minimal. The bishops are laying out the moral principles. It is for medical experts to determine if it is possible to determine if conception has already taken place.
 
Perhaps it is setting up the circumstances under which Plan B can be administered in Catholic hospital Emergency Rooms.

I wonder if the determination of where a woman was in her menstrual cycle would suffice as evidence?
 
AkronPonderer said:
I wonder if the determination of where a woman was in her menstrual cycle would suffice as evidence?
Click to expand...
Women, using NFP, know when they ovulate. Or at least know that they have or have not ovulated.

Women, not using NFP, would not know. The day of her current cycle does not tell her when she would ovulate.

So, saying, “I am on day ten of my cycle,” tells us nothing. The woman may have already ovulated or she may not have ovulated.

Saying, “I am on day ten, my temps are still low, but my mucus readings are blank,” tells us where she is in the cycle.
 
AkronPonderer said:
Perhaps it is setting up the circumstances under which Plan B can be administered in Catholic hospital Emergency Rooms.

I wonder if the determination of where a woman was in her menstrual cycle would suffice as evidence?
Click to expand...
If by plan B you mean a large dose of hormones to act as a contraceptive, then yes. But this has been done in Catholic hospitals for quite some time. To the best of my knowledge, the Bishop’s guidelines are not new. As long as the medical professionals do there best to ascertain the presence of ovulation, there doesn’t seem to be any moral issue. If they try and fail and a very early term abortion occurs, that is an unforeseen and unintended side effect of a moral act.
 
AkronPonderer said:
Perhaps it is setting up the circumstances under which Plan B can be administered in Catholic hospital Emergency Rooms.

I wonder if the determination of where a woman was in her menstrual cycle would suffice as evidence?
Click to expand...
Plan B has been used in ER’s in Catholic hospitals for years. Women are not asked where they are in their cycle. In most cases, they are simply told that Plan B as an option is available to them.
 
I can remember back in the late 1950’s or early 1960’s reading a question and answer in a Catholic newspaper. The question asked what a woman could morally do when she was raped. The answer was that she should get herself to a doctor immediately and have the sperm flushed out of her body.

Apparently, these days they just use the “Plan B” pill instead. I think that the people who frequent these forums should start reading what the bishops have to say about some of these issues. Any information from the bishops is far superior than some of the things taught by ultra-conservative Catholics.

This is precisely why I am having a little trouble with the concept of a pharmacist wanting to withhold Plan B from a woman. According to the bishops, Plan B would be okay for a Catholic woman who has been raped and hasn’t ovulated yet.
 
And all woman know when they ovulate? Not all woman track their fertility…see the dilemma?
 
Ham1 said:
If by plan B you mean a large dose of hormones to act as a contraceptive, then yes. But this has been done in Catholic hospitals for quite some time. To the best of my knowledge, the Bishop’s guidelines are not new. As long as the medical professionals do there best to ascertain the presence of ovulation, there doesn’t seem to be any moral issue. If they try and fail and a very early term abortion occurs, that is an unforeseen and unintended side effect of a moral act.
Click to expand...
That is an area of moral debate that appears to be not settled yet.
…Given the above, the probable “direct effect” in the vast majority of cases of administering a “morning-after pill” following rape would be an unnecessary disruption of the woman’s endometrium[10], rather than preventing a conception which would not, in any case, have occurred. However, without knowing the stage of the ovulatory cycle of the rape victim, it is difficult to say what the “direct effect” of the morning-after pill will be.
Click to expand...
In view of (b), the possible abortifacient effect of the “morning-after pill” cannot be classified blithely as an “unforeseen” effect of its use. While it is true that a woman, in taking a “morning-after pill” following a recent rape, need not intend to cause an abortion, in bringing about this immediate side-effect of a fatally inhospitable environment for any newly conceived child she, and those who treat her, are morally obliged to take into account the risk at which they place such a child. For this reason, efforts should be made to reduce this risk as much as possible.[11]…
Click to expand...
The “Morning-After Pill”, Rape Victims
and *
Ethical and Religious Directives
for Catholic Health Care Services*
Click to expand...
 
A pelvic ultrasound can determine if you’ve recently ovulated. There are telltale marks on the ovaries. A blood test for the hormones that surge right before ovulation could also be helpful.
 
axolotl said:
A pelvic ultrasound can determine if you’ve recently ovulated. There are telltale marks on the ovaries. A blood test for the hormones that surge right before ovulation could also be helpful.
Click to expand...
Yes, so one may have ovulated but fertilization is another matter. Right?
 
I don’t mean to lack compassion on the victims of sexual assault, but I don’t quite understand how administering Plan B post-rape is not still a violation of the Church’s teaching on contraception:
The Church:
every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil
Click to expand...
How does the administering of Plan B post-rape not qualify as rendering procreation impossible in the development of the natural consequences of the conjugal act?

Jeremy
 
jemfinch said:
I don’t mean to lack compassion on the victims of sexual assault, but I don’t quite understand how administering Plan B post-rape is not still a violation of the Church’s teaching on contraception:

How does the administering of Plan B post-rape not qualify as rendering procreation impossible in the development of the natural consequences of the conjugal act?

Jeremy
Click to expand...
Rape is not a conjugal act and impeding the natural consequences is repelling the act of the unjust aggressor.
 
fix said:
Yes, so one may have ovulated but fertilization is another matter. Right?
Click to expand...
Right. So using Plan B if ovulation is determined to have occurred would not be moral. Since there is an egg, it’s possible that it could be fertilized, and Plan B could hinder it’s implantation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top