German Catholics allow morning-after pill in rape cases
#11
The USCCB takes a similar position. Contraceptive pills that prevent ovulation are permitted in cases of rape. Abortifacients are not permitted. If the woman has started ovulating than pills cannot be taken.

I realize this is a controversial topic, but I agree with the bishops here. The unitive purpose of sex is already violated in rape, and as long as a fertilized egg is not destroyed, it's more of a self defensive act.  
Reply
#12
Does the morning after pill actively kill embryos, or does it simply make it harder for the body to conceive?  I don't know enough about how these medications work.

If the drug isn't an abortifacient, I don't see this as different than a victim of rape demanding that he use a condom.  Obviously willfully consenting to have sex with a man and willfully using contraception is a sin, but trying to prevent pregnancy seems justified if she was forced into a sexual act she didn't consent to.  Contraception divorces the act of sex from its procreative purpose, rape divorces sex from its unitive purpose. 
Reply
#13
(02-22-2013, 03:33 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: The USCCB takes a similar position. Contraceptive pills that prevent ovulation are permitted in cases of rape. Abortifacients are not permitted. If the woman has started ovulating than pills cannot be taken.

I realize this is a controversial topic, but I agree with the bishops here. The unitive purpose of sex is already violated in rape, and as long as a fertilized egg is not destroyed, it's more of a self defensive act.  

The unitive purpose is secondary to procreation.
Reply
#14
(02-22-2013, 03:31 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The poster SaintSebastian made an interesting post on this subject the other day. Apparently, the USCCB takes the same position on this:
(02-21-2013, 06:12 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The arguement is that it is ok to repel or resist an unjust aggressor, or to withhold onesself from him.  It would not be ok to kill the resulting child, because that person is innocent.  This is nothing new, by the way.  The USCCB approved it a long time ago, so I'm not sure why it's causing a stir now:


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 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

http://old.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

This is a slippery slope if ever there was.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#15
(02-22-2013, 03:32 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote:
(02-22-2013, 02:44 PM)Jacafamala Wrote: Somebody excommunicate that bishop!

Vatican official: "Well, alright Jacafamala, we'll get right on that.  Now, what group of traditionalists is this bishop with?"

Jacafamala: "He's not.  He's promoting contraception."  

Vatican official: "Oh... um... and... why exactly do you want us to excommunicate him?"

:doh:

Indeed.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#16
(02-22-2013, 06:57 PM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(02-22-2013, 03:31 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: The poster SaintSebastian made an interesting post on this subject the other day. Apparently, the USCCB takes the same position on this:
(02-21-2013, 06:12 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The arguement is that it is ok to repel or resist an unjust aggressor, or to withhold onesself from him.  It would not be ok to kill the resulting child, because that person is innocent.  This is nothing new, by the way.  The USCCB approved it a long time ago, so I'm not sure why it's causing a stir now:


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 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

http://old.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml

This is a slippery slope if ever there was.



And it explicitly violates a decree of the Holy See from the year 2000:
Statement on the so-called "morning after" pill Wrote:1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation (it can contain oestrogens, oestrogen/progestogens or only progestogens) which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function, i.e., it prevents a possible fertilized ovum (which is a human embryo), by now in the blastocyst stage of its development (fifth to sixth day after fertilization), from being implanted in the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself.

The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo.
.....

3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.

Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress, just as in the case of abortion. Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall, which is what is being implicitly suggested.

4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.
.........

Saying that the pill is an "anti-implantation" product, instead of using the more transparent term "abortifacient", makes it possible to avoid all the obligatory procedures required by Law 194 in order to terminate a pregnancy (prior interview, verification of pregnancy, determination of growth stage, time for reflection, etc.), by practising a form of abortion that is completely hidden and cannot be recorded by any institution. All this seems, then, to be in direct contradiction to the correct application of Law 194, itself debatable.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif...po_en.html
Reply
#17
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.


That's Monty Python theology.  The German bishops are correct.  The problem is abortion, not contraception in rape cases. It all depends on what the pill does. 
Reply
#18
I don't know. The statement from the USCCB merely allows using medications that would prevent conception if it has not already occurred. It explicitly rules out destroying or removing a fertilized ovum. I know we like to take a hard line when dealing with these issues, but remember that rejecting the USCCB's position would mean forcing women to allow themselves to be impregnated by their rapists when they might otherwise prevent it. Do we really want to say that women who have been raped must be forced to bear the children of their rapists even when conception has not yet occurred? That's a pretty large burden to place on women and their families. In some cases, nothing can be done about it since conception has already occurred and it would be immoral to kill the child, but what exactly would be immoral about preventing conception from occurring in cases where this is possible?
Reply
#19
(02-22-2013, 08:20 PM)PeterII Wrote: That's Monty Python theology.  The German bishops are correct.  The problem is abortion, not contraception in rape cases. It all depends on what the pill does. 

The German bishops are not correct. The Holy See was correct when it explicitly condemned the "morning-after pill" as:

"really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing."

and,

"Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it."


These bishops are leading souls to hell! That is an indisputable fact (indeed, one of the few clear statements that the Holy See has made in the past 40 years).

Kyrie eleison.

Rosaries.
Reply
#20
The Pontifical Academy for Life's statement is about its use as an abortifacient.

The real question here is whether it is morally acceptable to use artificial means to withhold one's ovum from an unjust aggressor's seed. The PAL statement doesn't address this.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)