The Immaculate Conception VS. abortion

[Rence]

Rence has already said that the various hospitals in her/his vicinity do not have the facilities to test for ovulation. Uh, already there is a step being missed. Eventually there will be many steps missed and we will see just plain old D&C, or another surgical way to get rid of the baby that just might exist.

1. The hospitals in my area are secular and are not required to follow Chuch teaching. There is one Catholic hospital in the area (over 50 miles away from me) that due to location I personally wouldn’t go out of my way to get to because there are many hospitals along the way. However, it is highly probable that the Catholic hospital has the ovulation test.
2. A D&C performed a few hours after a rape will prevent a conception but cannot eliminate an already-conception as far as I know because I was taught that conception takes place in the fallopian tube and implantation into the uterus takes 5-7 days. Therefore a D&C performed as aftercare in the ER after a rape is not against Church teaching because it is not an abortive procedure. However, it may be medically necessary depending on how abused the patient was, and that’s allowed by the Church as well.

In this instance I will take the black and white shades, not the grey.,

That is your perogative, and it should be. The choice is up to the rape victim to make. In this instance I’d take the Plan B in a heartbeat with no regrets and without looking back.

 

[catharina]

1. The hospitals in my area are secular and are not required to follow Chuch teaching. There is one Catholic hospital in the area (over 50 miles away from me) that due to location I personally wouldn’t go out of my way to get to because there are many hospitals along the way. However, it is highly probable that the Catholic hospital has the ovulation test.
2. A D&C performed a few hours after a rape will prevent a conception but cannot eliminate an already-conception as far as I know because I was taught that conception takes place in the fallopian tube and implantation into the uterus takes 5-7 days. Therefore a D&C performed as aftercare in the ER after a rape is not against Church teaching because it is not an abortive procedure. However, it may be medically necessary depending on how abused the patient was, and that’s allowed by the Church as well.

That is your perogative, and it should be. The choice is up to the rape victim to make. In this instance I’d take the Plan B in a heartbeat with no regrets and without looking back.

Let me see if I understand.

Acc to you, Plan B as allowed by bishops following a rape is dependent on the results
of an ovulation test - to insure there is no possiblity of a near-future conception.

Tell me if I’ve misunderstand that.

Now:
what you're saying is that you consider a Catholic hospital (that would test for status 
of ovulation) to be located too far away for your convenience, so you'd skip that part of 
the directive and go to any hospital that tested for pregnancy only?

So how do you really feel about the intrinsic evil of abortion?

I live in California and many people drive a daily commute of 50+ miles to reach jobs.
If you see abortion as an intrinsic evil, then why does the directive set by the bishops 
seem to call for too much travel-time for you?

Have I misunderstand you?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

1. The hospitals in my area are secular and are not required to follow Chuch teaching. There is one Catholic hospital in the area (over 50 miles away from me) that due to location I personally wouldn’t go out of my way to get to because there are many hospitals along the way. However, it is highly probable that the Catholic hospital has the ovulation test.
2. A D&C performed a few hours after a rape will prevent a conception but cannot eliminate an already-conception as far as I know because I was taught that conception takes place in the fallopian tube and implantation into the uterus takes 5-7 days. Therefore a D&C performed as aftercare in the ER after a rape is not against Church teaching because it is not an abortive procedure. However, it may be medically necessary depending on how abused the patient was, and that’s allowed by the Church as well.

That is your perogative, and it should be. The choice is up to the rape victim to make. In this instance I’d take the Plan B in a heartbeat with no regrets and without looking back.

I don’t think that is accurate at all. The uterine lining builds up in anticipation of the fertilized egg attaching. If there is no conception, it breaks down and that’s when the menstrual cycle will start. A D/C removes the lining. Where will the embryo in the tube implant when it reaches the uterus?

 

[elts1956]

If you are sensing some sarcasm with my post, you are not sensing sarcasm from me. I was dead serious. Rape victims need an advocate, and it would be nice if the Church would step up to the plate as the Bishops have done.

There is no hole to begin with. The “hole in the dike” is your impression only of the Bishops’ statement in defense of women. I am not making the hold in the dike larger by spreading the word about what the Bishops have taught in their statement because there is no hole.

