USCCB OKs contraception in rape cases?

[Ann_Cheryl]

tuopaolo:

If contraception is OK in cases of rape why wouldn’t it be also potentially OK in cases where a couple has sex and then after the fact regrets having had sex and tries to contracept? If they go into sex intending to contracept then I see why there would be a difference. But what if they go into sex not intending contraception at all but then afterwards have regrets?

Having regrets later changes things how?

Since you are comparing it to rape, are you then saying that it becomes an attack on the couple because they changed their minds? Therefore, it becomes rape? Your argument make no sense to me.

This is not a strange teaching of the U.S. Bishops. This is a consistant teaching of the Church. It is the teaching that one has the right to defend oneself. There is no human being involved once there is it becomes a different matter. A woman has the right to defend herself from an attacker. Just like she can prevent std she can prevent sperm from attacking her further. The sperm isn’t some neutral or innocent factor. It is part of the attack. If an attacker injected poison into the system of a victim, the victim would still be under attack even after the perpertrator has gone.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

tuopaolo: If contraception is OK in cases of rape why wouldn’t it be also potentially OK in cases where a couple has sex and then after the fact regrets having had sex and tries to contracept? If they go into sex intending to contracept then I see why there would be a difference. But what if they go into sex not intending contraception at all but then afterwards have regrets?

Ann Cheryl: Having regrets later changes things how?

I hope I’m not putting words in his mouth, but I think he was questioning the reasoning that it wasn’t the contraception itself that is intrinsically evil (in which case it would be illicit even in cases of rape (1) ), but that engaging in the marital act while intending to contracept is where the sin lies.

I think this reasoning would be along the lines of …contraception is a contradiction the true meaning of the marital act which necessarily entails a mutual and total self-giving of the marital partners. This was explicated by Pope John Paul II in his series of talks called the “Theology of the Body” (2).

It would seem to me that the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops & the theologians Michelle Arnold alludes to are contending (& tuopaolo is challenging) that it is not the contraception per se that is sinful, but the inherent lie in pretending to give oneself fully and freely to one’s marital partner all the while intending to withhold ones fecundity which is intrinsic to the marital act.

The victim of rape, however, was NOT willingly giving herself fully and freely to the aggressor in the first place and never pretended to be. Withholding her fertility from him is therefore not a lie and not sinful.

If I am understanding tuopaolo’s line of reasoning, he is saying that if this is true, that contraception itself is not immoral, but rather the sin would be in engaging in the marital act while in effect lying (pretending to fully give all of oneself while in reality withholding perhaps the most important part of oneself, at least with respect to that particular act), then would it not also be true that if the spouses engaged in the marital act fully and freely giving all of themselves including their fertility to each other (no sin there), but later decided to contracept (no sin there if contraception is not intrinsically evil)? For instance, the husband was laid off from work the next day and had no viable prospects for employment at the time and they decided it would now be better to wait until their financial situation was righted.

Hopefully tuopaolo can correct whatever errors & deficiencies I may have inadvertantly imputed to his line of reasoning through my speculation. If nothing else, he could probably at least explain it more thoroughly and in a much clearer and simpler way.

Endnotes:

1. Rom 3:8 and:

…To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil,… In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good,[17] it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom;[18] that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.
17. Cf. Pius XII, alloc. to the National Congress of the Union of Catholic Jurists, Dec. 6, 1953, in AAS XLV (1953), pp. 798-799.

   18. Cf. Rom. 3: 8.

HUMANAE VITAE (On The Regulation Of Birth)
Pope Paul VI
www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

1. See also: An Introduction to John Paul II’s Theology of the Body by Father Richard M. Hogan
   www.nfpoutreach.org/Hogan_Theology_%20Body1.htm

 

[tuopaolo]

tuopaolo: If contraception is OK in cases of rape why wouldn’t it be also potentially OK in cases where a couple has sex and then after the fact regrets having had sex and tries to contracept? If they go into sex intending to contracept then I see why there would be a difference. But what if they go into sex not intending contraception at all but then afterwards have regrets?

Ann Cheryl: Having regrets later changes things how?

I hope I’m not putting words in his mouth, but I think he was questioning the reasoning that it wasn’t the contraception itself that is intrinsically evil (in which case it would be illicit even in cases of rape (1) ), but that engaging in the marital act while intending to contracept is where the sin lies.

