Rape Kits encourage Abortion

[rpp]

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.

It is a side effect which can be easily avoided by administering one of several types of pregnancy tests.

But to demeaning the murder of a person by calling it an “unfortunate side affect” is unconscionable. Murder is never justified.

As for your cancer example, the Church calls upon mothers to forego cancer treatment and many do.

 

[MakeUpArtist]

It is a side effect which can be easily avoided by administering one of several types of pregnancy tests.

But to demeaning the murder of a person by calling it an “unfortunate side affect” is unconscionable. Murder is never justified.

As for your cancer example, the Church calls upon mothers to forego cancer treatment and many do.

If a woman tests positive for pregnancy the MAP will do nothing! This is not RU 486.

It would not be murder anymore than removing a fallopian tube of a woman experiencing an ectopic pregnany would be murder. Intent matters. Since when is treatment for pregnant cancer patients morally unacceptable?

 

[seekerz]

It is a side effect which can be easily avoided by administering one of several types of pregnancy tests.

But to demeaning the murder of a person by calling it an “unfortunate side affect” is unconscionable. Murder is never justified.

As for your cancer example, the Church calls upon mothers to forego cancer treatment and many do.

I wasn’t aware the Church called on women to do that (sources please). I actually thought the principle of “double effect” could be applied to pregnant women with cancer. Sometimes it is possible to postpone treatment or to deliver early, but if the cancer is detected very early in pregnancy it may pose a danger to both lives, so this is really not a situation that can be covered by blanket statements.

 

[duskyjewel]

As for your cancer example, the Church calls upon mothers to forego cancer treatment and many do.

Yeah, uh, wow, I need a source on that too. Because I have to be honest with you… I gotta be here to raise the five kids I already have. Losing a baby if I had to be treated for cancer would be heartbreaking, but what real choice would I have?

 

[shannyk]

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

This doesn’t make sense. If it prevents conception by blocking ovulation, there there can’t be a ‘side effect’ of preventing implantation, because there is nothing to implant.

That is why, under the Catholic protocol I posted before, there has to be NO chance that conception has taken place before the MAP can be administered. That is why a pregnancy test that is negative HAS to be followed by testing for ovulation. If ovulation has probably already occurred the MAP can NOT be administered because it can prevent implantation. That would be an abortion and is NOT morally licit. If there is ANY danger of causing an abortion by interrupting implantation of an embryo, that IS an abortion and is,obviously, gravely immoral.

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.

This is not that Catholic position. It is not just an acceptable ‘side effect’ that an abortion can occur when the MAP is given, this is why there are stringent guidelines for when it can safely and morally be given. If there is ANY DANGER of the MAP causing an early abortion, it cannot be morally taken or administered.

If it prevents implantation of an already fertilized, then it is abortion.

Exactly.

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.

you have to be sure beyond doubt that ovulation has not occurred before you can licitly take the MAP. You cannot just say ‘well I hope this prevents ovulation but if it’s too late I guess that’s an unfortunate side effect’. uh uh. nope.

To say many rape victims here, is probably grossly inaccurate, especially considering most rapes are not violent attacks, they are acquaintance rapes or ‘date rapes’, and more often than not those women don’t go to the hospital for hours and even more likely days or weeks after the rape has occurred. And, what’s problematic is that in the cases where they do go to the ER immediately, the MAP is standard in rape kits and is just given as a matter of course, with really little to no discussion of what it does other than the doc saying ‘this will keep you from getting pregnant’. Like another poster said, this is how is goes down is most Catholic hospitals too. So, it really IS a problem and should be of great concern to all of us, because for one thing, it’s causing abortion, and secondly, the women are not even made aware of that fact, so they are, as usual, uninformed about their own bodies and choices.

 

[MakeUpArtist]

It only prevents implantation when when it fails to prevent ovulation or kill sperm. This is a secondary side effect. Thus this is not the direct killing of an embryo anymore than removing the fallopian tube during an ectopic pregnancy emergency, which is considered morally licit.

 

[MsOKing]

From what I have been reading about the EC pill (Plan B), its main purpose is to STOP OVULATION, and it will not cause a woman to “abort” an already established pregnancy. It also says that it too, may stop a fertilized egg from implanting. This pill is the same hormone (progesterone) that is in many of the birth control pills.

The Plan B pill cannot be compared to the RU-486. The RU-486 pill will “force” a woman to have her period, and kill the established pregnancy. This pill is used in the early weeks of pregnancy only.

