What are the Churh's teaching on abortion when the pregancy is the result of rape?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidetrack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sidetrack

Guest
The title is kind of self-explanatory.I have a feeling that there might already be a thread on this topic and if there is please point it out to me.Even though I have a feeling that the Church would’nt allow abortion even if a pregancy is a result of rape (I’m pro-life so I support this0 I can imagine people thinking that they can easily justify abortion in this kind of situation.Can anyone explain what teachings the Church has for this kind of scenerio please?.
 
The title is kind of self-explanatory.I have a feeling that there might already be a thread on this topic and if there is please point it out to me.Even though I have a feeling that the Church would’nt allow abortion even if a pregancy is a result of rape (I’m pro-life so I support this0 I can imagine people thinking that they can easily justify abortion in this kind of situation.Can anyone explain what teachings the Church has for this kind of scenerio please?.
Not permitted. Such is murder

(not the childs fault…are we going to murder a mans 2 year old too cause he beats up the child’s mother? no of course not…you are correct it is not allowed)
 
Why should we kill a child for the crime of its father? It has already been deprived on one right, that to be conceived in the loving embrace of a married couple. Shall we also deprive it of its right to live?
 
A bit more information - as most rape victims will not immediately become pregnant prior to their getting attention at a hospital (performance of a rape kit exam):

"In 2001 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued their revised “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”. Directive 36 states:

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”. [1]

The Directive does not specify what constitutes “appropriate testing” or “evidence that conception has occurred”. Consequently, Directive 36 has been subject to different interpretations.

One school holds that giving women a pregnancy test followed by a “morning-after pill” if the test is negative is morally permissible and in line with Directive 36. As pregnancy testing, at present, can only reveal a pregnancy prior to any recent rape, and not whether a recent rape has itself resulted in pregnancy, this school holds, for reasons laid out below, that the only relevant factor to consider before giving a morning-after pill is whether the woman patient has a prior-to-rape pregnancy which would be endangered by the administration of a pill.

Opposed to this school is the ovulation-testing school, which insists that, as well as a pregnancy test, a simple urine dipstick test together with any personal data on the woman’s ovarian cycle stage[2] should be obtained in order to assess whether a) “emergency contraception” can be appropriately used to prevent ovulation or sperm capacitation, and b) whether such “emergency contraception” will be at all necessary in a given case. This approach aims to avoid giving unnecessary and potentially dangerous drugs to women, and further aims to take seriously the possibility that drugs administered at mid-cycle or early post-ovulatory phases could endanger the life of a newly conceived child."

continues at: linacre.org/MornAftPillMcC.htm
 
This gets confusing:

coloradoindependent.com/47198/sisters-of-charity-hospital-deal-altering-denver-area-care

“Sisters of Charity hospital deal altering Denver-area care”

"The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services makes it clear that care provided at Catholic hospitals should be infused with a sense of religious mission. The document is studded with terms such as “health care ministry” and “Catholic moral values.”

The ERD dictates that abortions will only be performed at Catholic hospitals in the event that the mother’s life is in imminent danger. **It also says that no emergency contraception shall be offered to rape victims. **Likewise, tubal ligations and vasectomies will not be performed."
 
nccbuscc.org/meetings/2009Fall/docs/ERDs_5th_ed_091118_FINAL.pdf

Issued by USCCB, November 17, 2009

Directive 36:

"36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information.

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 occurredalready, 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
  1. It is recommended that a sexually assaulted woman be advised of the ethical restrictions that prevent Catholic hospitals from using abortifacient procedures; cf. Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, “Guidelines for Catholic Hospitals Treating Victims of Sexual Assault,” Origins 22 (1993): 810.
 
The title is kind of self-explanatory.I have a feeling that there might already be a thread on this topic and if there is please point it out to me.Even though I have a feeling that the Church would’nt allow abortion even if a pregancy is a result of rape (I’m pro-life so I support this0 I can imagine people thinking that they can easily justify abortion in this kind of situation.Can anyone explain what teachings the Church has for this kind of scenerio please?.
Not allowed. The child is innocent, his conception is not his fault. Why does he have to be the one to die?
 
A bit more information - as most rape victims will not immediately become pregnant prior to their getting attention at a hospital (performance of a rape kit exam):

"In 2001 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued their revised “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”. Directive 36 states:

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”. [1]
continues at: linacre.org/MornAftPillMcC.htm
Giving an abortifacent just after having a pregnancy test is like shooting in the dark and hoping that no one is there. If a zygote dies, it is murder, even if done ignorantly.
 
Well, that’s all kinds of silly. You can’t take a pregnancy test within hours, even days of having sex, simply because teh woman wouldn’t technically be pregnant, even if she has conceived. Pregnancy is defined as starting at implantation, it takes between 24 and 72 hours for conception to take place, and about a week from this point to implantation. The little guys have to swim quite a distance compartitively. Heck, pregnancy tests aren’t even that reliable until at least 3 - 4 weeks.

There’s really NO way to know if a woman has conceived so early in the piece. Unless there’s some magical new test out there.

While I won’t condemn a woman in rape crisis for taking the MAP even up to 72 hours post rape, there is still the slimest of chances she has conceived, so really, best to err on the side of caution. The odds of conception within 24 hours are remote as to nay require mention, so if she can have something within that time frame I think that can line up with the above statement.

