Rape/emergency contraception

[lizaanne]

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.

This is fascinating - do you have a source to support this from the Church’s perspective?

And a comment regarding Pam Stenzel, I met her when she taped a show at the SMM studio (see my sig), and she is just a lovely and engaging woman, and a very good speaker. A woman who was there in the audience that day was also the product of a rape. I was absolutely in awe of these woman who were so proud, self assured, filled with faith, and had very happy and successful lives. They had children and families and lives to be proud of. And to think that they both could have ended up in a trash bin because their mothers would have deemed them not worthy of life. I just cried when I heard their stories.

Anyway - I am fascinated about the whole ovulation timing aspect of the MAP and would like to hear more about it.

~Liza

 

[Abira]

Abira,

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?​

yeah, my emotional reaction is the same but I suppose I’ve had chance to take a step back.​

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.

---

I think the poin I struggled to get over is this:

I would see carrying his child as an extension of the rape itself…

I would see the child inside me as a continued invasion of my body by him, but one that lasted nine months, and I don’t know how I would deal with that thought on a day to day basis. I would also think: “How can I deserve this to go on any longer, why can’t it just end and ‘get it out’”

That sounds kinda harsh too, but because I see the child as an invasion of my body it would be hard to see past an instant emotional reaction.

---

I hope that helps:
God bless,​

and yes it did help
SM

 

[Ham1]

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.

This is my understanding as well.

My original post made it sound like the abortifacient aspect as being intentionally done. That was a mistake. What I meant was that if ,somehow, even after testing, conception did occur and the pill caused a miscarriage that it would not be immoral because it was not intended and a good faith effort was made to avoid such a thing.

Thanks for clarifying this.

 

[Brendan]

. What I meant was that if ,somehow, even after testing, conception did occur and the pill caused a miscarriage that it would not be immoral because it was not intended and a good faith effort was made to avoid such a thing.

Thanks for clarifying this.

Just to clarify, the testing done would be for ovulation, not conception. There is no test that can detect conception so early, but there ARE tests that detect ovulation.

If ovulation has occured in the last few days, then conception must be presumed and procedures that have an abortifactent property may not be used.

 

[Brendan]

This is fascinating - do you have a source to support this from the Church’s perspective?

These are the practical applications of the USCCB’s directive on treatment of sexual assault victims.

1. Since the sperm in the case of rape is the result of unjust aggression, steps may be taken to prevent conception and that may include treatment of the victim with medications which prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.

1. Any medical procedure, the purpose and/or effect of which is abortive, is never permissible. This includes any treatment which has as its purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

The blood test is how a medical professional can disinquish between point 2 and point 3, or more specifically, when one is supressing ovulation or not. If a woman has already ovulated, there can be no retroactive supression.

And if there has been no ovum released, there can be no conception, and any procedure used would no abortive effect.

 

[Stella_Matutina]

This is my understanding as well.

My original post made it sound like the abortifacient aspect as being intentionally done. That was a mistake. What I meant was that if ,somehow, even after testing, conception did occur and the pill caused a miscarriage that it would not be immoral because it was not intended and a good faith effort was made to avoid such a thing.

Thanks for clarifying this.

I’m confused about the “Unintended Consequence” argument. Couldn’t that also be applied to women using the MAP when they were not raped but participated in consensual relations? They could argue that they don’t want to have an abortion, they just want to prevent the pregnancy from ever occurring but if the pill does happen to not allow the embryo to implant- well that’s just an unintended consequence.

That for some reason doesn’t sit well with me- please elaborate how this is specific to rape.

 

[lizaanne]

Thank you Brendan - that is very interesting!

~Liza

 

[Brendan]

I’m confused about the “Unintended Consequence” argument. Couldn’t that also be applied to women using the MAP when they were not raped but participated in consensual relations? They could argue that they don’t want to have an abortion, they just want to prevent the pregnancy from ever occurring but if the pill does happen to not allow the embryo to implant- well that’s just an unintended consequence.

That for some reason doesn’t sit well with me- please elaborate how this is specific to rape.

First of all, in consentual sex, there is no agressor to defend oneself against; so the use of ‘the Pill’ is not a response to an attack. One is allowed to use extraordinary measures in self defense that would be immoral otherwise. A great example is shooting someone, one can morally shoot a rapist to stop the attack, but shooting one’s spouse absent of an attack is generally frowned upon

What is also different is that even in the case of rape, ‘the Pill’ can never be used when there is a measurable chance that it would impede implantation of a fertilized ovum. The concieved child is NOT an attacker, but a small child who must be cared for, not killed.

