German Catholics allow morning-after pill in rape cases
#21
(02-22-2013, 08:40 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: 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.

On a related note, if a woman is abused by her husband, she can morally murder their child. No?  >:(

Relativist rubbish. Get it out of the Church. NOW! Replace it with the Truth, the Way, and the Life, i.e. He Who alone has the right to decide when we live and when we die.


Reply
#22
(02-22-2013, 09:17 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote:
(02-22-2013, 08:40 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: 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.

On a related note, if a woman is abused by her husband, she can morally murder their child. No?  >:(

Relativist rubbish. Get it out of the Church. NOW! Replace it with the Truth, the Way, and the Life, i.e. He Who alone has the right to decide when we live and when we die.

You're just being fanatical, which has nothing to do with the truth.  Theologians have already determined that it is morally acceptable to use contraception against an unjust aggressors seed.  The question is really about the morning after pills and what they do.  Some allegedly cause abortions.  Some allegedly do not.  If there is such a thing as a morning after pill that does not cause abortions, then it would be perfectly fine to use it in cases of rape.  Does this pill exist though?
Reply
#23
(02-22-2013, 09:38 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(02-22-2013, 09:17 PM)Servus Immaculatae Wrote:
(02-22-2013, 08:40 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: 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.

On a related note, if a woman is abused by her husband, she can morally murder their child. No?  >:(

Relativist rubbish. Get it out of the Church. NOW! Replace it with the Truth, the Way, and the Life, i.e. He Who alone has the right to decide when we live and when we die.

You're just being fanatical, which has nothing to do with the truth.  Theologians have already determined that it is morally acceptable to use contraception against an unjust aggressors seed.  The question is really about the morning after pills and what they do.  Some allegedly cause abortions.  Some allegedly do not.  If there is such a thing as a morning after pill that does not cause abortions, then it would be perfectly fine to use it in cases of rape.  Does this pill exist though?

What "theologians"? Sr Simone Campbell?

And whose opinion do we take on whether it is an abortifacient? The PP-funded OB/GYNs? The clinical researchers funded by the drug companies who want to sell their wicked product?

At the very least, use of the "morning after pill" is negligent homicide if we don't know for sure what it does. At worst, it is first-degree murder, since it can and does induce abortion, according to the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Has the Church ever said that something intrinsically evil can be done because of another evil? Two wrongs make a right now, eh?

Relativist rubbish!
Reply
#24
Servus Immaculatae Wrote:What "theologians"? Sr Simone Campbell?

And whose opinion do we take on whether it is an abortifacient? The PP-funded OB/GYNs? The clinical researchers funded by the drug companies who want to sell their wicked product?

At the very least, use of the "morning after pill" is negligent homicide if we don't know for sure what it does. At worst, it is first-degree murder, since it can and does induce abortion, according to the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Has the Church ever said that something intrinsically evil can be done because of another evil? Two wrongs make a right now, eh?

Relativist rubbish!

Do you deny that the Church allows contraceptive medication for lawful therapeutic reasons?

Would you condemn a woman for trying to push a rapist off of her because it may spill his seed outside of her?
Reply
#25
(02-22-2013, 10:04 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Servus Immaculatae Wrote:What "theologians"? Sr Simone Campbell?

And whose opinion do we take on whether it is an abortifacient? The PP-funded OB/GYNs? The clinical researchers funded by the drug companies who want to sell their wicked product?

At the very least, use of the "morning after pill" is negligent homicide if we don't know for sure what it does. At worst, it is first-degree murder, since it can and does induce abortion, according to the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Has the Church ever said that something intrinsically evil can be done because of another evil? Two wrongs make a right now, eh?

Relativist rubbish!

Do you deny that the Church allows contraceptive medication for lawful therapeutic reasons?

Would you condemn a woman for trying to push a rapist off of her because it may spill his seed outside of her?

The deed is done. She's not "pushing" the rapist of her. She's using contraception. I don't think he's being fanatical. I have the greatest sympathy for the woman, but at that point, it would seem to me it's in God's hands.
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
#26
Quote:The deed is done. She's not "pushing" the rapist of her. She's using contraception. I don't think he's being fanatical. I have the greatest sympathy for the woman, but at that point, it would seem to me it's in God's hands.

The deed is not done until conception takes place, and that can take a week.  There's no obligation to carry an aggressor's sperm inside you. 
Reply
#27
(02-22-2013, 08:29 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

Children are a blessing. It is God's prerogative to turn a wrong - rape - into a good - a child.
Reply
#28
(02-23-2013, 01:57 AM)m.PR Wrote:
(02-22-2013, 08:29 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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.

Children are a blessing. It is God's prerogative to turn a wrong - rape - into a good - a child.

Well, sure, that's true, but I don't think it is hard to understand how people would have a difficult time accepting it. Of course, a person should probably try to see it that way if she does in fact conceive, but I don't see what would be immoral about preventing conception from occurring if one has the chance to do so. I suppose one can say that we ought to leave it up to God, but I am not sure that anyone here would want to apply that logic consistently. If a person becomes seriously ill, for example, we aren't going to tell him that he should refuse medical treatment because obviously God has decided that it is his time and this will allow him to prepare for a holy death or something. The two cases are slightly different, but the point is that, while God's providence does govern every part of creation, this does not mean that we just have to let things happen.
Reply
#29
(02-23-2013, 03:42 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Well, sure, that's true, but I don't think it is hard to understand how people would have a difficult time accepting it.

That says it all. These bishops are playing a popularity contest, not upholding Natural Law and the Divine Will. Their ridiculous high-schoolish games are placing souls in grave danger of eternal damnation. 

It's time to stop worrying about what people think, and only worry about what the Supreme Judge thinks. We have a choice: be hated, tormented, and reviled during our time on earth, followed by the eternal joy of the Beatific Vision; or be well-liked and fashionable during our time on earth, followed by the eternal fires of hell.
Reply
#30
Well, I am not sure that it does say it all, as I wrote a bit more than that. The fact that one has some awareness of the gravity of the matter under discussion and some sympathy for rape victims and their families does not mean that one cares only about popularity. If anything, I think it demonstrates a willingness to deal with the real world rather than some abstraction in which one can casually and reflexively pronounce rigorous and extreme moral judgments without having to consider the situation fully. Yes, the world will often hate Christians for holding to their faith. As Our Lord said, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." However, it is all too easy to use this sort of thing to justify things that really have nothing to do with the faith. If we are hated, it should be because we follow Christ, not because we take extreme positions that seemingly have nothing to do with Our Lord. After all, Christ was not hated because he had no sympathy for those who were suffering or who found themselves in tough situations. Rather, Our Lord was hated partly because he was concerned so much for these people. If we are to be hated, it should be for the same reason. The world hated Hitler and Stalin, too, but this does not show that either man was good.

In any case, you have yet to demonstrate, or really even argue, that preventing conception from occurring in cases of rape is immoral. Until this is done, I am not sure why we should be expected to simply accept an unsupported pronouncement on the matter. I'm sure everyone here would consider the argument if someone were to make a case for the immorality of preventing conception in these cases.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)