Most people who are pro choice/pro abortion will more likely support the visible (rape victims, unwanted pregancies et al) than the invisible, the unborn.

 

[Rence]

I don’t think that is accurate at all. The uterine lining builds up in anticipation of the fertilized egg attaching. If there is no conception, it breaks down and that’s when the menstrual cycle will start. A D/C removes the lining. Where will the embryo in the tube implant when it reaches the uterus?

You don’t think that it heals in that 5-7 days? I’ll have to ask an instructor, but many women still get pregnant after D&Cs at the time of rape. It’s not effective “birth control”. But, Mary Gail, D&Cs are not routine after a rape. It’s a surgical procedure requiring anesthesia, so it’s not a standard to haul them off to surgery. They usually get D&Cs done when there is damage and risk of infection. Therefore, the primary reason for getting a D&C after a rape is damage and infection control, and IS allowed by the Church.

 

[Rence]

Most people who are pro choice/pro abortion will more likely support the visible (rape victims, unwanted pregancies et al) than the invisible, the unborn.

If one is truly “pro-life” one will support the visible as well as the invisible. Taking Plan B in the ER is for the purpose of preventing conception from happening in the first place, not eliminating a pregnancy. There is no reason in the world for a woman to be forcibly made to be pregnant violently and against her will when she can stop it from happening.

 

[choose_to_love]

elts,

“these have nothign to do with the possibility that life has begun” no, but they have everything to do with the reasoning behind preventing conception via chemical contraception being licit in a rape situation versus in consensual, conjugal relations. I address the issue of a new life in the next paragraph of my response.

“you really think medical personnel are going to check this . . . you don’t wuite understand human nature”

Well, what I understand us to be discussing is the protocol that should be in place at least in a Catholic hospital. I think the emergency personnel should be trained in the proper procedures to initiate, and it should not be reinventing the wheel for each instance. If pregnancy and ovulation test, if warranted by history obtained, are standard operating procedure, there should by no need for an independent evaluation of the circumstances each time. Again, at a Catholic hospital, this should be the process, and certainly we in the pro-life community would seek to convince all hospitals that it is the morally correct way to go.

 

[Schrode]

Let me see if I understand.

Acc to you, Plan B as allowed by bishops following a rape is dependent on the results
of an ovulation test - to insure there is no possiblity of a near-future conception.

Tell me if I’ve misunderstand that.

Now:
what you're saying is that you consider a Catholic hospital (that would test for status 
of ovulation) to be located too far away for your convenience, so you'd skip that part of 
the directive and go to any hospital that tested for pregnancy only?

So how do you really feel about the intrinsic evil of abortion?

I live in California and many people drive a daily commute of 50+ miles to reach jobs.
If you see abortion as an intrinsic evil, then why does the directive set by the bishops 
seem to call for too much travel-time for you?

Have I misunderstand you?

I have a longer response to add a little later, but I just wanted to say that having been through something like this, when you go to hospital, you are generally in a state of shock and are needing (not neceassarily wanting) to go to the nearest hospital you can get to. 50 miles may seem negligable, but to a rape victim, that’s over an hour more you have to keep all your clothes on for evidence, waiting to shower to get this males vile filth off of you. Plus when you get there you have humiliating tests and pictures which you will have to have taken. Not to mention that most women that have normal cycles should be able to give a good idea of where they are in their cycle - just from telling when the last period ended. My OB said ovulation generally occurs 14 days after your period. Is this perfect? No, but anyone that uses NFP can tell you it’s not that difficult to tell when you’re ovulation or about to. Yes there are women who don’t have normal periods such as myself - but we are the exception - not the rule. The test would be ideal - but of course the true ideal would have been for the rape to never have happened. If you happen to be the person taking the lady to hospital, ask her if she wouldn’t mind going to a Catholic hospital if it’s a choice and she’s willing.
God Bles
Schrode

 

[elts1956]

If one is truly “pro-life” one will support the visible as well as the invisible. Taking Plan B in the ER is for the purpose of preventing conception from happening in the first place, not eliminating a pregnancy. There is no reason in the world for a woman to be forcibly made to be pregnant violently and against her will when she can stop it from happening.

