Rape/emergency contraception

[litllulu]

Ok…this really hits at home. And the insult is more than I can bear so here we go…

My mother, the victim of a rape by man of another race, kept her baby. This baby is my older brother. My mother (God rest her soul) loves her son. This product of rape is my older brother. I love my big brother!

My wife is also the victim of a rape by a man of another race. The product of this rape is my youngest son. I love my son!

My Mother and my wife never considered their child to be an ugly reminder of the brutal rape that they endured. They always considered their child, their baby, to be a blessing from God! And that is indeed what they are!

For those of you who have a knee jerk reaction to abortion and contraception in the case of rape… the whole concept is a straw man. Don’t be fooled by the folks who want to use rape as an excuse for contraception and/or abortion.

That is so incredibly sad!! Tell me, if you dont want to you don’t have to, Was this the same man? What are the Chances of that happening?

 

[Jennifer_J]

I think it is you making the straw man argument. I haven’t seen anyone use rape as an “excuse”

I don’t know that he meant any one here. But there certainly are people in the pro-abortion lobby that do.

Jennifer

 

[Jennifer_J]

Listen, The CHURCH teaches that life begins at conception because that’s when the CHURCH teaches that the soul is given. I don’t care what legislature A or court B or Scientist X says about definitions of fertilization, conception, implantation, ect. We (Catholics) MUST follow the Church’s teaching in this matter–life (ensoulment) begins at conception. To take a medication that potentially doesn’t allow a baby to implant for the purpose of not wanting the baby to implant is killing that baby.

Jennifer

 

[jack_hawkins]

In that case Jennifer, what happens to monozygotic twins?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Jack,

I have yet to see you post evidence to support your claims. What do you have to show us?

Usually the person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof.
Show me any proof on an effect on implantation fix.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but for the progestogen-only pill which works at leat partly through an effect on implantation it is believed, there is either an absolute increase, or at least no decrease, in the number of ectopic pregnancies. This is not the case with the vast majority of studies of the combined oral contraceptive pill.

 

[Jennifer_J]

In that case Jennifer, what happens to monozygotic twins?

Really, in this case only God knows and only we can make a best guess. When we make our best guess we err on the side of LIFE.

<<The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature [eg. as to the time of ensoulment], but it constantly affirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception, and therefore from that same moment his or rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day”>>

<<“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing else than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed; (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (November 18, 1974), note 19. See 4 Origins 385-392 (December 12, 1974) at 392.>>

2 articles on different sides. I haven’t read all the way through them yet:
lifeissues.net/writers/ash/ash_01cloningaquinas1.html
lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_10humandevelopment.html

Here’s another link as well
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/identical_twins.html

 

[jburgherr]

That is so incredibly sad!! Tell me, if you dont want to you don’t have to, Was this the same man? What are the Chances of that happening?

Heavens no it was not the same man!.. The events took place decades apart from one another.

The event that both that my Mother and my Wife being raped is sad, but the out come of these events are blessed…namely my brother and my youngest child.

 

[jburgherr]

I think it is you making the straw man argument. I haven’t seen anyone use rape as an “excuse”

It is a straw man, because the name of this thread implies that the Church should allow for the use of contraceptions because an “EMERGENCY” situation has occurred in the case of rape.

In such a case, the woman would likely use the “Morning After Pill”, or an injection would be given by a health care provider. Both would be an abortofacient agent which would cause the lining of the womb to becomee inhospitable for the implantation of the newly conceived baby.

Lets remember who is the perpetrator is here…it is the person who perpetrated the rape…not the baby which was possibly conceived!

THE BABY IS NOT THE ENEMY! Don’t create another victim because you confuse who the perpetrator is!

No man, no woman, has the right to kill the life of an innocent!

 

[gam197]

FDA Report - 2003
The AERS search identified 29 cases of Ectopic pregnancies…Twelves cases were reported from Gedeon Richter in Hungary. There were ten cases from the United Kingdom, one of which had been published
Fabunmi L. Perks N. Caesarean secton scar ectopic pregnancy following postcoital contraception J Family Planning Repro Health Care 2002;28:155-6
Three cases came from Isreal and had been published
Sheffer-Mimouni G. Pauzner D. Maslovitch S. Lessing JB, Gamza R. Ectopic pregnancies following emergency contraception Contraception 2003; 67:267-9
There was a single case from Sweden and china.

The events was considered life-threatening in 15 cases. Fifteen patients were stated to have been hospitalized and surgery was performed in ten cases.

If anyone would like a copy, I have a disc from the FDA.

 

[fix]

Usually the person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof.

Indeed, and I have given the indirect proof they are abortifacient. Yet, all I hear is that science claims they are not.

Show me any proof on an effect on implantation fix.

Again, I gave proof that reasons from known effects on endometrium and other factors they are most likely abortifacient at times.

It’s impossible to prove a negative,

You do not have to, you only have to refute my proof.

but for the progestogen-only pill which works at leat partly through an effect on implantation it is believed, there is either an absolute increase, or at least no decrease, in the number of ectopic pregnancies.

POP’s then may be abortifacient, agree?

This is not the case with the vast majority of studies of the combined oral contraceptive pill.

Your opinion?

