I read, a couple of months ago, of a Catholic Hospital group, which gives the "Morning After Pill" to women who have been raped. Why is this when one of its modes of operation is to prevent the implantation of the embryo, which is a human being and hence is an abortion?

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 08, 2003

Answers

Many so-called "Catholic" hospitals provide "reproductive services" which are in violation of Natural Law and Church teaching, and many bishops allow it to go on. It is a scandal. It is partially the result of infiltration of Catholic social services by a radical liberal element, but largely the result of insurance companies and hospital accreditation agencies which refuse to accredit or do business with a hospital unless it provides "a full range of patient services" (according to their definition, of course).

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 08, 2003.

Most often, the hospitals will provide the equivenent of two (2) regular birth control pills which, depending on many factors, may give a 90% chance of preventing ovulation/fertilization. Following that logic, the conception is prevented - as opposed to a pregnancy being aborted. I understand that several states permet their phamacists to dispense this form of second chance birth control.

If my understanding is correct, this begs the question, "Is it better to prevent than to abort?"

-- Bob Hennessy (bobhen@hotmail.com), July 08, 2003.

It's better to have a milstone hung around your neck and be cast into the ocean, than to prevent one of these little ones from getting to know God through life. Therefor, whether you are aborting a "little one" or you are outright preventing a "little one" from even being concieved, it doesn't matter. They both are a grave sin.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), July 08, 2003.

In fact, the high levels of birth control drugs given to women as "emergency contraception" (so-called "morning after" pills) have several physiological effects. They may in fact inhibit or delay ovulation. But if a woman is already close to the point of ovulation, they may actually cause ovulation, thereby increasing the likelihood of fertilization occurring. In addition, they alter the endometrium (the uterine lining), making it inhospitable to a fertilized ovum, so that if fertilization does occur, the developing embryo cannot implant, which causes his/her death. Therefore, while such treatment after the fact is not always abortifacient in nature, it definitely is in some cases, and there is no way of knowing in any given case whether an early abortion has occurred or not. For more information:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/abortion/fact1098.htm

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 08, 2003.

In the case of a sexual assault, a doctor may give several different medications in order to minimize the exposure to disease, etc.

Question--Should the use of drugs to interpret a woman's cycle in the case of a rape, in order to decrease the likelihood of a pregnancy, be considered in the same catagory as an abortion?

Question 2 - If a woman is brutally raped, how much mental trauma would be continued if she did have to carry her rapist's baby to term?

Before you jump all over me, let me state:

I BELIEVE THAT AN ABORTION USED FOR BIRTH CONTROL PURPOSES IS WRONG.

Question 3 -- Since rape is a sin, and against the concept of natural law in that the sexual act is used for a sinful purpose and not for procreation (Instead used for control and humiliation). Would it be sinful to interrupt a woman's cycle to prevent a pregnancy stemming from the sinful act?

I would love to hear from a doctor on this issue who can properly explain the medical procedures in the case of a sexual assault.

By the way, I am in law enforcement and have helped investigate sexual assaults.

God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 09, 2003.

*****the sexual act is used for a sinful purpose and not for procreation (Instead used for control and humiliation). Would it be sinful to interrupt a woman's cycle to prevent a pregnancy stemming from the sinful act? (J. Placette.) ''I would love to hear from a doctor on this issue who can properly explain.''***** WHY? Is a doctor God? Here you ask a good question, John. A profound question, worthy of asking God Himself!

Let me say I don't speak for the Church, but as a faithful Christian only. (It goes without saying the Catholic Church is my Teacher.)

-- Rape is an attack on one person, one victim. Society suffers, but not directly. A woman suffers. This is clear. Her womb violated, and her personal integrity is damaged.

But in no way can this change one fact. Her baby is a son or daughter of her own flesh. --Together with the rapist's flesh, we realise; nevertheless her very flesh. Just as close to her as the bond she inherited from her own mother and father. That's simple biology!

The new life in her womb is not a stranger at all. Not some alien form of life, but a grandson of her father. A grand- daughter of her mother & father. A PERSON! God will surely say, ''My Son! --My Daughter!'' --Why are you so eager to abandon that little soul? If God loves him-her???

Punish the rapist. Not the son. Not the daughter. Did the baby rape anybody? He's innocent. His mother is innocent and a victim. But where else will he find a mother? In the dumpster--? as if he were garbage?

These are not hard problems. The answers are easily seen. They're tragic for the time being, but not complicated. All we are asked for by Our Lord is LOVE. ''If you did it for the least of my brethren you did it for me.'' Which means all unborn babies, naturally. Any doctor who thinks he knows better than Christ is damned. Never place a doctor into this perilous position, John. Don't ask him anything.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 10, 2003.