I will support the invisible first, then the visible as long as it is according to Church teaching. I definitely think a woman who has been raped, who has already suffered through that ignonimous attack, who will have emotional and sometimes physical scars for the rest of her life, would suffer even more emotionally knowing she had aborted, or prevented a conceived child.

You seem to rationalize that the so called allowed medical procedure is the end of the journey. Tisn’t. You say you would even do away with the test for ovulation. Such a mindset is misdirected.

Abortion doesn’t answer any problem I will continue to ascertain that the Bishop’s statement allowing the use of Plan B after a rape will open doors to continued and increased abuse of unborn children.

I received this answer from the Catholic bioethics committee today in anwer to my question about the Bishop’s statement.

Dear Mrs. Suhre:

Some version of the directive you cite in your e-mail has been around since at least 1971 in the official Ethical and Religious Directives written by the USCCB.

A central purpose of this particular directive is to prevent the state from mandating the use of such drugs as RU-486 and other abortifacients.

This directive also responds to the right of a woman to protect herself from the consequences of rape. So long as sperm and ovum have not united, there is no danger of an abortion

The NCBC supports the use of appropriate drugs to prevent conception when proper testing has been performed and there is no evidence of an existing pregnancy. There is NO absolute certainty that conception has not taken place. Women, Catholic and non, in their extemety after being raped, will use this as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. I say it is no such thing. (My insert)

Edward J. Furton, M.A., Ph.D.

Ethicist and Director of Publications

The National Catholic Bioethics Center

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183
6399 Drexel Road

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19151

215-877-2660 (v)

215-877-2688 (f)

efurton@ncbcenter.org
Editor of Ethics & Medics

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=322

Editor-in-Chief of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183

The National Catholic Bioethics Center is a non-profit research and educational institute committed to applying the moral teachings of the Catholic Church to ethical issues arising in health care and the life sciences. The Center provides consultations to institutions and individuals seeking its opinion on the appropriate application of Catholic moral teachings to these ethical issues. Neither the Center’s moral analyses nor any other project of the Center should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal or medical opinion or otherwise to engage in the practice of law or medicine, or other health care disciplines.

NCBC CONSULTATION REQUEST INFORMATION

Consultation Inquiry:

Please explain to me the intention of the USCCB’s following statement. I believe this is just opening a hole in the dike for greater expansion of abortion. Most women, in a situation such as rape will not even think of asking for a test for ovulation. Most non Catholic hospitals will not have the equipment for such tests. Is this just an attempt by progressive Bishops to sooth public complaints? Even under ideal medical procedure this is still a possible prevention of a life. Advice please. Here is the statement. Thank you.

usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partone

A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19

 

[Rence]

I will support the invisible first, then the visible as long as it is according to Church teaching. I definitely think a woman who has been raped, who has already suffered through that ignonimous attack, who will have emotional and sometimes physical scars for the rest of her life, would suffer even more emotionally knowing she had aborted, or prevented a conceived child.

You may be right that a woman (depending on the woman) may suffer more emotional damage thinking she may have aborted, which is doubtful since this was a rape. But I can’t see that happening with preventing a conception. If a conception was prevented in the first place, there is no “death”.

Abortion doesn’t answer any problem I will continue to ascertain that the Bishop’s statement allowing the use of Plan B after a rape will open doors to continued and increased abuse of unborn children.

The problem that’s making this harder for you than it has to be is that no one is advocating “abortion”. By definition, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Plan B used after a rape is designed to prevent ovulation from happening, and preventing a conception from taking place. Therefore it is not an abortion because it is preventing conception from happening in the first place.

I received this answer from the Catholic bioethics committee today in anwer to my question about the Bishop’s statement.
Dear Mrs. Suhre:

Some version of the directive you cite in your e-mail has been around since at least 1971 in the official Ethical and Religious Directives written by the USCCB.

A central purpose of this particular directive is to prevent the state from mandating the use of such drugs as RU-486 and other abortifacients.

This directive also responds to the right of a woman to protect herself from the consequences of rape. So long as sperm and ovum have not united, there is no danger of an abortion

The NCBC supports the use of appropriate drugs to prevent conception when proper testing has been performed and there is no evidence of an existing pregnancy.

