Rape/emergency contraception

[Jennifer_J]

I’m starting this thread after we took “Birth Control for Mentally Handicapped” far from the topic.

Here’s an interesting link against what the Bishops’ statements have been regarding rape and contraception:

lifeissues.net/writers/she/she_24map.html

Here’s a link to the Bishop’s Health Directive
usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partthree

and a link to the “Guidelines for Catholic Hospitals Treating Victims of Sexual Assault,” Origins 22
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/HOSPSEX.HTM

So, whom do we follow in this matter?

Jennifer

 

[astegallrnc]

For those interested, this is from the CAF apologists.

Regarding the abrotifacient effects of ECPs, there is confliciting evidence. There is current evidence that suggests ECPs do not alter the endometrial lining. Yes, I know what the prescribing information. These are compliments of another CAF member.

Pituitary-ovarian function following the standard levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive dose or a single 0.75-mg dose given on the days preceding ovulation.

Post-coital administration of levonorgestrel does not interfere with post-fertilization events in the new-world monkey Cebus apella

 

[jack_hawkins]

Does anyone know what happened to that other thread, it seems to have been pulled?

 

[Jennifer_J]

The moderators are probably reviewing it and seperating out the off topic posts. That’s my guess anyway. Sometimes threads do get pulled totally for various reasons.

Jennifer

 

[Ham1]

In answer to the OP. I would follow the Conference of US Bishops. They are our shepherds and since this is an official statement we ought to heed it.

Remember, the fact that a pill that is repelling unjust aggressors (sperm) could also be an abortifacient does not eliminate it from moral consideration. If care is taken to ascertain whether conception has occured, the pill is administered and a miscarriage still results. That miscarriage is not an act of intentional abortion but is an unfortunate evil effect which holds up under the Principle of The Double Effect.

 

[jack_hawkins]

The moderators are probably reviewing it and seperating out the off topic posts. That’s my guess anyway. Sometimes threads do get pulled totally for various reasons.

Jennifer

I hope they don’t remove useful posts…
it would give the wrong impression

 

[chevalier]

As I see it, it is perfectly legitimate to prevent conception in case of rape if there’s no danger of aborting a conceived foetus. Note that before rape, there might have been another intercourse with conception resulting, though, so that’s probably a question to be asked before administering a post-coital contraceptive with potential side effects on a conceived foetus.

 

[hasikelee]

I’m also curious about something rarely discussed. Essentially, emergency contraception is said to have the purpose of expelling or killing sperm. Yet those who do not prescribe to Catholic teaching claim that emergency contraception will prevent implantation, thus causing an early-term abortion.

This seems quite inconsistent! I am wondering if anyone has information on the forms of emergency contraception generally considered the norm for application after rape and the inherent properties of those types.

Also, when attempting to apply the argument that a secondary negative effect is caused, how does one determine which is the first effect or primary purpose of the HRT in this case?

For example, we can determine a legitimate double effect in providing chemotherapy to a pregnant woman with cancer. The primary purpose is to use a medicine to treat the cancer, with a possible secondary effect of killing the human foetus. This is tragic and presents an oppurtunity for the medical community to continue to improve.

But in the case of using things such as the morning after pill, how can it be determined that the primary purpose is to kill sperm or prevent them from causing conception. How can we be sure that the primary purpose is not to prevent implantation or even kill the human zygote before implantation can even occur?

 

[astegallrnc]

Hi hasikelee ! It is midnight and I am feeling a bit tired so I am answering the easy parts.

Essentially, emergency contraception is said to have the purpose of expelling or killing sperm. Yet those who do not prescribe to Catholic teaching claim that emergency contraception will prevent implantation, thus causing an early-term abortion.

The two methods of emergency contraception I learned were ECPs (Emergency Contraception Pills) and the IUD.
ECPs are considered to work by preventing ovulation. I have prescribed combination pills and progestin only (including Plan B) for EC. The IUD… well no one seems to agree on how it works. I have read scientific evidence that suggests it does not act by preventing implantation; however, this is not absolutely ruled out.