Regardless, conception from rape is very slim anyway, something in the area of 1 - 4% of rapes end in conception, and that’s me being generous as I can’t remember the exact number off the top of my head.

Of course, not all rapes are reported so that sort of blows any credibility those stats have anyway. But if 98% of abortions are for social reasons, then that leaves 2% for life of mother, foetal defect, rape et cetera.

So we’re still talking incredibly small numbers.

Anyway, murder’s still murder, there’s no difference in the foetus conceived in a marriage, in a one night stand, in a rape. If we determine someone’s right to continued existanced based on the circumstance of her conception then we really are on a slippery slope and basically anything is permissible as such interpretations of the pros and cons of said circumstances become purely subjective.
 
Wouldn’t that kind of pill, even before conception, still classify as birth control and thus be not allowed? Or is birth control allowed for rape victims as long as it’s not an abortion?
 
It’s only marital sex that must be open to life. A rape victim is not required to be open to life, which is why she can use the morning after pill if she has not yet ovulated. That would make her body delay or skip ovulation and avoid conception.
 
Well, that’s all kinds of silly. You can’t take a pregnancy test within hours, even days of having sex, simply because teh woman wouldn’t technically be pregnant, even if she has conceived. Pregnancy is defined as starting at implantation, it takes between 24 and 72 hours for conception to take place, and about a week from this point to implantation
This is simply not true. Life and pregnancy begins at conception-a biological not religious fact.There was absolutely no dispute about this
until the late 1950s when the pharmaceutical industry first developed the IUD -which presents implantation of the fertilized egg. They started a public relations campaign to change the definition of pregnancy so they would not run afoul of bans on abortion. One’s right to life cannot be predicated upon a semantics game as to what constitutes pregnancy.
 
It’s only marital sex that must be open to life. A rape victim is not required to be open to life, which is why she can use the morning after pill if she has not yet ovulated. That would make her body delay or skip ovulation and avoid conception.
So are you saying that if you are unmarried, it is perfectly acceptable to take contraceptives or abortifacents? Even if a lady was forced into copulation, it should not seen as an excuse for preventing a baby from being born; do not take it out on the little one. Just because ovulation has not yet occurred does not mean that a child is not going to be conceived. Do not take that potential for life being created.
 
So are you saying that if you are unmarried, it is perfectly acceptable to take contraceptives or an abortifacent? Even if a lady was forced into copulation, it should not seen as an excuse for preventing a baby from being born; do not take it out on the little one. Just because ovulation has not yet occurred does not mean that a child is not going to be conceived. Do not take that potential for life being created.
It is never acceptable to take an abortifacent. As to whether Humamae Vitae’s prescription that the sexual embrace must be open to life applies to nonmarried couples is an open question.
 
It is never acceptable to take an abortifacent. As to whether Humamae Vitae’s prescription that the sexual embrace must be open to life applies to nonmarried couples is an open question.
Very well. However, I believe that using birth-control is wrong whether or not one is married or whether copulation is voluntary or involuntary. The biological processes do not care if you have a marriage-license or not.
 
Very well. However, I believe that using birth-control is wrong whether or not one is married or whether copulation is voluntary or involuntary. The biological processes do not care if you have a marriage-license or not.
Sex outside of marriage is always wrong and always a mortal sin. Whether it is also sin for this this already sinful behavior to not be open to life is, in my opinion, an open question. It would appear from the Popes recent comments on a male prostitute using a com that perhaps the church will give some guidance in this area sometime soon.
 
Sex outside of marriage is always wrong and always a mortal sin. Whether it is also sin for this this already sinful behavior to not be open to life is, in my opinion, an open question. It would appear from the Popes recent comments on a male prostitute using a com that perhaps the church will give some guidance in this area sometime soon.
Thank you for your explanation. But remember that homoerotic activity can never result in conception. So, I highly doubt that the Pope will ever condone the usage of contraception by mixed-gendered couples.
 
Thank you for your explanation. But remember that homoerotic activity can never result in conception. So, I highly doubt that the Pope will ever condone the usage of contraception by mixed-gendered couples.
I don’t know. I wish they would clarify. Like with the example the Pope gave the couple having sex outside of marriage is already committing egregious sin. Does their sex act not being open to life as egregious as it would be for married couple?

What we do know is that condoms are not in and of themselves evil. For instance a person who suffers from wet dreams can licitly wear a condom to bed to avoid soiling the sheets. Likewise a woman can take the pill to relieve medical problems as long as she is not taking it for contraceptive purposes. In both cases the intent is the determining factor as to whether the action is sinful
 
I don’t know. I wish they would clarify. Like with the example the Pope gave the couple having sex outside of marriage is already committing egregious sin. Does their sex act not being open to life as egregious as it would be for married couple?

What we do know is that condoms are not in and of themselves evil. For instance a person who suffers from wet dreams can licitly wear a condom to bed to avoid soiling the sheets. Likewise a woman can take the pill to relieve medical problems as long as she is not taking it for contraceptive purposes. In both cases the intent is the determining factor as to whether the action is sinful
I see. Intent is certainly an important factor.
 
I was debating abortion with my friend recently, I am anti abortion. He said “what if a 16 year old girl gets raped by a catholic priest, should she not be allowed to live a normal life, go to school, college etc” Its difficult to respond to statements like that when you are put on the spot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top