Possibly helpful in analyzing this subject is the following historical account -----

At some point after the invention of oral contraceptives, there was a civil war being fought in central or southern Africa. This was happening near places where some Catholic religious sisters were stationed. Some of the worst men involved in the fighting were raping women in areas that they would take over.

The Church (local bishop or Vatican, I'm not sure which) gave permission to the religious sisters to use oral contraceptives with the intent of making them infertile, so that being raped would not result in pregnancy. However, at some much later point, it became known that infertility was not a "sure thing," that pregnancies could result anyway, and that the pills could also act as abortifacients (by preventing implantation in the womb).

It was then that the sisters were forbidden by the Church to continue taking the pills, for it was judged impermissible thus to risk the lives of the babies that might be conceived. (I don't have any idea how many, if any, sisters were raped or how many, if any, became pregnant.)

-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 10, 2003.

I heard the same lame-brained "ethics" case while studying in Rome. My question then, as now, is: if they had access to contraceptives in the middle of africa, why couldn't they have access to weapons??? IOW, defend themselves - don't just sit there and let themselves get raped! Dig a moat, build a wall, gather able-bodied men to defend the sisters! How difficult is this?

Instead people jump over all sorts of ethical barrels trying to justify the supposedly "easy" solution, which is NO SOLUTION TO THE CRIME! What would dissuade rebels from raping nuns more? The possibility of becoming fathers or the possibility of becoming dead?

Giving nuns the pill makes it that much easier for the rapists! But using a little common sense and fortifying those convents and clinics, arming a few sisters... that changes the WHOLE dynamics of the situation for the better. Unfortunately, this would require WORK and it would require REAL INVOLVEMENT of lackless men in defense of women's dignity - the two reasons why the pill is so tempting for so many stupid and lazy people.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 10, 2003.

My personal feeling is, first evacuate all the women. A religious is dedicated and willing to die, we understand. But she ought never be left in a place where her prayers and sacrifice go for nothing. Each violated nun becomes practically useless after she's assaulted. Either the trauma endangers her faith, or her sanity-- or a pregnancy by rape is the end of her vocation. Why would she wish to remain in a convent or mission, carrying a child? Her best practical option will be to escape and go where no one knows her. Together with a baby she may not be able to raise alone.

No convent in a pagan land is ever safe. But during hostilites and bodily danger, all nuns are better off leaving town. They can return when the wars are over. Contraceptives are definitely not the answer!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 10, 2003.

John-

A real problem with using chemical methods to "avoid conception" is that it is impossible to tell if a child has already been conceived. In other words, a chemical abortion is being performed in many such cases.

Joe-

Way to tell it! Keep it up.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 10, 2003.

"Question 2 - If a woman is brutally raped, how much mental trauma would be continued if she did have to carry her rapist's baby to term?"

According to studies, it is actually HEALING for a woman to carry a rapist's baby to term. Because in actuallity it isn't JUST the rapist's baby. Although it wasn't planned, the baby is really HER'S also!

So no, it isn't psychologically better for woman to compound a sin with another sin (now commited by her).

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), July 10, 2003.

The responses to my account of the religious sisters in Africa amazed me. They demonstrated a terrible ignorance of the vocation of the sisterhood, what these women would have been willing or unwilling to do, the self-sacrifice of Catholic martyrs through the ages, etc.. These responses were echoes of an impulsive St. Peter (the swordsman) and "satan-like" St. Peter (telling Jesus to avoid his cup of suffering).

This was no "lame-brained 'ethics' case." It was REALITY, lived out -- and very instructive to us.

Oral contraceptives have been easily available around the world, particularly to nursing sisters, and especially in this (perceived) crucial situation.

Weapons, by contrast, would have been far more expensive and less easy for the sisters to get and use well. Moreover, few of the sisters would have been willing to use firearms. Some would have rejected the use of deadly force to counter the threat of rape. Others would have believed (probably rightly) that their entire convents would have been destroyed, with all their sisters massacred, if any of them had dared to use firearms (thus making them part of the enemy "army").

I said nothing about the sisters "just sitting there and letting themselves get raped". Certainly they took every prudent precaution (besides the pills), but they had to do the work of their apostolates, which required them to be exposed to some unavoidable dangers.

"Evacuate all the women"? No way! That's not the way of Catholic missionaries through the ages -- except perhaps for those who are smack between battle lines, where every civilian is fleeing to save his life from artillery bombardment. It seems as though at least one of those who responded above thought that my message was about contemplative sisters (whom it would be more logical to evacuate), but it was actually about sisters who were teachers and nurses. These wanted to remain near the battle, so that they could care for the children and the wounded.