ETA: For those who may not know, I am NFP-only now.
HTH!
Autumn

 

[hasikelee]

Hi hasikelee ! It is midnight and I am feeling a bit tired so I am answering the easy parts.

The two methods of emergency contraception I learned were ECPs (Emergency Contraception Pills) and the IUD.
ECPs are considered to work by preventing ovulation. I have prescribed combination pills and progestin only (including Plan B) for EC. The IUD… well no one seems to agree on how it works. I have read scientific evidence that suggests it does not act by preventing implantation; however, this is not absolutely ruled out.

ETA: For those who may not know, I am NFP-only now.
HTH!
Autumn

Thanks for the reply, Autumn. I am always interested in your point of view as it picks up on nuances from the medical part of the situation.

One thing I am curious about, I was under the impression that artificial progesterone tightened the endometrium of the uterus, thus making it harder for the human to implant.

I wonder if I am confusing this with another drug, or if a higher dosage of progesterone would prevent this?

That impression was generally where I was coming from in that if this is true, administering contraception after rape might have the effect of preventing implantation.

 

[Abira]

I like the medical part of this thread. I find it hard to look at it from this angle.

If something that awful ever happened to me I would abort without a question.

Firstly, what if the ‘father’ wanted to have some contact in later life??

Secondly, I could not bear having any part of him inside my body.

Thirdly, I would hate that child and would be scared that it would remind me every day.

Fourthly…if I was forced to carry it for nine months I would give the child away as soon as possible.

I know that sounds harsh but the thouht of carrying a child from a rape is so awful and I have seen what rape has done to some of the people I have in my life at the moment.

Take care, S

 

[stinkcat_14]

I like the medical part of this thread. I find it hard to look at it from this angle.

If something that awful ever happened to me I would abort without a question.

Firstly, what if the ‘father’ wanted to have some contact in later life??

Secondly, I could not bear having any part of him inside my body.

Thirdly, I would hate that child and would be scared that it would remind me every day.

Fourthly…if I was forced to carry it for nine months I would give the child away as soon as possible.

I know that sounds harsh but the thouht of carrying a child from a rape is so awful and I have seen what rape has done to some of the people I have in my life at the moment.

Take care, S

Pam Stenzel was the product of a rape, she doesn’t believe that she deserved the death penalty because of her father’s crime.

Check her out:

pamstenzel.com/

 

[Abira]

Pam Stenzel was the product of a rape, she doesn’t believe that she deserved the death penalty because of her father’s crime.

Check her out:

pamstenzel.com/

I’d accept that, but as an individual myself I would not want to live every day with that reminder. I would still resort to my last option and give the child over to adoption.

Good link

 

[Stella_Matutina]

Abira,
The fact that you would choose adoption if you conceived a child because of rape is completely understandable. But I do want to address some of the things you said in case you ever in your life for some reason (God forbid) come across a situation like this with a friend or yourself.

I like the medical part of this thread. I find it hard to look at it from this angle.

If something that awful ever happened to me I would abort without a question.

I am assuming that the fact that you would “abort without a question” has changed since looking at Pam Stenzel’s website based on your other post?

Firstly, what if the ‘father’ wanted to have some contact in later life??

Secondly, I could not bear having any part of him inside my body.

I think that what you are failing to realize is that the “part of him inside [your] body” is also a part of you. That baby has your eyes, your skin tone, your laugh, your smile- you are her mother. For example, my parents are divorced. Even though my dad did not rape my mom, there was a time when my mom hated my dad. But no matter how much she loathed my father, (or how much I looked like him) that still didn’t change her love for me. I am her daughter.

Thirdly, I would hate that child and would be scared that it would remind me every day.