As the doses of estrogen and progestin have decreased in the now popular “low-dose” oral contraceptives, escape ovulation will occur in as many as 25 to 30% of cycles if pills are missed early in the cycle [32]. With correct use, one study documents escape ovulation at almost 2% with the multiphasic, and 5% with the monophasic, variety for each cycle [33]. This agrees with the finding that the newer, lower-dose pills do not protect women from ovarian cysts as the older, higher-dose variety did [34]. Because ovulation can occur, and because the lining of the uterus can be damaged, preventing implantation, and with a known pregnancy rate of 1% to 4% among women on the pill, it is clearly possible that an early conceptus would be unable to implant and would die due to the pill. A woman cannot know what mechanism is acting in any given cycle. Considering the millions of women using oral contraceptives worldwide, the abortifacient potential is great.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/97rlpbru.shtml

 

[jack_hawkins]

It is a straw man, because the name of this thread implies that the Church should allow for the use of contraceptions because an “EMERGENCY” situation has occurred in the case of rape.

In such a case, the woman would likely use the “Morning After Pill”, or an injection would be given by a health care provider. Both would be an abortofacient agent which would cause the lining of the womb to becomee inhospitable for the implantation of the newly conceived baby.

Lets remember who is the perpetrator is here…it is the person who perpetrated the rape…not the baby which was possibly conceived!

THE BABY IS NOT THE ENEMY! Don’t create another victim because you confuse who the perpetrator is!

No man, no woman, has the right to kill the life of an innocent!

That’s not really a straw man argument is it? More like a Trojan Horse?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Indeed, and I have given the indirect proof they are abortifacient. Yet, all I hear is that science claims they are not.
Again, I gave proof that reasons from known effects on endometrium and other factors they are most likely abortifacient at times

yes, you see that it is not proof - that is your misunderstanding. always a pitfall for the unwary, surrogate endpoints

POP’s then may be abortifacient, agree?

I don’t think many people would argue under the Catholic definition that they are when used as regular contraception

low dose pills probably do result in a higher rate of ovulation, I haven’t argued otherwsie. the argument of that article presumes the acceptance of the “hostile endometrium” theory. if one doesn’t agree with that assumption, one doesn’t agree with the conclusion!
give me the proof , or even rationale for the “hostile endometrium” theory

 

[jburgherr]

The thought that a fertilized egg, is not alive because it has not implanted is laughable.

Pick any single cell animal…pick any cell from any multi-cell animal. The definition of **alive **by any scientific body is…does it consume food and/or oxygen. The human fertilized egg certainly does these things. And if it does not have these things it dies.

To purposely cause the death of a human is unethical and morally wrong. And yes, the fertilized egg is human. The fertilized egg’s DNA cannot grow into a goat, frog or anything else other than a human. It is just at a different stage of development. Not any different than the development of a 6 month old baby is to a person whom is 90 years of age.

The Church’s stance has always been that it is grave matter, and is considered a mortal sin! Not just for the woman kills her child, but the doctor, scientist(s), and pharmacist who participate.

 

[mikew262]

So before implantation what exactly is that fertilized egg? A nonlife?

According to the study that was quoted, the vast majority of fertilized eggs never get implanted. How do explain all these eggs being discarded? You think God is giving life, and then saying oops, my mistake, nevermind, I didn’t really mean to do that? It doesn’t make a lot of sense now does it?

Unless the egg implants, it was never mean’t to be in the first place.

Think!!

 

[mikew262]

When we start arbitrarily determining when life begins then you get people postulating that life begins at birth, or even a month or 2 after birth, thus allowing very late abortions and infanticide. Once fertilization/conception has occured a new human exists.

Jennifer

See my answer to Fix (# 74).

 

[fix]

yes, you see that it is not proof - that is your misunderstanding. always a pitfall for the unwary, surrogate endpoints

There is ample evidence to conclude they are abortifacient. To act contrary to such compelling evidence is to be callous toward life. First do no harm. Any doubt must be resolved in terms of avoiding serious evil.

I don’t think many people would argue under the Catholic definition that they are when used as regular contraception

low dose pills probably do result in a higher rate of ovulation, I haven’t argued otherwsie. the argument of that article presumes the acceptance of the “hostile endometrium” theory. if one doesn’t agree with that assumption, one doesn’t agree with the conclusion!

give me the proof , or even rationale for the “hostile endometrium” theory

What is the precise language appearing in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) with regard to these agents? “Ortho-Novum: …a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation.” “Norinyl: …alterations in …the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).” The authors follow with a long harangue against the drug manufacturers use of the term “hostile endometrium”. Perhaps they should be calling them to task, rather than the right-to-life community. They do accurately describe the findings in the endometrium of pill users proven in numerous scientific studies. They note that the findings indicate a “less vascular, less glandular, thinner lining of the uterus produced by these hormones.” One of the side effects listed for BCP’s is amenorrhea. This means that the endometrium is thinned out completely resulting in no menstrual flow when on the break from the hormones. They then add, perhaps disingenuously; “…not one company will offer data to validate the ‘hostile endometrium’ presumption.”

aaplog.org/collition.htm

 

[fix]

According to the study that was quoted, the vast majority of fertilized eggs never get implanted. How do explain all these eggs being discarded?

God is giving life, and then saying oops, my mistake, nevermind, I didn’t really mean to do that.

Unless the egg implants, it was never mean’t to be in the first place.

Think!!

What absurdity. Can you not see the difference between the permissive will of God and humans directly acting contrary to the natural moral law?

When an infant is born dead does that mean we are free to kill infants?

 

[fix]

See my answer to Fix (# 74).

Yes, it is contrary to logic and any lucid moral reasoning.

 

[mikew262]

Yes, it is contrary to logic and any lucid moral reasoning.

Actually, it makes perfectly logical sense. This is why the entire medical world states an actual pregnancy starts at implantation. You are the one being illogical.

 

[fix]

Actually, it makes perfectly logical sense. This is why the entire medical world states an actual pregnancy starts at implantation. You are the one being illogical.

Truth is not determined by majority opinion. And claiming life begins at implantation is no scientific fact, it is an opinion.