I think this reasoning would be along the lines of …contraception is a contradiction the true meaning of the marital act which necessarily entails a mutual and total self-giving of the marital partners. This was explicated by Pope John Paul II in his series of talks called the “Theology of the Body” (2).

It would seem to me that the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops & the theologians Michelle Arnold alludes to are contending (& tuopaolo is challenging) that it is not the contraception per se that is sinful, but the inherent lie in pretending to give oneself fully and freely to one’s marital partner all the while intending to withhold ones fecundity which is intrinsic to the marital act.

The victim of rape, however, was NOT willingly giving herself fully and freely to the aggressor in the first place and never pretended to be. Withholding her fertility from him is therefore not a lie and not sinful.

**If I am understanding **tuopaolo’s line of reasoning, he is saying that if this is true, that contraception itself is not immoral, but rather the sin would be in engaging in the marital act while in effect lying (pretending to fully give all of oneself while in reality withholding perhaps the most important part of oneself, at least with respect to that particular act), then would it not also be true that if the spouses engaged in the marital act fully and freely giving all of themselves including their fertility to each other (no sin there), but later decided to contracept (no sin there if contraception is not intrinsically evil)? For instance, the husband was laid off from work the next day and had no viable prospects for employment at the time and they decided it would now be better to wait until their financial situation was righted.

Hopefully tuopaolo can correct whatever errors & deficiencies I may have inadvertantly imputed to his line of reasoning through my speculation. If nothing else, he could probably at least explain it more thoroughly and in a much clearer and simpler way.

O no, I think you have explained it more thoroughly and more clearly and simply than I could ever have! Thanks.

I’d just like to clarify though that in what I have bolded above where you brilliantly expound upon my reasoning, I wasn’t intending to make a reductio ad absurdum argument, but simply to explore the logical consequences of the stance without implying that the stance was false.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

1ke:

Jimmy, you completely miss the point. Contraception is intrinsically evil and never allowed. Repeling an agressor is not contraception. Did you not read my post?

I think that in this case contraception is the means to “repelling an aggressor”. The situation at hand does not change the basic defiinition of contraception:

**con·tra·cep·tion **n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. Dictionary.com

As I see it, if contraception is in fact intrinsically evil, it cannot be used even for a very good purpose. That is Catholic doctrine. The ends never justify the use of evil means.

The only way I can see reconciling the fact sheet from the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops with Catholic doctrine, is if contraception itself is NOT intrinsically evil.

Taking its cue from Humanae Vitae, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159 (link)

Now I can see where one might make the case that this would not apply in the case of rape as intercoure in such cases is not strictly speaking a “conjugal act”:

con·ju·gal adj. Of or relating to marriage or the relationship of spouses. Pope Paul VI was speaking in the context of marriage, and of course, that was the normal context of sexual intercourse before his encyclical was rejected and the contraceptive mentality took hold. The Catechism also explains the reasoning behind the “intrinsic evil” of contraception within the context of marriage.

On the other hand, I don’t think most bishops would conclude that contraception is not intrinsically evil in other non-marital relationships.

 

[fix]

CCF_Jeff:

As I see it, if contraception is in fact intrinsically evil, it cannot be used even for a very good purpose. That is Catholic doctrine. The ends never justify the use of evil means.

Contraception is intrinsically evil within the conjugal act.Rape is not a conjugal act, it is forced by an unjust aggressor. Contraception outside the conjugal act is not intrinsically evil.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

Dr. Colossus: … The reasoning goes like this:

Contraception is inherently sinful between spouses because the marital act is frustrated. …

It seems to me that it would be more precise, according to this line of reasoning, to say that engaging in the marital act while using or intending to use contraception is always sinful.

If something is inherently or intrinsically sinful, it is always wrong to do so regardless of circumstances (eg. murder, rape etc.).

in·her·ent *adj. *(link) Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.
in·trin·sic *adj. *(link)

1. 
   *]Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

Ann Cheryl: This is not a strange teaching of the U.S. Bishops. This is a consistant teaching of the Church. It is the teaching that one has the right to defend oneself.

The right of self defense is, of course, a constant teaching of the Church, but I have never seen any Magisterial documents applying the right of self defense in a manner such that it therefore gives rape victims a right to use contraception. Perhaps this is a case of development of doctrine unfolding before our very eyes, but I wouldn’t characterize it as a “consistent teaching of the Church”.

If I am wrong, perhaps you could point me to any prior magisterial documents that spoke to this issue?

