Contrary to popular belief, contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

[MikeK]

In the interests of correcting an oft-repeated falsehood, I submit the following:

USCCB - Pro-Life Activities - Fact Sheet: Emergency Contraception and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Assault

 

[thereselittleflower]

Excuse me but:

Conclusion
The law should not require hospitals to administer so-called "emergency contraception" when those drugs will end the life of a newly conceived human embryo. Hospitals can offer rape victims treatments that are truly contraceptive and address their other needs with compassion and respect.

​

There is absolutely no possible way to know if a drug will end the life of a newly concieved human embryo.

No way at all.


And so, there can be no possibly of anything that is truly contraceptive in a rape victim.


This is totatlly contradictory.

The Church does not teach one may use ANYTHING that is truly contraceptive. The Church teaches anything that is contrapceptive, used as a contraceptive, is engaging in an evil act against God and nature.

ALL contraceptives, other than the condom, or other purely barrier methods, have, as a possible action, the prevention of implantation of a an embryo, thus being an abortifcant.

And even the use of barrier methods is condemned by the Church.

The Church has only once allowed the use of contraceptives, and that was to nuns that were threatenend with rape, and that was NOT to prevent conception but to dissuade the would be attackers from raping them since their goal was to impregnate them . . . making them believe their goal would be negated so they wouldn't bother.

THAT decision was even controversial.



I have no idea what the Catholic Conference of Bishops is doing here, but I look for this to be comopletely negated by the Vatican.


The Early Church Fathers and the totallity of the Catholic teaching on this is completely against contraception even in the case of rape victims, for the new life conceived, or would be conceived, is innocent.


The USBC is NOT the Magesterium.

 

[MikeK]

There is absolutely no possible way to know if a drug will end the life of a newly concieved human embryo.

The idea is, you give the treatment (why are you assuming it to be a drug?) prior to the creation of said embryo. Somthing as simple as a gentle swabbing can have contraceptive effects. Spermasides are true contraceptives, and there are some that do not damage embryos.

You can look to the Vatican to overule the USCCB, but this instruction was given several years ago and iirc repeated in other countries, it isn't exactly new.

 

[Lady Bug]

The idea is, you give the treatment (why are you assuming it to be a drug?) prior to the creation of said embryo.

how do we know they'll be raped beforehand?!?!?!

 

[thereselittleflower]

The idea is, you give the treatment (why are you assuming it to be a drug?) prior to the creation of said embryo. Somthing as simple as a gentle swabbing can have contraceptive effects. Spermasides are true contraceptives, and there are some that do not damage embryos.

You can look to the Vatican to overule the USCCB, but this instruction was given several years ago and iirc repeated in other countries, it isn't exactly new.

What Lady Bug said.


This is about RAPE VICTIMS, remember?


And the Church does not allow contrception for the purposes of preventing conception EVER .


And our Pope looks for a smaller Church. I see many reasons coming together for a great schism with many falling away. The fruit of satan's great attack on the Church last century is still yet to be brought to it's full ripeness IMHO.

 

[MikeK]

how do we know they'll be raped beforehand?!?!?!

After the rape, before conception. Conception can be days after intercourse.

Contraception in the cionjugal act is forbidden. Rape has been said to not be a conjugal act but an act of violence.

 

[MikeK]

This is about RAPE VICTIMS, remember?

Yes, I remember that this is about rape victims. the fact that they are rape victims does not mean that stopping conception is somehow something other than contraception. In fact, it is contraception in it's truest form.

And the Church does not allow contrception for the purposes of preventing conception EVER

Eh, I think the USCCB and I will have to agree to disagree with you there.

I find it quite interesting that you choose to reject this teaching which is quite sound and well documents, yet you believe the story about the Congo nuns who were allowed to use the pill even though that has never been substantiated.

 

[thereselittleflower]

After the rape, before conception. Conception can be days after intercourse.