In the circumstances you mentioned,

1. The act involed is not an attack, but a willing acceptance of the whole person, including their sperm. So self defense is not involved.
2. In the case of rape, there are (hospital) tests involved that can determine of ovulation has occured recently. If ovulation has occured, procedures like ‘the Pill’ may not be used AT ALL, even if the intended effect is to simply impede fertilization (another effec of ‘the Pill’), the potential of an abortive effect prohibts it’s use where there is a measurable chance that it might abort.

Does this make sense?

 

[Ham1]

Brendan,

Your posts bring up an interesting question.

The teaching on the pill for rape victims is that it is moral if ovulation has not occurred but if ovulation has occurred it is immoral. I can only assume that it is immoral because it fails the “proportional” test of the principle of double effect. Basically, the evil effect of abortion outweighs the good effect of stopping conception (of course, the act itself administering the pill to repel an aggressor would be morally good.)

How does this then compare with the conclusion that Fr. Serpa and others have reached that says that a woman who is taking the pill for legitimate therapeutic reasons is not obligated to abstain from relations when she may be ovulating. In this case, it is being said that the reverse is true of the rape situation and that the evil effect does not outweigh the good effect (here the act being a legitimate use of medication that has a side effect of contraception and risk of abortion).

How do you reconcile the two?

In my mind, it would seem that the Bishop’s are being overly cautious in demanding that the pill not be used if ovulation “may” have occurred? It seems to me to make more sense to use the rationale that Fr. Serpa and others use that would allow that sometimes miscarriages can be an unintended effect.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

 

[jack_hawkins]

actually Brendan you misunderstand the rationale for the blood test

 

[Jennifer_J]

Jack,
You really have to elaborate for there to be a discussion. What does Brendan misunderstand? Explain, please…

Jennifer

 

[jack_hawkins]

the combined oral contraceptive pill wouldn’t have an abortifacient action in the situation he describes - which one presumes he is meaning when he describes “the Pill” which stops ovulation
it would make it much clearer if people could use the proper terminology

 

[fix]

the combined oral contraceptive pill wouldn’t have an abortifacient action in the situation he describes - which one presumes he is meaning when he describes “the Pill” which stops ovulation
it would make it much clearer if people could use the proper terminology

The combination drugs, like the single drug pills, can have abortifacient possibilities depending on when in the cycle they are taken, agree?

In the situation described one, in theory, has not ovulated so there would be no fertilized egg to be lost.

 

[jack_hawkins]

no, I’m talking about AFTER ovulation

fix, do you understand the effect of the COCP?
how would the COCP if taken after ovulation affect implantation, please tell me?
then you will know the answer

there is no evidence that the COCP is abortifacient at all

 

[fix]

no, I’m talking about AFTER ovulation

fix, do you understand the effect of the COCP?
how would the COCP if taken after ovulation affect implantation, please tell me?
then you will know the answer

there is no evidence that the COCP is abortifacient at all

What is your reply to this:

If she has ovulated, the sperm’s rapid entrance into the fallopian tube (in perhaps as little as ninety seconds) and the short time required for fertilization make its effectiveness doubtful, considering the amount of time that may have passed between the actual assault and the use of EC. **[5] ** Therefore, if the woman has ovulated, emergency contraception necessarily kills the already conceived embryo. This is confirmed by both the United States Food and Drug Administration **[6] ** and the Alan Guttenmacher Institute, the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation. **[7] **

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/karacrawford.htm

 

[jack_hawkins]

my reply is that by posting it you show you don’t understand at all!
quoting articles doesn’t compensate for a basic understanding of the science

 

[fix]

my reply is that by posting it you show you don’t understand at all!
quoting articles doesn’t compensate for a basic understanding of the science

So, the science referenced in the article is false? Please share with me what is true science in this case?

 

[jack_hawkins]

So, the science referenced in the article is false? Please share with me what is true science in this case?

the scientific understanding of how emergency contraception works have moved on, although the “pro-life” movement hasn’'t acknowledged this
it can therefore no longer be said confidently that of ovulation has occurred, contraception must work by causing abortion

 

[fix]

the scientific understanding of how emergency contraception works have moved on, although the “pro-life” movement hasn’'t acknowledged this
it can therefore no longer be said confidently that of ovulation has occurred, contraception must work by causing abortion

That is the debate. Do you have conclusive evidence that such drugs do not interfer with a fertilized egg implanting?

 

[Benedictus]

That is the debate. Do you have conclusive evidence that such drugs do not interfer with a fertilized egg implanting?

Do you have conclusive evidence that asprin and caffeine do not interfere with implantation? Such evidence is very difficult to produce. Logically speaking, you cannot prove a negative. However, in the case of emergency contraception, the second post in this thread does have links to two papers that suggest there is no post-fertilization effect.

There have been numerous threads on this topic, and so far, nobody has posted a scientific, peer-reviewed article showing that either the morning-after pill or the more traditional oral contraceptives prevents implantation.