As far as the Plan B pill used in rape kits, keep in mind, how the woman’s cycle works. During the time of ovulation, an egg is available to be fertilized for only about 12-24 hours. But since sperm can live in the body for 3-5 days and the the egg is available for one day a woman’s most fertile time is considered to be about 5-7 days

The sperm need to be present within the womans body BEFORE ovulation to result in a pregnancy.

If a woman is raped, and ovulation has not yet occurred, IMO she can safely take the Plan B pill without concern of “preventing implantion”, because she will **hormonally delay ovulation. ** This is what the Plan B pill does. Without ovulation, no egg is released, no fertilization is possible, and the rapist sperm will die within 3-5 days.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[shannyk]

It only prevents implantation when when it fails to prevent ovulation or kill sperm. This is a secondary side effect. Thus this is not the direct killing of an embryo anymore than removing the fallopian tube during an ectopic pregnancy emergency, which is considered morally licit.

MUA, this is a totally inaccurate comparison and not at all the same.

In the case of a tubal pregnancy, both the mother’s and baby’s life are in danger. The baby, with the medical technology we have now, has NO chance of survival, and his continued growth in the fallopian tube threatens greatly the life of the mother. Removing the problematic tube IS a morally licit course of action since it is not directly attacking the fetus. This is a course of action taken when two lives are in imminent danger, and the fetus is growing where it can’t survive. Regrettably, as it stands now, the fetus will not survive once removed, still in the problematic tube. This is a way that two people can be morally treated for an unfortunate abnormality that is life threatening.

There is no comparison to that of the rape victim. Her life is not in danger. Giving her the MAP is not a means of treating a disease or life threatening condition, it’s a means of preventing her from becoming pregnant.( that is unless you see pregnancy itself as a disease which is the common consensus) And, when that is done in a way that interrupts the implantation of an already conceived human life, that IS an abortion, and is not a morally licit course of action in the case of rape.

The only way the MAP can be licitly used is when there is certainly, through pregnancy and hormonal testing for ovulation, that there is NO potential for there already being a conception. It’s only to be used as a contraceptive, in the case of non consensual sex, ONLY.

And, it’s not completely inaccurate to say that the primary effect of the MAP is abortifacient, because it is, IF ovulation has occurred. After all, it can’t prevent ovulation if ovulation has already occurred, so that effect is moot. And, if there is already a conception, then it’s effect of killing sperm, is moot as well. So, you’re left with preventing implantation, which is abortion.

 

[shannyk]

The sperm need to be present within the womans body BEFORE ovulation to result in a pregnancy.

Ask anyone who knows their NFP , and they will tell you this is completely wrong.

A woman can get pregnant if she ovulated in days before sex, or in this case rape, as the egg survives a few days after ovulation.

That is why, if the woman has already ovulated in this case of rape we are talking about, there is potential that conception has taken place, and the MAP cannot be given, since there is potential for it to cause an abortion by interrupting implantation.

 

[MakeUpArtist]

The point is intent! Some cancer medication might cause an abortion, but the point is to treat cancer. Just like the point here is to prevent ovulation and kill sperm. This is morally licit in the case of rape just as trying to save a mother’s life in the case of cancer and ectopic pregnancy. Unless it is known that conception has occurred(which is impossible) and the MAP is taken to prevent implantation it is not a direct abortion. If ovulation has occurred(and it is impssible to know for sure) it can be taken with the intent of killing sperm. If ovulation has not occurred it can be taken to prevent ovulation. The prevention of implantation is a side effect that MIGHT occur. The intent still is not to prevent implantation.

 

[rpp]

I wasn’t aware the Church called on women to do that (sources please). I actually thought the principle of “double effect” could be applied to pregnant women with cancer. Sometimes it is possible to postpone treatment or to deliver early, but if the cancer is detected very early in pregnancy it may pose a danger to both lives, so this is really not a situation that can be covered by blanket statements.

I mis-spoke. The Church does NOT call upon women to forego treatment. However, I do not believe (but I may be wrong) that a woman cannot abort the child directly as part of the treatment. If the child dies in the course of treatment, that would be the unintended side effect.

Sorry about mis-stating that. Either way, in case of cancer, a direct abortion for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy is still not permitted.