Listen to yourself Mike ... ."CAN BE" . . . . .not "HAS TO BE"


Conception can take place in minutes.


Again There is absolutely no possible way to know if a drug will end the life of a newly concieved human embryo.

No way at all.

Contraception in the cionjugal act is forbidden. Rape has been said to not be a conjugal act but an act of violence.

It's not about how a new life is conceived. It is about a new life THAT HAS BEEN conceived or MAY BE CONCEIVED. How is irrelevant.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, I remember that this is about rape victims. the fact that they are rape victims does not mean that stopping conception is somehow something other than contraception. In fact, it is contraception in it's truest form.



Eh, I think the USCCB and I will have to agree to disagree with you there.

I find it quite interesting that you choose to reject this teaching which is quite sound and well documents, yet you believe the story about the Congo nuns who were allowed to use the pill even though that has never been substantiated.

It is not a teaching.


And years ago we had a long discussion about the congo nuns.

 

[MikeK]

There is absolutelyno possible way to know if a drug will end the life of a newly concieved human embryo.

Who's talking about drugs? (Other than you, and the supposedly licit birth control pill/nun thing that probably never happened)

Your beef isn't with me, it's with the USCCB. I believe they have contact info on their webpage.

 

[Davidnic]

I guess the relevant part is where the document says:

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

Hospitals should develop appropriate protocols to determine whether administering emergency contraception would have an abortifacient effect. Tests are available to determine whether ovulation has occurred.3
​

 

[MikeK]

It is not a teaching.
And years ago we had a long discussion about the congo nuns.

It is an instruction. I'd consider that a teaching.

We might have had a discussion about the Congo Nuns, I don;t recall. I've studiesd the matter quite thoroughly, and I've never been able to trace the story back further than an AP article. If you can find some primary source information on it, I'll believe it happened as reported. I don;t think it did. One can make an argument for post-coital dousching as a contraceptive after rape, I don;t believe that the pill, which sometimes fails to prevent conception and creates a hostile womb causing an abortion, could ever be allowed - I am willing to learn though.

 

[Davidnic]

The source the Bishops are quoting is the Ethical directives for Catholic Healthcare (number 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 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​

 

[Davidnic]

Look like the logic of the USCCB in this is that you are not inhibiting the marriage act but defending against an act of violence as long as conception has not occured. I wonder if there is an in depth moral theology treatment of this....I know I read one once.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Who's talking about drugs? (Other than you, and the supposedly licit birth control pill/nun thing that probably never happened)

Your beef isn't with me, it's with the USCCB. I believe they have contact info on their webpage.

The only post rape contraceptive is a drug Mike. And you came in to defend its use. . so don't tell me who my beef is with when you put yourself along side with this idea.



'Every post-coital contraception is by definition abortive,' said Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life

PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE

STATEMENT ON THE SO-CALLED
"MORNING-AFTER PILL"​

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. ​

2. The decision to use the term "fertilized ovum" to indicate the earliest phases of embryonic development can in no way lead to an artificial value distinction between different moments in the development of the same human individual. In other words, if it can be useful, for reasons of scientific description, to distinguish with conventional terms (fertilized ovum, embryo, fetus, etc.) different moments in a single growth process, it can never be legitimate to decide arbitrarily that the human individual has greater or lesser value (with the resulting variation in the duty to protect it) according to its stage of development. ​

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. ​

6. In the end, since these procedures are becoming more widespread, we strongly urge everyone who works in this sector to make a firm objection of moral conscience, which will bear courageous and practical witness to the inalienable value of human life, especially in view of the new hidden forms of aggression against the weakest and most defenceless individuals, as is the case with a human embryo.

Vatican City, 31 October 2000​

Statement on the "morning-after pill'​

​

 

[MikeK]

Everywhere that contraception (in it's true form, not to be confused with abortifacients) is argued against in Catholic teachings, it is argued against in a "marital", "conjugal" or "unitive" context. As sexual assault is none of these (even if it happens indide a marriage), there is no prohibition on contraceptives and they would be allowed even without the USCCB's instructions to Catholic hospitals.