Abortion does not erase the rape. You will remember that rape for the rest of your life. There is nothing you can do to erase what happened. Many women who have been raped and conceived have said that the abortion was even worse than the rape, because that was a decision they made. The rape they couldn’t control, but the abortion they could. And everyone was pressuring them to abort, mostly for their own comfort instead of looking out for her best interests and her child’s.

Fourthly…if I was forced to carry it for nine months I would give the child away as soon as possible.

Adoption is always an option for any unintended pregnancy.

I know that sounds harsh but the thouht of carrying a child from a rape is so awful and I have seen what rape has done to some of the people I have in my life at the moment.

Take care, S

Rape is a horrible crime. And I too have close friends that have suffered the effects of rape. But I also have close friends that have suffered the effects of abortion- and sometimes, it is hard to tell which is worse. I hope this helps in your understanding of why the Catholic Church is against abortion even in cases such as rape.

Take a look at some of these testimonies of others who were conceived through rape and have made a big impact on the world.

rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html

There are also support groups for people who were conceived through rape. Because abortion is so popular today, many of these individuals have identity issues because the message to them is basically, “You should have been aborted.”

stigmatized.org/

I hope that helps:
God bless,
SM

 

[astegallrnc]

Thanks for the reply, Autumn. I am always interested in your point of view as it picks up on nuances from the medical part of the situation.

One thing I am curious about, I was under the impression that artificial progesterone tightened the endometrium of the uterus, thus making it harder for the human to implant.

I wonder if I am confusing this with another drug, or if a higher dosage of progesterone would prevent this?

That impression was generally where I was coming from in that if this is true, administering contraception after rape might have the effect of preventing implantation.

Yes, a cycle of pills thins the endometrium but keep in mind that suppression of ovulation is a factor too. The studies I linked are on ECPs specifically, which are often taken during natural cycles. There are various possbilities to explain why the endometrium does not thin (i.e., the endogenous hormones have not been suppressed, post-fertilization hormones, etc.). This is just another perspective and not necessarily my opinion.

 

[litllulu]

This has been weighing on my heart as well. I had a friend who was raped. I believe what the document states is that if you are not concieving (ovulation) then you can you can take the morning after pill. Unless conception has occured, it will not have an abortifacient effect; it will act as delaying ovualtion and therefor preventing pregnancy from ever occuring.

This is the real question: What legal ramifications would it have to refuse a MAP in the event that you were ovulating? Would you have less of a case? Can you imagine what a field day the Defense Attorneys would have if they said that the victim refused to take a MAP and wanted to get pregnant? I know that many women do not go forward with going to the police because they do not want a trial. What do you all think?

 

[jack_hawkins]

I hope they don’t remove useful posts…
it would give the wrong impression

and that’s a second thread gone now, with a lot of very productive discussion in my opinion
are certain questions (and answers) not allowed?

 

[Jennifer_J]

If you have a question about the mods removing threads, you need to go to the moderator section and ask them. Really, we are not supposed to discuss moderator decisions within a thread, just an fyi.

Jennifer

 

[jack_hawkins]

OK:thumbsup: - didn’t realise that

 

[Brendan]

In answer to the OP. I would follow the Conference of US Bishops. They are our shepherds and since this is an official statement we ought to heed it.

Remember, the fact that a pill that is repelling unjust aggressors (sperm) could also be an abortifacient does not eliminate it from moral consideration. If care is taken to ascertain whether conception has occured, the pill is administered and a miscarriage still results. That miscarriage is not an act of intentional abortion but is an unfortunate evil effect which holds up under the Principle of The Double Effect.

In cases of rape, procedures may be used agains the unjust agressor, which includes the sperm.

This may also include supression of ovulation, if AND ONLY IF, the possibility of conception has been removed.

A blood test can be performed to see if ovulation has occurred in the last few days. If ovulation has occured, 'the Pill" may not be viewed as Emergency Contraception, but must be viewed in light of it’s potential abortificant properties.

As such, it should NOT be admistered if ovulation has already occured.

If the blood test shows that ovulation has not, in fact occured, ovulation may licitly be supressed.