That’s what I said (except for the bit about RU-486, which is irrelevent because that’s not what plan b is). Now you have the answer you’ve been looking for. I hope it helps you.

There is NO absolute certainty that conception has not taken place. Women, Catholic and non, in their extemety after being raped, will use this as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. I say it is no such thing. (My insert)

If the woman tests negative for pregnancy, that means there was no pregnancy prior to the rape. If the woman tests that she has not ovulated or not ovulating, there can’t be a pregnancy. That’s why the Bishops require it. After the woman has tested that she has not ovulated, and is not presently ovulating, giving her plan b stops plan b from happening so that conception doesn’t take place. So there is no death involved in this allowance by the Bishops.

 

[elts1956]

You may be right that a woman (depending on the woman) may suffer more emotional damage thinking she may have aborted, which is doubtful since this was a rape. But I can’t see that happening with preventing a conception. If a conception was prevented in the first place, there is no “death”.

The problem that’s making this harder for you than it has to be is that no one is advocating “abortion”. You are advocating, as are the Bishops, a loosening of laws that should not be loosened. There will be few traunatized women who will demand the steps proscribed by the Bishops before asking for Plan B. By definition, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Plan B used after a rape is designed to prevent ovulation from happening, and preventing a conception from taking place. Therefore it is not an abortion because it is preventing conception from happening in the first place.

That’s what I said (except for the bit about RU-486, which is irrelevent because that’s not what plan b is). Now you have the answer you’ve been looking for. I hope it helps you.

I have in no way changed my stance. This rule of the Bishops, lying in the vicinity of so called Social Justice, which will, if not already, cause more confusion in the minds of Catholics, is an ambiguity that if most of the Bishops had the spine of the leaders of the early Church, would not be allowed.

If the woman tests negative for pregnancy, that means there was no pregnancy prior to the rape. If the woman tests that she has not ovulated or not ovulating, there can’t be a pregnancy. That’s why the Bishops require it. After the woman has tested that she has not ovulated, and is not presently ovulating, giving her plan b stops plan b from happening so that conception doesn’t take place. So there is no death involved in this allowance by the Bishops.

You yourself have brushed off the necessity for the test for ovulation. And you, being catholic, have, I am sure, given this deep thought. Do you think the unaware individual woman will be as aware as to what is going on if you, as a deep thinking catholic, disregard all the steps the Bishops have said are necessary in the case of rape to ascertain whether, or not ovulation has occurred? Give me a break. They will not. They will head directly to Plan B.

I remain standing in opposition to the allowance of this. Prevention of conception may occur. As I understand it, use of artificial contraceptives is not allowed by true Catholic teaching.

As usual, the main point of the Bishop’s statement is missed.

A central purpose of this particular directive is to prevent the state from mandating the use of such drugs as RU-486 AND OTHER ABORTIFICANTS.

 

[Rence]

You yourself have brushed off the necessity for the test for ovulation. And you, being catholic, have, I am sure, given this deep thought. Do you think the unaware individual woman will be as aware as to what is going on if you, as a deep thinking catholic, disregard all the steps the Bishops have said are necessary in the case of rape to ascertain whether, or not ovulation has occurred? Give me a break. They will not. They will head directly to Plan B.

When I teach other women about the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding Plan B, I teach them the teachings of the Church regarding Plan B. I do not teach them my opinion, unless I am asked, which not be appropriate in a professional setting anyway – in other words, they don’t get my opinion, they get the facts. Here on a message board I may share my opinions (this is a discussion forum), and privately, but not professionally.

I am not responsible for another person’s actions. However, I am responsible (as every Catholic) to teach the rules of the Church. What people do with those rules after they learn them is up to them, as with everything else. Lying about the teachings, including by omission, is unfair and desceptive.

I remain standing in opposition to the allowance of this. Prevention of conception may occur. As I understand it, use of artificial contraceptives is not allowed by true Catholic teaching.

