E
East_and_West
Guest
No. We should just oppose the use of the morning after pill in rape kits.
- Status
D
duskyjewel
Guest
There is at least a growing consensus that this is not necessary even in the strictest reading of Catholic morality. As sanctamaria said, “I don’t have to accept the perp’s seed.”
Great sentence, sancta!
B
Bella3502
Guest
Not true in Catholic hospitals in my area. They are simply asked if they want the morning after pill after being counseled. After being raped I seriously doubt that the first question in a woman’s mind is “where am I in my ovulatory cycle?”. If they want the MAP, they get it.
A
apricot_yogurt
Guest
While I would be grateful for say a spermicide after a rape, I would be very,very worried about taking the MAP. No of course I don’t want a rapists child, but if the MAP could kill my newly concieved son or daughter then I could not take that risk(and the child *would *be my **son or daughter-**a point forgotton sometimes when we talk about pregnancy resulting from rape) And regardless of my horror at carrying a rapists child, it would be my child too. -As much my child as any of my children are.
S
shannyk
Guest
be my **son or daughter-**a point forgotton sometimes when we talk about pregnancy resulting from rape) And regardless of my horror at carrying a rapists child, it would be my child too. -As much my child as any of my children are.
apricot yogurt, your perspective is admirable.
The thing that really has to be made clear here is, that under the Catholic protocol there is no danger of abortion, only contraception, preventing the woman from ovulating in the days after her rape, so that there is no egg to ‘meet’ the rapists sperm. If ovulation has been determined to have already occurred, it is NOT permissible to administer, or take the MAP.
One can in good conscience, take the MAP after a rape if it has been determined that she’s not ovulated and there is no possibility that she has already conceived.
One can also decline the MAP for any reason.
I think the OP is right to be concerned about the MAP being ‘standard’ in rape kits, because it seems that even in Catholic hospitals, when it can safely and morally be administered is not understood or even much cared about. Certainly in your run of the mill emergency room no one is telling women that this can cause an abortion. It should be of great concern.
The thing is, people who continue to make blanket statements about the MAP being solely abortifacient aren’t doing anything to further the understanding about how it can be morally and properly used.
C
Clairabelle
Guest
For a start the MAP is used in non-pregnant woman from getting pregnant.
Quite frankly I would not like to see say a twelve year old female/child who has been beaten to a pulp so that she is no longer recognisable, raped by goodness knows by how many men and how many times. Her life threatened not just once but many times through out the insult. That she would most likely have to endure the reality that not just once but many times that she may never see the sun rise again. The thought of being found in a ditch by a stranger or family would not be a pleasant.
The physical injuries inflicted can be wide spread though out a child/woman’s body. From head trauma, multiple stab wounds and defence wounds. Bowel imperforation that requires surgical intervention and long term disability often results. Incontinence both urinary and faecal is another grim reality that women of rape often suffer in the aftermath.
Another factor to consider is the long term emotional trauma. I would be deeply concerned for a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of a rape. Why? Because of the emotional and spiritual turmoil held within. A woman, who becomes pregnant out of choice, grows to love, nurture and bond as the baby grows within her womb. A woman who becomes pregnant as a result of a rape will not develop these connections with the baby growing inside her. How would this affect the new born baby? Say look at this from a spiritual level this baby is doomed because of the spiritual ties are already laid down during a rape ordeal, a woman no matter how saintly she is subconsciously would resent the growth inside her.
Anti-contraception lobbyists need to realise that they can not share the burden of this painful, traumatic and difficult deal she must make if she was to carry a baby to full term. Rape is not a result of choice. A woman will not agree to be raped, she does not have the opportunity to say “no” because the right to choice has been taken away from her, disempowered by pure and unequivocal force.
Not having MAP as an option post rape event is inhumane and barbaric, this is not what God has taught you.
Who gives you the right to take away her choice?
Quite frankly I would not like to see say a twelve year old female/child who has been beaten to a pulp so that she is no longer recognisable, raped by goodness knows by how many men and how many times. Her life threatened not just once but many times through out the insult. That she would most likely have to endure the reality that not just once but many times that she may never see the sun rise again. The thought of being found in a ditch by a stranger or family would not be a pleasant.