 

[MakeUpArtist]

I mis-spoke. The Church does NOT call upon women to forego treatment. However, I do not believe (but I may be wrong) that a woman cannot abort the child directly as part of the treatment. If the child dies in the course of treatment, that would be the unintended side effect.

Sorry about mis-stating that. Either way, in case of cancer, a direct abortion for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy is still not permitted.

No it is not. I never said it was. It is permissable to take treatments that risk miscarriage/abortion though to treat the cancer.

 

[MsOKing]

Ask anyone who knows their NFP , and they will tell you this is completely wrong.

A woman can get pregnant if she ovulated in days before sex, or in this case rape, as the egg survives a few days after ovulation.

According to scientists, the egg survives 12 - 24 HOURS. If a couple is trying to conceive, most fertility doctors will tell their patients that it is USUALLY too late to concieve if they wait to have sex the day of ovulation. By the time the sperm reach the egg as it takes a couple of days,(it has a long way to swim) the egg is already dead.

If a woman has a normal 28 day cycle ,they will encourage their patients to have sex on the 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th and 15th and 17 day of their cycles. This will maximize their chance of conception so that when ovulation occurs, live sperm will be in the tubes ready to fertilize the egg.

This is what worked for us. We had trouble conceiving for 2 years We were waiting a day before ovulation occured to have sex, and it failed for 2 years. Once I understood my cycle, and understood that sperm needed to be in the womans body before I ovulated, we had no trouble concieving. We have 4 children, 2 years apart.

The MAP will STOP OVULATION and it will make the woman’s body less tolerable to sperm so that the sperm can not move as freely also lessening their survival.

This is why it is safe for a woman who has not ovulated to take the MAP.

 

[shannyk]

The point is intent!

No it isn’t ! Have you even read any of the Catholic documents on this or on principle of double effect? If not, I suggest you do.

Some cancer medication might cause an abortion, but the point is to treat cancer.

Nope. Cancer treatment may cause fetal demise, but that is not an abortion. Abortion is direct killing of an unborn human being.

In the case of rape WHAT LIFE THREATENING DISEASE IS BEING CURED?

NONE!

The scenarios you site are not comparable to the case of rape and using the MAP.

In the case of cancer, there is disease that threatens both, and in the etopic scenario, there is only certain death for the fetus. These are cases of disease and abnormality, and the least harmful thing has to be done for BOTH mother and unborn. How is that like the rape scenario???

Directly killing a human being cannot EVER be a licit means of curing disease, much less just avoiding pregnancy, which is NOT a disease.

 

[shannyk]

This is why it is safe for a woman who has not ovulated to take the MAP.

That’s exactly what has been said here all along.

But, it’s NOT safe, or moral or licit to take it, if she already has.

 

[Usagi]

But abortion is murder and murder is wrong and all birth control does is cause abortions and any organization that encourages murdering of innocent people should be boycotted. We must all be open to the gift of life from God.

I assume you are attempting to parody the Church’s teaching here?

Abortion is murder, check, and murder is wrong, check.

Some forms of birth control are additionally abortifacient.

Organizations that encourage the murder of innocent people usually don’t believe that’s what they are doing. Their members should be educated, and the “murder of innocent people” part should not be supported if we can help it. If they do know what they are doing, then they are creepy and evil, and every effort should be made to shut down their activities posthaste, with (one hopes) help from the police.

I’m not seeing where this means that we should be against the use of rape kits. If, in some cases, a sexual assault examination includes the offer of emergency contraception, then a Catholic woman should be careful about taking it. On the other hand, even the Church recognizes that a rape victim has no obligation to tolerate her attacker’s sperm, and may employ contraceptive methods that seek to stop fertilization. If fertilization has already occurred, of course, she ought not kill the child merely because of the circumstances of its conception.

Usagi

 

[MakeUpArtist]

No it isn’t ! Have you even read any of the Catholic documents on this or on principle of double effect? If not, I suggest you do.

Nope. Cancer treatment may cause fetal demise, but that is not an abortion. Abortion is direct killing of an unborn human being.

In the case of rape WHAT LIFE THREATENING DISEASE IS BEING CURED?

NONE!

The scenarios you site are not comparable to the case of rape and using the MAP.

In the case of cancer, there is disease that threatens both, and in the etopic scenario, there is only certain death for the fetus. These are cases of disease and abnormality, and the least harmful thing has to be done for BOTH mother and unborn. How is that like the rape scenario???

Directly killing a human being cannot EVER be a licit means of curing disease, much less just avoiding pregnancy, which is NOT a disease.