You can oppose this, and any other teaching, at your descretion. No one is arguing with you about that. And yes, artificial contraceptives are not allowed by Catholic teaching — except for the cases of rape, and only immediately after in the ER as part of after-rape treatment. And of course, the Church allows hormone therapy to treat medical conditions. That in no way advocates using artificial contraceptives any other time. Just like sex is only allowed by the Catholic Church in the context of marriage. Saying that the Church outlaws sex is erroneous because it is allowed in the context of marriage. Saying that the Church outlaws eating meat is erroneous because it is only to be abstained from on Fridays. Etc…

As usual, the main point of the Bishop’s statement is missed.
A central purpose of this particular directive is to prevent the state from mandating the use of such drugs as RU-486 AND OTHER ABORTIFICANTS.

The Bishops were correct on a few levels to teach this directive. One of those being eliminating the procuration of an abortion later in the case of rape.

 

[elts1956]

Rence:
When I teach other women about the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding Plan B, I teach them the teachings of the Church regarding Plan B. I do not teach them my opinion, unless I am asked, which not be appropriate in a professional setting anyway – in other words, they don’t get my opinion, they get the facts. Here on a message board I may share my opinions (this is a discussion forum), and privately, but not professionally.

I am not responsible for another person’s actions. However, I am responsible (as every Catholic) to teach the rules of the Church. What people do with those rules after they learn them is up to them, as with everything else. Lying about the teachings, including by omission, is unfair and desceptive.

You can oppose this, and any other teaching, at your descretion. No one is arguing with you about that. And yes, artificial contraceptives are not allowed by Catholic teaching — except for the cases of rape, and only immediately after in the ER as part of after-rape treatment. And of course, the Church allows hormone therapy to treat medical conditions. That in no way advocates using artificial contraceptives any other time. Just like sex is only allowed by the Catholic Church in the context of marriage. Saying that the Church outlaws sex is erroneous because it is allowed in the context of marriage. Saying that the Church outlaws eating meat is erroneous because it is only to be abstained from on Fridays. Etc…

The Bishops were correct on a few levels to teach this directive. One of those being eliminating the procuration of an abortion later in the case of rape.

You have complete freedom of conscience to teach what you will. However you completely ignoed my statement that there will be many more misguided women and those who will either deliberately , or in haste ,who will not stop to think (who could blame them) and go directly to the Bishop’s and your permission to use Plan B to prevent conception. Without the test for ovulation, which you have brushed aside, conception could take place. Another slow slide for the progressives in the church.

 

[Schrode]

You have complete freedom of conscience to teach what you will. However you completely ignoed my statement that there will be many more misguided women and those who will either deliberately , or in haste ,who will not stop to think (who could blame them) and go directly to the Bishop’s and your permission to use Plan B to prevent conception. Without the test for ovulation, which you have brushed aside, conception could take place. Another slow slide for the progressives in the church.

Truly, Elts, I’m not trying to be dense here, but I really don’t understand what is wrong with preventing the possible conception in a situation where there was no consent from the female. Your posts make it sound like a child exists automatically after the rape when no conception has yet taken place. You make it sound as if (IMHO) there is a child present prior to conception. It’s as if you’re fighting to make a woman keep herself open to a life that she did not consent to allow - the Bishops have said that because the two aspects to make a child were not present that if coneption has not taken place by the time the woman hits hospital, then she should be able to protect herself from this sperm that she did not want to have enter her. I can understand how these sperm could be considered “aggressors” and how a woman can view herself as protecting herself from having to deal with getting rid of any part of the rapist within her. Many women who are raped just want to get over what happened and move along (IMHO and experience) - many do not want to be forced to be open to a life which at the time we’re talking about does not yet exist. There is no murder taking place here - there is no soul present that is being destroyed. There is only a sperm and an egg which have not met. (we’re talking about those who come up with a neg. preg. test and who can tell from their cycle or through testing where they are as far as ovulation)
Speaking with my OBGYN apparently, (hopefully in my opinion), this may soon become a moot topic. Apparently, there is some testing going on for a type of “wash” that after a rape could be used within a woman to help destroy certain diseases such as VD, clamydia, and multiple others - it would also destroy most if not all of the sperm present. I havn’t seen articles yet but I hope I will soon. She told me it was currently being tested. When your raped, you’re not just worried about pregnancy - you’re also worried about any other diseases the sick, vile person that raped you might have had. If this wash is approved, then I could see it being used in a Catholic Hospital setting - especially because it’s main purpose would be to help destroy certain viruses and diseases - preventing conception would just be a bonus IMO. Until then, I really feel that when we’re discussing what the Bishop’s said about preventing conception will at least give raped women the chance to defend themselves against the effects of rape. Some keep saying “well, they may not ask for the test for ovulation” or “if they don’t have the test,they may not ask…” - I really think that Catholics are going to be the main people that will care about this - others who are not Catholic are really not going to care what the Bishop’s or the Pope said in most cases. So perhaps this is something (what the Bishop’s said) that needs to be disseminated enough to where women prior to being raped will read about what the Bishop’s said with regards to what can be done after a rape. Of course getting it out to hospital staff would be the most helpful, I believe. Let’s face it Elts, you’re right - after you’re raped, most women -even Catholic women IMO, are not going to first go look at the CCC to see what it says about what a woman can do after a rape - the women are going to want to (in most cases IMO) just get to hospital and get whatever has to be done over with so they can get any reminder of the rapist and what happened away from them. Preventing conception, besides making sure she doesn’t get some disease the rapist had is probably going to be the two greatest concerns of a raped woman.
God Bless
Schrode