 

[fix]

Dr. Colossus: … The reasoning goes like this:

Contraception is inherently sinful between spouses because the marital act is frustrated. …

It seems to me that it would be more precise, according to this line of reasoning, to say that engaging in the marital act while using or intending to use contraception is always sinful.

If something is inherently or intrinsically sinful, it is always wrong to do so regardless of circumstances (eg. murder, rape etc.).

in·her·ent *adj. *(link) Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.
in·trin·sic *adj. *(link)

1. 
   *]Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.
   

1. 
   
   Please read HV. It specfically calls contraception intrinsically wrong.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

fix: Please read HV. It specfically calls contraception intrinsically wrong.

Not exactly. That was my original impression, but upon looking at it more closely I don’t think it says that clearly and unambiguously. If it were true, then the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops would be clearly out of line in sanctioning something that is intrinsically evil, even if it were for a good purpose.

Catholic Answers apologist, Michelle Arnold, notes (in this post) that “Moral theologians generally agree” that contraception is licit in cases of rape. Once again, if contraception is intrinsically evil it is NEVER licit, so those moral theologians she alludes to must not consider contraception to be intrinsically evil, but only immoral in certain circumstances.

The end can never justify the (evil) means.

Pope Paul VI reemphasized this again in Humanae Vitae:
…it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom;[18] that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder(ed), and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being.

The word “intrinsic” is only used 3 times in *Humanae Vitae *-- twice in that paragraph. The first time in the paragraph preceding section 14, in which Pope Paul VI states that the “generative faculties” have an “intrinsic ordination towards raising up life”.

As noted above, the other 2 uses of intrinsic are in that 3rd paragraph of section 14 and in neither case does it explicitly state that contraception per se is intrinsically evil. Here is that paragraph in full:

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good,[17] it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom;[18] that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder(ed), and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.

I underlined both instances of the word “intrinsic(ally)” and highlighted the sentence that seems to contain the crux of the teaching with respect to our discussion here.

I think it could be reasonably argued that contraception itself is not intrinsically evil, but that the evil lay within its use within the conjugal act because it renders that marital act as intrinsically dishonest. – The partners are* pretending* to give of themselves fully and completely, but are in fact holding a part of themselves back – in fact withholding their fertility, their procreative faculty to which the marital act has been primarily ordered by God.

In the case of rape there was no pretension of self-giving on the part of the victim in the first place. The intercourse was not rendered dishonest by any act of contraception on her part, but was dishonest from the start exclusively due to the use of force, (threats, deception etc.) on the part of the aggressor.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

fix: Please read HV. It specfically calls contraception intrinsically wrong.

The Catechism adds “intrinsically evil” to its quote from Humanae Vitae yet does so within the context of “the conjugal act”:

**2370 **…“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Dictionaries define “conjugal” to mean within marriage:

**con·ju·gal ***adj. *Of or relating to marriage or the relationship of spouses.

Once again, I think that leaves open the possibility that contraception is not intrinsically evil, but only evil within the context of the “conjugal (marital) act”. Of course, I don’t think that any of those theologians would contend that contraception is not an additional sin even when in the context of fornication or adultery. But in any event, I am not yet convinced that the Church has already definitively taught that contraception itself is intrinsically evil.

Apparently, if Michelle Arnold is correct, moral theologians “generally agree” that contraception is NOT evil in the context of rape cases, and Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops must be taking the same stance. The USCCB even has it posted on their website.

I have my reseverations about that stance, but it would seem to me to be one of those “gray areas” not yet unambiguously defined by the Church.

 

[fix]

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so ***intrinsically wrong.

***http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

This is a direct quote from HV from the Vatican website.

---

***It is intrinsically evil within the congual act. The Church understands that to mean the coming together of man and woman, married or not. It is always wrong within that context.

Rape is never a conjugal act.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

Ann Cheryl:

This isn’t a new teaching. I heard about this teaching in the sixties.“Your first post doesn’t make sense to me. It is not part of the attack after the attacker has left. This is a form of contraception. Your not attacking the attacker by killing the sperm. The sperm is not the agressor.”

But the attacker didn’t take all of him when he left. He left something to continue the attack. What is the sperm? if not the agressor. It doesn’t belong there and the woman has the right to rid herself of it. I suppose if she got a std from it you wouldn’t consider that part of the attack either?