I doesn’t matter whether we are trying to cure cancer or prevent conception. Both are morally licit. Some cancer treatments can cause the death of a fetus, thus a miscarriage/abortion. MAP can do the same, but it is not the direct killing. It is a secondary effect. The point of MAP is to prevent ovulation and kill sperm.

 

[MakeUpArtist]

I just want to add that a direct abortion would be if there was a test to show conception already occurred and the pill was taken solely to prevent implantation. There is no such test at this time. Just because woman has ovulated does not mean she is pregnant, and it is possible to kill sperm to prevent conception.

 

[shannyk]

Ok, let me post this again.

GUIDELINES FOR CATHOLIC HOSPITALS TREATING VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
Board of Governors of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference

September 23, 1998

One of the most violent and traumatic crimes is that of sexual assault. As a presence of Christ’s healing, Catholic hospitals are called to treat persons who have been sexually assaulted with compassion, sensitivity, and respect. In caring for victims of sexual assault, Catholic hospitals are committed to quality holistic care by meeting their physical, psychological, emotional, social and spiritual needs.

The moral principles guiding catholic health care policies include a respect for (a) the sacredness of human life and (b) the procreative end of sexual intercourse. The deliberate destruction of an innocent living human fetus — no matter how conceived — is unjustified. Sexual intercourse involved in the act of rape, on the other hand, is an unjust assault and a non-consensual act. Therefore, appropriate means may be used in treating the rape victim to prevent conception. These means, as used, may not have the effect of an abortifacient.

1. The first consideration in sexual assault cases should be for the total well-being of the person.
   1. Services of a chaplain or other suitable counselor should be made available.
   2. The victim should be treated with respect and compassion.
   3. No judgment on the victim’s responsibility should be stated or implied, by word or by action.
   4. Medical interventions are appropriate as long as there is no anticipated effect of an abortifacient.
   5. The privacy and dignity of the person must, at all times, be respected.
2. 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.
   ** 3. 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.**

Hygienic procedures, including vaginal douching, are morally permitted since they are not abortifacient in effect.

1. These guidelines include a sample protocol to use to determine if contraceptive intervention is clinically indicated and which protocol is designed to determine that such intervention would be truly contraceptive, and not abortifacient.
   1. If the pregnancy test is positive, no antiovulant drugs may be used.
   2. If the pregnancy test is negative, then needed clinical determinations would be based on the following:
      1. A menstrual history provided by the victim.
      2. Hormonal levels as determined by a blood test to categorize the timing of the woman’s ovulatory cycle, and
      3. Results of a urine test which is a reliable guide to the prediction of ovulation.

      If the urine test is negative, that may be an indication that the LH surge has not been initiated, and a contraceptive intervention would be appropriate.
      
      If the urine test is positive, that would indicate *the hormonal shift that leads to ovulation has begun*. The use of a contraceptive steroid intervention *could be abortifacient and is therefore not permitted,**** even though there might be no evidence that conception has occurred.***

   3. If the pregnancy test is negative, it is essential that hospital personnel question the patient to ascertain the time of ovulation within the menstrual cycle.
   4. If the patient has just ovulated, an anti-ovulant drug may not be administered. The use of a contraceptive steroid is permissible only to prevent ovulation.
2. Prophylaxis for venereal diseases may be implemented. Legal procedures should be followed when they do not conflict with the moral standards.
   1. Specific circumstances of the sexual assault should be ascertained and recorded.
   2. Physical evidence of sexual assault should be gathered by means of swabs, smears, aspirations and other standard procedures.
   3. Visual and tactile evidence of trauma should be noted, recorded, and treated.
   4. Material evidence of sexual assault from clothing, hair, and other sources should be retained as evidence.
3. The above guidelines are given primarily from a moral perspective. No judgment is made or implied concerning the acceptable medical regimen or legal protocol. A medical protocol consistent with these guidelines is attached. Catholic hospitals should give careful consideration to adopting the form of protocol, but if not, then one which is fully consistent with these guidelines.
4. Catholic hospitals, to the extent they have the capability of providing treatment, accept victims of sexual assault. It is strongly recommended that the sexually assaulted person be advised of these standing policies, particularly the ethical restrictions which prevent Catholic hospitals from using abortifacient procedures.

 

[Kaninchen]

As a matter of interest, how easy/difficult is it for a rape victim to avoid Catholic hospitals?