 

[Rence]

You have complete freedom of conscience to teach what you will. However you completely ignoed my statement that there will be many more misguided women and those who will either deliberately , or in haste ,who will not stop to think (who could blame them) and go directly to the Bishop’s and your permission to use Plan B to prevent conception.

I didn’t ignore it in the least, it’s still the woman’s choice - and you know what? in the case of rape, always will be, even weeks and weeks after - which make the Bishops very prudent to allow the woman to be proactive. In addition, the odds that a woman will get pregnant in the few hours between the rape and ingesting plan B are extremely slim. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that conception takes place “right then and there” when a woman is raped. The odds are incredibly against that from happening. Therefore, the sooner it is taken the better.

Without the test for ovulation, which you have brushed aside, conception could take place. Another slow slide for the progressives in the church.

Yeah, that’s exactly what we’re trying to prevent from happening. And that’s exactly what the Bishops are hoping will happen. Without conception, there is no life.

 

[Rence]

Apparently, there is some testing going on for a type of “wash” that after a rape could be used within a woman to help destroy certain diseases such as VD, clamydia, and multiple others - it would also destroy most if not all of the sperm present.

Let’s hope the Church doesn’t have a problem with that too. That’s very promising. Let me know when you find out more, and I’ll do the same if I hear anything.

most women -even Catholic women IMO, are not going to first go look at the CCC to see what it says about what a woman can do after a rape - the women are going to want to (in most cases IMO) just get to hospital and get whatever has to be done over with so they can get any reminder of the rapist and what happened away from them.

That’s why educating women about the rules of the Church are important. Yes, some of them will ignore the teaching, and go for plan B straight away after a rape, but for those who will adhere to it, they have to know it in order to follow it.

Preventing conception, besides making sure she doesn’t get some disease the rapist had is probably going to be the two greatest concerns of a raped woman.
God Bless
Schrode

Yep! What else could they possibly be thinking of?

 

[Schrode]

Some on here seem to be using the terms “visible” and “invisible” - I’m not trying to play semantics or be coy, but I think using these words are at the very least a misnomer. I think, as is said, you should “call a spade a spade”. Elts, when you say visibile, it makes it sound as if (and I think this is the point) you are just trying to say the “known” pregnancy or the true “possiblity” of a pregnancy having already occured. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when the word “invisible” is used, I would say you mean there’s also a possibility of a pregnancy occuring, but not having occured. I really don’t understand why you would want a woman to be forced to leave herself open to the possibility of a conception occuring which she did not ask to have as well as one that will remind her constantly (if she doesn’t prevent the sperm from getting to her egg - again not killing anything but the sperm who I really believe by a woman raped can be easily viewed as “aggressors” - they’re invading her and possibly about to cause something to occur she did not desire or participate in with fully unitive and life forming mind set)-