Ann Cheryl:

It doesn’t belong there and the woman has the right to rid herself of it

This is the same kind of logic that Planned Parenthood has adopted no doubt. I am very discouraged to see Catholics saying things like this because it is burdensome so then they somehow “have the right” to get rid of it, as if it is a splinter that needs pulled.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

fix: This is a direct quote from HV from the Vatican website.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

… Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so ***intrinsically wrong.

***The English translation of Humanae Vitae from the Vatican website is obviously a little different than the translation EWTN has on their site, and yet I don’t think it changes anything with respect to our discussion at hand.

If we parse the above, I think we would see that what is described as intrinsically wrong is “sexual intercourse” modified, of course, by the phrase “which is deliberately contraceptive”.

As I read it *Humanae Vitae, *or at least the portion of it quoted above, does not call contraception itself intrinsically wrong, but rather calls sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive intrinsically wrong.

This is a critical difference with respect to contraception in the cases of rape. It is the crucial difference which determines whether or not it is a sin for a woman to contracept (not abort) after she has been raped.

If contraception* itself *is intrinsically evil, it can never legitimately be engaged in regardless of the circumstances.

On the other hand, if it is the sexual intercourse with the intention of contracepting that is a sin rather than the contraception itself, a woman who has been raped is obviously not guilty of any sin for contracepting.

In such a case she is not guilty of any sin of contraception because contraception itself is not a sin per se. She would also not be guilty of the act of illicit sexual intercourse because she did not consent to the act but was forced or coerced into it. As I understand it, this is the position of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the USCCB.

Of course this may be mostly semantics. Whether contraception is “intrinsically evil” but only under certain circumstances, or whether it is contraceptive sexual intercourse that is intrinsically evil, the bottom line in this regard with respect to our discussion is the same – It is not necessarily sinful for a woman who has been raped to attempt contraception.

---

***It is intrinsically evil within the congual act. The Church understands that to mean the coming together of man and woman, married or not. It is always wrong within that context.

It would seem from the different translations as posted on the Vatican & EWTN website that the translators are using “conjugal act” & “sexual intercourse” interchangeably and that would, of course, support your contention and that is what I had always believed. But I had also always believed, perhaps mistakenly so, that contraception itself – deliberately thwarting conception as a consequence of any individual act of sexual intercourse – was inherently sinful.

Rape is never a conjugal act.

Upon what do you base this contention? If the English translators of Humanae Vitae used “conjugal act” and “sexual intercourse” interchangeably, it would seem to me that rape is a conjugal act – an act of sexual intercourse.

 

[fix]

fix: This is a direct quote from HV from the Vatican website.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

… Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so ***intrinsically wrong.

***The English translation of Humanae Vitae from the Vatican website is obviously a little different than the translation EWTN has on their site, and yet I don’t think it changes anything with respect to our discussion at hand.

If we parse the above, I think we would see that what is described as intrinsically wrong is “sexual intercourse” modified, of course, by the phrase “which is deliberately contraceptive”.

As I read it *Humanae Vitae, *or at least the portion of it quoted above, does not call contraception itself intrinsically wrong, but rather calls sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive intrinsically wrong.

This is a critical difference with respect to contraception in the cases of rape. It is the crucial difference which determines whether or not it is a sin for a woman to contracept (not abort) after she has been raped.

If contraception* itself *is intrinsically evil, it can never legitimately be engaged in regardless of the circumstances.

On the other hand, if it is the sexual intercourse with the intention of contracepting that is a sin rather than the contraception itself, a woman who has been raped is obviously not guilty of any sin for contracepting.

In such a case she is not guilty of any sin of contraception because contraception itself is not a sin per se. She would also not be guilty of the act of illicit sexual intercourse because she did not consent to the act but was forced or coerced into it. As I understand it, this is the position of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the USCCB.

Of course this may be mostly semantics. Whether contraception is “intrinsically evil” but only under certain circumstances, or whether it is contraceptive sexual intercourse that is intrinsically evil, the bottom line in this regard with respect to our discussion is the same – It is not necessarily sinful for a woman who has been raped to attempt contraception.

---

***It is intrinsically evil within the congual act. The Church understands that to mean the coming together of man and woman, married or not. It is always wrong within that context.

It would seem from the different translations as posted on the Vatican & EWTN website that the translators are using “conjugal act” & “sexual intercourse” interchangeably and that would, of course, support your contention and that is what I had always believed. But I had also always believed, perhaps mistakenly so, that contraception itself – deliberately thwarting conception as a consequence of any individual act of sexual intercourse – was inherently sinful.

Rape is never a conjugal act.