As there is at least one case where contraception is permissable, contraception cannot be an intrinsic evil, only a situational (is there a word for that?) evil.

All that said, you still can't choose to use to contracept within marriage. That much is not up for debate and is not the topic of this thread.

 

[MikeK]

The only post rape contraceptive is drug Mike.

No, it most certainly is not. Something as simple as absorbant gauze can be used after sexual activity to prevent conception.

The USCCB is clear (and here's where I get confused) that the morning after pill could be used "if there is no evidence that conception has taken place." I'm not certain that that position is defendable, and I suspect that they may have intended to say "so long as there is evidence that conception has not taken place."

 

[Davidnic]

It seems the logic for the allowance is in the fact every moral act has three components. Object, Intention and Circumstance. An intrinsic evil act has an object that is never justifiable so intention and circumstance are never an issue. The object itself such as direct abortion, can never be done.

But the Bishops are saying here that the intention is to defend from an unjust aggressor...so by default they are treating it as a different object than contraception to prevent pregnancy in casual or marital sex. They are drawing the line at one is an act of love (either proper in marriage or illicit outside of it.) and the other an act of violence.

In fact that is where I heard the argument once. A deacon tried to defend the concept that the Bishops were wrong in this document because it was an act of love and the Priest took him to task telling him that the Church does not define rape as an act of love and that is the core of the Bishops argument and instruction here.

So the act of Sex (in marriage or outside) and Rape (forced sex) are different objective acts; one of love either properly or improperly done and the other of violence. To contracept in an act of love (even an illicit one) would go against the nature of the act; but to contracept in rape; since it is an act of violence is not intrinsically wrong because it is not deforming an act of love but defending against an act of aggression.

Now, if a child is conceived then the intrinsic evil or abortion comes into play. But if a child is not conceived yet then the difference in the nature of the act comes into play.

At least that seems to be the justification for the instruction.

 

[thereselittleflower]

No, it most certainly is not. Something as simple as absorbant gauze can be used after sexual activity to prevent conception.

The USCCB is clear (and here's where I get confused) that the morning after pill could be used "if there is no evidence that conception has taken place." I'm not certain that that position is defendable, and I suspect that they may have intended to say "so long as there is evidence that conception has not taken place."

There can be no evidence in that short time frame that conception has not taken place.

There can be no evidence that it would prevent conception - or not act as an abortificant.

I have pesented the Vatican's statement on this and the absoulte unlawfulness of in any way participating in the obtaining and use of the morning after pill.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It seems the logic for the allowance is in the fact every moral act has three components. Object, Intention and Circumstance. An intrinsic evil act has an object that is never justifiable so intention and circumstance are never an issue. The object itself such as direct abortion, can never be done.

But the Bishops are saying here that the intention is to defend from an unjust aggressor...so by default they are treating it as a different object than contraception to prevent pregnancy in casual or marital sex. They are drawing the line at one is an act of love (either proper in marriage or illicit outside of it.) and the other an act of violence.

In fact that is where I heard the argument once. A deacon tried to defend the concept that the Bishops were wrong in this document because it was an act of love and the Priest took him to task telling him that the Church does not define rape as an act of love and that is the core of the Bishops argument and instruction here.

So the act of Sex (in marriage or outside) and Rape (forced sex) are different objective acts; one of love either properly or improperly done and the other of violence. To contracept in an act of love (even an illicit one) would go against the nature of the act; but to contracept in rape; since it is an act of violence is not intrinsically wrong because it is not deforming an act of love but defending against an act of aggression.

Now, if a child is conceived then the intrinsic evil or abortion comes into play. But if a child is not conceived yet then the difference in the nature of the act comes into play.

At least that seems to be the justification for the instruction.

And that instruction is against the Vatican's own statement on the matter.

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.
​