You’re giving “life” to something which is not yet alive, Elts - and this is what confuses me, because from your posts, you seem to be quite an intelligent person - how can you give life to something which is just the possibility of life? Wouldn’t this be the same as saying that if a woman knows she’s fertile then if married and able and ready to have children, she should go get her husband and try to begin creating a child (even if she doesn’t feel she’s ready to for whatever reason)? Because you’ve got an egg and a sperm - they’re seperated but that’s easily remidied - there’s the possibility of life there. That, to me smacks of going back to a time when sex was not to be used for mutual pleasure but for “baby making” only. (Before I get words on this, I can’t currently quote a respected source that would say the Church ever said sex was only for procreation, but all I have to do is go back a generation or two with Catholics I know to be told how it was spelled out that once married, the woman’s place was expected to be in the home having babies.)

God Bless

Schrode

 

[elts1956]

Some on here seem to be using the terms “visible” and “invisible” - Babies in the womb are invisible. I am talking about pro choicers ignoring, for their own comfort, that a baby exists in the womb after conception. I’m not trying to play semantics or be coy, but I think using these words are at the very least a misnomer. I think, as is said, you should “call a spade a spade”. Elts, when you say visibile, it makes it sound as if (and I think this is the point) you are just trying to say the “known” pregnancy or the true “possiblity” of a pregnancy having already occured. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when the word “invisible” is used, I would say you mean there’s also a possibility of a pregnancy occuring, but not having occured. I really don’t understand why you would want a woman to be forced to leave herself open to the possibility of a conception occuring which she did not" ask to have" as well as one that will remind her constantly (better to have the comfort of knowing she absolutely didn’t prevent a life, a child of God to be conceived than agonizing over the possiblity she did destroy one.)(if she doesn’t prevent the sperm from getting to her egg - again not killing anything but the sperm who I really believe by a woman raped can be easily viewed as “aggressors” - This has been pro choice/abortion talk from pro abort feminists since 1973. But then for them all “men” are the aggressors… As though something created by God, following its nature is an aggressor. Unbelievable…they’re invading her and possibly about to cause something to occur she did not desire or participate in with fully unitive and life forming mind set)- Again pro abort talks. “Gee, I didn’t want to get pregnant. It was an accident. Therefore I will abort this cluster of cells.” You either believe in the dignity of life, or you don’t, from conception to natural death.

You’re giving “life” to something which is not yet alive, Elts Until the sperm and egg meet there is always the “possibility” of life. - and this is what confuses me, because from your posts, you seem to be quite an intelligent person - how can you give life to something which is just the possibility of life? It’s called morals and values. Wouldn’t this be the same as saying that if a woman knows she’s fertile then if married and able and ready to have children, she should go get her husband and try to begin creating a child (even if she doesn’t feel she’s ready to for whatever reason)? No. Because you’ve got an egg and a sperm - they’re seperated but that’s easily remidied - there’s the possibility of life there. That, to me smacks of going back to a time when sex was not to be used for mutual pleasure but for “baby making” only. Perhaps you need to read Pope Paul II Theology of the body??? (Before I get words on this, I can’t currently quote a respected source that would say the Church ever said sex was only for procreation, but all I have to do is go back a generation or two with Catholics I know to be told how it was spelled out that once married, the woman’s place was expected to be in the home having babies.) This is a conumdrum even for me. I believe a woman has as much right to create a career of her own outside the home as a man. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon how you look at it, the woman is still the heart of the home. Women with careers outside the home pay in one way or another ie. not being able to concentrate fully on a career, or if she does so and has children, the children sometimes lose. Look at the younger generation now. No structure and no boundaries unless by some miracle they get these from the home. I don’t have an answer to this.
God Bless

 

[Rence]

Theology of the Body has nothing to do with rape. The guidelines and counsel provided have to do with consensual martial relations.

And again, no conception = no abortion to begin with.

 

[elts1956]

Theology of the Body has nothing to do with rape. The guidelines and counsel provided have to do with consensual martial relations.

And again, no conception = no abortion to begin with.

That is something you cannot be 100% sure of. Why does every theogilical premise have to do with rape? Think outside the box Rence.