Upon what do you base this contention? If the English translators of Humanae Vitae used “conjugal act” and “sexual intercourse” interchangeably, it would seem to me that rape is a conjugal act – an act of sexual intercourse.

Well, I think I agree with all your points, except the last. My understanding is that the conjugal act is the bringing together of a man and woman with consent?

 

[CCF_Jeff]

**fix: **Rape is never a conjugal act.

Jeff: Upon what do you base this contention? If the English translators of Humanae Vitae used “conjugal act” and “sexual intercourse” interchangeably, it would seem to me that rape is a conjugal act – an act of sexual intercourse.

fix:

Well, I think I agree with all your points, except the last. My understanding is that the conjugal act is the bringing together of a man and woman with consent?

Every dictionary I have consulted, however, says “conjugal” pertains to marriage. Here is a typical definition from Dictionary.com:

con·ju·gal adj. Of or relating to marriage or the relationship of spouses.
The Catechism uses the term in the same fasion:

conjugal love

conjugal fidelity

I don’t find it used anywhere in the sense of cohabiting couples, “one night stands” etc. or of any case of unmarried people engaging in sexual intercourse either with or without consent.

It makes me wonder what caused the variance in the english translations of Humanae Vitae on the Vatican & EWTN websites. Perhaps the official Latin doesn’t have a word that distinguishes in a way the english language does between “conjugal acts” & “sexual intercourse”?

 

[LoneRanger]

if a woman takes a drug, be it for whatever reason… she is single, either way she is celibate, she has not had sex, does not plan to have sex (ever) and this drug renders the womb unable to support life…

i can see the issue is she were married, or taking while being actively sexual to keep from having children…

but remember, she has no plans to have sex, and would brutally defend herselp from being forced to have sex…

now, she is not aborting a concieved child… she is just protecting herself from harm…

does this make sence to anyone?

 

[fix]

**fix: **Rape is never a conjugal act.

Jeff: Upon what do you base this contention? If the English translators of Humanae Vitae used “conjugal act” and “sexual intercourse” interchangeably, it would seem to me that rape is a conjugal act – an act of sexual intercourse.

Every dictionary I have consulted, however, says “conjugal” pertains to marriage. Here is a typical definition from Dictionary.com:

con·ju·gal adj. Of or relating to marriage or the relationship of spouses.
The Catechism uses the term in the same fasion:

conjugal love

conjugal fidelity

I don’t find it used anywhere in the sense of cohabiting couples, “one night stands” etc. or of any case of unmarried people engaging in sexual intercourse either with or without consent.

It makes me wonder what caused the variance in the english translations of Humanae Vitae on the Vatican & EWTN websites. Perhaps the official Latin doesn’t have a word that distinguishes in a way the english language does between “conjugal acts” & “sexual intercourse”?

Well, contraceptive intercourse is a sin whether one is married or not married. Call it conjugal or not, contraception is a grave sin when done between a man and woman assuming it is consentual.

I can’t see those CCC references including rape as a conjugal act.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

Genesis315: Yes, only if ovulation has not occured and it would not cause an abortifacient effect.

From what I can tell that is NOT the position of the fact sheet issued by the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities USCCB. Unless I am mistaken it would appear that they have authorized the use of the “Plan B” “morning after” pills which will in some instances cause abortions even under the guidelines they have OKed.

From their fact sheet:

“Emergency Contraceptives” are multiple-dose oral contraceptives taken after intercourse. The pills have at least four possible mechanisms: (1) suppressing ovulation, (2) altering cervical mucus to hinder the transport of sperm, (3) slowing the transport of the ovum and (4) inhibiting implantation of the newly conceived human embryo. Which of these mechanisms is operative depends on when the pills are taken. If taken before ovulation, EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, thereby preventing conception. If taken after the LH surge which triggers ovulation, EC will not disrupt ovulation in that cycle, but can inhibit implantation of the developing embryo.1 (emphasis added)

Note that those are possible mechanisms. Ovulation is suppressed NOT eliminated in every instance. Sperm is hindered NOT always stopped. The ovum might possibly be slowed but NOT stopped. Even the final backup of inhibiting implantation of the newly conceived human being (abortion) is not automatic every time. There are several different versions of “emergency contraception”, “Plan B” touts its improved effectiveness as opposed to its competitors:

Plan B’s pregnancy rate was only 1% vs. about 3% for Yuzpe. (link)

Keep in mind that even in the case of “Plan B” (which is the most “effective”) in 1% of the cases all four of the “potential” mechanisms had failed at the same time and the child successfully implanted in his or her mother’s womb.