The physical injuries inflicted can be wide spread though out a child/woman’s body. From head trauma, multiple stab wounds and defence wounds. Bowel imperforation that requires surgical intervention and long term disability often results. Incontinence both urinary and faecal is another grim reality that women of rape often suffer in the aftermath.
Another factor to consider is the long term emotional trauma. I would be deeply concerned for a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of a rape. Why? Because of the emotional and spiritual turmoil held within. A woman, who becomes pregnant out of choice, grows to love, nurture and bond as the baby grows within her womb. A woman who becomes pregnant as a result of a rape will not develop these connections with the baby growing inside her. How would this affect the new born baby? Say look at this from a spiritual level this baby is doomed because of the spiritual ties are already laid down during a rape ordeal, a woman no matter how saintly she is subconsciously would resent the growth inside her.
Anti-contraception lobbyists need to realise that they can not share the burden of this painful, traumatic and difficult deal she must make if she was to carry a baby to full term. Rape is not a result of choice. A woman will not agree to be raped, she does not have the opportunity to say “no” because the right to choice has been taken away from her, disempowered by pure and unequivocal force.
Not having MAP as an option post rape event is inhumane and barbaric, this is not what God has taught you.
Who gives you the right to take away her choice?
S
shannyk
Guest
hopeful I’m sorry but I don’t understand this comment…
If you read a few posts up where I quoted the bishops on the proper protocol for administering the MAP, you’ll see that it doesn’t just stop at a pregnancy test. If the test is negative, the test hormone levels for ovulation. If ovulation has occurred, then there is a potentially already conception even though too early to detect, and the MAP is NOT administered. If ovulation has NOT occurred, then the MAP can be safely administered and will only act as a contraceptive, not an abortifacient, keeping the women from ovulating in the days following her rape.
It seems there is a misunderstanding both of how a woman’s body works and the Catholic protocol in this situation.
D
duskyjewel
Guest
Great point! Much of what I have seen, even on the Vatican website, says that the primary or even only function of EC is the abortifacient one, and that just is not true. It destroys credibility to argue from bad facts!
S
sanctamaria17
Guest
ThanksThere is at least a growing consensus that this is not necessary even in the strictest reading of Catholic morality. As sanctamaria said, “I don’t have to accept the perp’s seed.”
Great sentence, sancta!
Like I said, the only pill I’ve heard of that is solely abortifacient is RU-486. Birth control pills (including MAP) suppress ovulation and block semen and may end up (sadly) preventing implantation. They are forbidden as contraceptive use by married couples. They are even more taboo because they can cause an early miscarriage (but not an induced abortion as one was not desired in the first place).
However, I’m of the understanding that even a married woman can go on the pill for health reasons, with infertility as a side effect. And, like I said, in cases of rape, she didn’t consent to sex in the first place, she is absolved of any other conditions. You wouldn’t dare ask her to be unitive with this evil-doer, why would you ask her to be open to having a baby with him? Now, if she gets pregnant anyway, you have to protect the baby. But if you can prevent that before it happens, why is it so wrong?
R
rpp
Guest
Consensus does make a bit of difference in what is right or wrong. Morality is not up to the majority.There is at least a growing consensus that this is not necessary even in the strictest reading of Catholic morality. As sanctamaria said, “I don’t have to accept the perp’s seed.”
Great sentence, sancta!
The attitude expressed by sanctamaria which you praised is not consistent with the unchanging teachings of the Church.
Don’t murder a child for the crimes committed by the father.
R
rpp
Guest
It is always wrong to kill a child. Whether it is a fertilized but not yet implanted embryo or not.Thanks
Like I said, the only pill I’ve heard of that is solely abortifacient is RU-486. Birth control pills (including MAP) suppress ovulation and block semen and may end up (sadly) preventing implantation. They are forbidden as contraceptive use by married couples. They are even more taboo because they can cause an early miscarriage (but not an induced abortion as one was not desired in the first place).
However, I’m of the understanding that even a married woman can go on the pill for health reasons, with infertility as a side effect. And, like I said, in cases of rape, she didn’t consent to sex in the first place, she is absolved of any other conditions. You wouldn’t dare ask her to be unitive with this evil-doer, why would you ask her to be open to having a baby with him? Now, if she gets pregnant anyway, you have to protect the baby. But if you can prevent that before it happens, why is it so wrong?