**We do not know how many other children were “expelled” (aborted in other words)!

****From the Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics

**The total number of rapes reported during 2002 remained at about 1.1% at 247,730. This number includes 31,640 men. (link)

If we subtract out the men, that would mean that we had 216,090 women report being raped in 2002 in the United States.

If the number of pregnancies from rape victims was similar to the number of pregnancies from women in the Plan B study, one would expect approximately 2161 pregnancies (1%) if all of the rape victims used Plan B. The number of pregnancies would likely be smaller, however, since the Dept. of Justice figures included all victims over age 12. Some of them may have been above or below child bearing age, though the average female victim was under 18 years of age.

On the other hand, if we know that 1% of the time all 4 of the potential mechanisms of Plan B “failed”, that even in this most effective of the “emergency contraceptives” more than 1% of the time at least the other 3 (non-abortive) mechanisms failed concurrently.

We also know that one cannot “turn off” any of the mechanisms of the “emergency contraceptives”. That means that if ovulation is not suppressed, and the sperm is not impeded (enough) and the passage of the ovum is not slowed down (enough) and conception occurs anyway that **the abortifacient properties of the “emergency contraception” is still active! **(continued in part 2)

 

[CCF_Jeff]

(continued from part 1)

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any studies which have tried to determine what percentage of the time a child is aborted in these situations. Even more unfotunately, it is very doubtful that the American Medical Association or US government will ever conduct such a study. I tried to look for any such studies on the AMA website awhile back and found all kinds of esoteric studies on topics I never would have dreamed would have been funded and which were of little (or virtually no) importance, but none on what percentage of time a child might be conceived but “expelled” when a woman is using “the pill.”

It eventually dawned on me that they really didn’t care! They were advertising RU-486 on that same website and redefined pregnancy to occur when the nascent human being successfully implants in his or her mother’s uterus. Apparently, the AMA considers one’s “humanity” to be a function of where one lives. A newly conceived human being is of no consequence unless and until he or she safely resides in his or her mother’s womb. Prior to that he or she is of no consequence.

Unfortunately, without any hard scientific evidence we are left to merely speculate. All we really know is that even when the most “effective” “emergency contraception”, Plan B, is used some 1% of the time a woman still becomes pregnant. We have no idea if conception occurs 10% of the time and the other 9% are aborted, or if conception occurs 1.1% of the time and 1/10 of 1% are aborted.

**Genesis315: **So basically, if ovulation has not occurred, a raped woman could have spermicide used to kill the rapists sperm and the hospital could also attempt to clean that stuff out of her.

OK, but you are ignoring a very critical piece of what the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities for the USCCB has OKed – namely “emergency contraceptves”:

A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.2

To their credit, they champion a protocol which should reduce the percentage and number of abortions, by prohibiting “emergency contraceptives” when ovulation has already occurred, but that does not eliminate all of the abortions that will undoubtedly occur.

We have no idea how many abortions will result from their policy, of course, but that begs the question of how many is too many? If all 216,090 of the female rape victims who reported their crimes were given “emergency contraceptives” and 1/10 of 1% of those ended up in children being “expelled” that would equate to 216 abortions per year! If it were 1/100th of one percent it would be 21.6 abortions per year in the U.S.

Obviously not all of those are going to be Catholic, and not all of the Catholics are going to be practicing Catholics. Even of that much smaller number not all would be eligible for "emergency contraceptives because they had already ovulated. On the other hand, the percentage of rape victims treated with emergency contraceptives and having abortions because of it might be higher. Perhaps significantly higher. We just don’t know.

It is certain that some abortions will occur because of the use of “emergency contraceptives”, we just don’t know the actual numbers That still leaves us with the question of how many abortions is too many? 200/year? 20/year? 2/year? One?

I’m not sure what type of analysis the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the USCCB has done in relation to this question, but as it stands, they apparently feel that the evil of the number of aborted children is less than the evil of the number of unwanted children conceived through rape that they are comfortable in posting their imprimatur on “emergency contracteption” for rape victims on the USCCB website.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

fix:

I can’t see those CCC references including rape as a conjugal act.

No the CCC references were showing that the Church considers “conjugal acts” to mean within the context of marriage. I don’t see anywhere she uses it in a sense synonymous with sexual intercourse (which would include unmarried couples).