The “Plan B” emergency contraception is abortifacient.
This this link does not discuss the issue of rape, the Pontifical Academy for Life has issues a statement on this drug.
STATEMENT ON THE SO-CALLED “MORNING-AFTER PILL”
By the way Plan B and RU-486 are both hormonal drugs. RU-486 is just stronger as it must kill an older, larger and implanted child.
D
duskyjewel
Guest
rpp, nowhere did I say majority makes right. What I meant by my statement was that there are lots of people, none of them dumb or uneducated, who think that EC is morally acceptable for rape victims.
RU-486 and EC are completely different. Totally. Look up the drugs that are in them. They have different functions. The fact is that EC, like all birth control pills, have the primary functions of *preventing ovulation *and blocking sperm. The prevention of implantation is a secondary effect that, if the first two work, will never happen. I agree that it constitutes an early abortion, but from what I have learned, something like 2/3 of the time, that is never even an issue because one of the primary functionalities works first.
We take credibility away from the pro-life cause when we argue things that are not true, promoting ignorance of how the pills actually work! Saying they are ONLY abortifacient is WRONG. The statement you linked from the Vatican is the one I expressed concern about earlier. It describes the EC pills as primarily abortifacient, which is just factually untrue. I am saddened that the Vatican is using bad facts to argue a case where credibility is such a necessity!
For rape victims, preventing ovulation and blocking sperm from getting past the cervix are completely morally acceptable!
RU-486 and EC are completely different. Totally. Look up the drugs that are in them. They have different functions. The fact is that EC, like all birth control pills, have the primary functions of *preventing ovulation *and blocking sperm. The prevention of implantation is a secondary effect that, if the first two work, will never happen. I agree that it constitutes an early abortion, but from what I have learned, something like 2/3 of the time, that is never even an issue because one of the primary functionalities works first.
We take credibility away from the pro-life cause when we argue things that are not true, promoting ignorance of how the pills actually work! Saying they are ONLY abortifacient is WRONG. The statement you linked from the Vatican is the one I expressed concern about earlier. It describes the EC pills as primarily abortifacient, which is just factually untrue. I am saddened that the Vatican is using bad facts to argue a case where credibility is such a necessity!
For rape victims, preventing ovulation and blocking sperm from getting past the cervix are completely morally acceptable!
R
rpp
Guest
I did not say Plan B was only abortifacient. To make it use reasonable, one must first ascertain if the woman is not already pregnant. Only then could its use be (arguably) moral.
However, after reading your post and doing some quick research, I find you are correct and I am wrong when I compared RU-486 and Plan B. Thank you for the correction. (See what happens when I rely on my memory and fail to check before I post.
)
E
East_and_West
Guest
Well, this “consensus” will never prevail as we do not believing in Killing babies in the Catholic Church. For liberals, its the solution to everything. “KILL THE BABIES” is their insinuated rally cry. We Catholics are not so much into the whole murder thing.There is at least a growing consensus that this is not necessary even in the strictest reading of Catholic morality. As sanctamaria said, “I don’t have to accept the perp’s seed.”
Great sentence, sancta!
M
MakeUpArtist
Guest
Taking a pill to prevent conception after rape is not murder even if one of the possible side effects is that it prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. If one takes it to prevent ovulation or kill sperm the point is not to kill a life.
E
East_and_West
Guest
The morning after pill directly attacts the fertelized egg.
M
MakeUpArtist
Guest
The morning after pill prevents ovulation and kills sperm. It can prevent implantation. That might be a side effect if conception has occurred, but it is morally acceptable to take with the intention of preventing ovulation and killing sperm.
R
rpp
Guest
If it prevents implantation of an already fertilized, then it is abortion. Life begins at conception (fertilization), not implantation. This is what the Church teaches now that we have a better understanding of the process of procreation.
M
MakeUpArtist
Guest
In order for it to be an intentional abortion one would have to take it for the purpose of preventing implantation. Many rape victims take it to prevent ovulation and kill sperm. If it prevents implantation that is an unfortunate side effect. It’s the same as a cancer patient who might be pregnant taking a drug that might cause an abortion/miscarriage. It’s morally permisible because the intent is not to cause an abortion but to treat the cancer.
- Status