It is never the case that a sister's "prayers and sacrifice go for nothing." Being assaulted and accepting the suffering may have been the most efficacious sacrifice that some of these sisters ever offered in their lives. (I am not justifying the sin, but reflecting on the redemptive value of the resultant suffering.)

I believe that it is also false that a "violated nun becomes practically useless after she's assaulted." Most of these women are far stronger, mentally and spiritually, than that. Let not my respondent project his own unmanly cowardice and tendency to break down emotionally upon these gallant women (if he suffers from those deficiencies).

A pregnancy via rape would not necessarily mean the end of a sister's vocation. I can picture heroic sisters surviving such pregnancies and giving up their children for adoption before returning to their sisterly work.

-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 10, 2003.

Bob - Birth control is actually a form of abortion. Life starts from the moment of conception. This means the moment that the sperm and egg join. So a "morning after pill" aborts the baby because the egg does not get to implant in the woman and it is expelled from the body.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 10, 2003.

Dear CtM,
If that's what you believe, more power to you. The next time you're raped you can draw comfort from your high-flown imprudence.

You are not in a position to decide for others what is or isn't destructive. You give faith a bad name, supposing a woman is indestructible so long as she continues in ''sisterly work''. Over the last few years I've seen ridiculous posts here, but your last one is uncommonly ridiculous.

Whether or not I was wrong is irrelevant. I spoke from charitable impulses; serious concern for the suffering soul of a woman. You speak empty cliches; assuming a noble attitude toward the sufferings of strangers. You seem indifferent to other peoples' pain. I think it's shameful of you, returning to attempt to ''solve'' these mysteries. The least you might have done is keep silent.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 10, 2003.

Over the last few years I've seen ridiculous posts here, but your last one is uncommonly ridiculous. ...

Not even one word of it was "ridiculous." Rather, it so well showed you and another to be completely wrong that you desperately added another post to try to "save face." How childish of you!

You speak empty cliches; assuming a noble attitude toward the sufferings of strangers. You seem indifferent to other peoples' pain.

More untruths on your part. More desperate attempts to assassinate my character.

I think it's shameful of you, returning to attempt to 'solve' these mysteries. The least you might have done is keep silent.

How could I keep silent when two people messed up so badly? The one who should have kept silent was you, both times. Let's see if you can now show me how to "keep silent" by taking your medicine like a man. If you don't, you will just "strike out," taking a third worthless "whiff" at the "ball" that is this subject (a "high hard one" for you).

-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 11, 2003.

You're giving yourself away, John.
By the knee-jerk reaction here, over what you see as insulting. Nothing new. Instead of looking at the subject, your own feelings are the main sore point.

Yes; everything you wrote about the ''sisterly'' responsibilities and graces granted our religious' in the missions is patently ridiculous and lacking in true charity.

You seem to live in a dream-world. Helping nuns in danger is a corporal work of mercy. Now, in ages past the means for evacuation to safety of most mission workers, male or female was not available at short notice. Today that's no longer so. It's relatively easy. You say from inner insecurity: ''. . . his own unmanly cowardice and tendency to break down emotionally upon these gallant women (if he suffers from those deficiencies) (???) -- (Figure that one out,) as if you have been a gallant nun yourself; attacked and raped while you carried on faithfully!

Why? Who knows? Your experience is surely lacking in these matters. You're supposed to show Christian faith, hope and charity. Instead we see displayed here your very unchristian whimsy, arrogance, and indifference to a sister's humiliation and terror!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

Birth Control and abortion for birth control purposes are two distinct seperate issues. Period.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 11, 2003.

Eugene wrote You're giving yourself away, John. ******************************************** What do you mean?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 11, 2003.

Not you, John P. Figure it out.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

Anyway, John Placette:
THIS: ''Birth Control and abortion for birth control purposes are two distinct seperate issues.'' makes no sense. The Catholic Church teaches us that artificial birth control (contraception) is immoral. So is abortion; whether for birth control or any other reason. Both are sins. Both are evil and forbidden.

The Church is not mistaken, or fussy, or old-fashioned. She gives us the truth. God teaches me & you through the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

As expected ... STRIKE THREE, he struck him out!

-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 12, 2003.

Interesting note****

- - -

New York conference accepts revised bill on emergency contraception

ALBANY, N.Y. (CNS) -- The New York State Catholic Conference withdrew its objections to legislation mandating that hospital emergency rooms provide "emergency contraception" drugs to survivors of rape, after the language was amended to resolve church concerns. The bill, which was awaiting the signature of New York Gov. George Pataki as of July 16, calls for such drugs as long as they "are not contraindicated, the woman is not pregnant, and it is within a medically appropriate amount of time from the attack," according to a statement from the conference, which represents the bishops of the state's eight Catholic dioceses.

Catholic hospitals "currently administer these drugs to rape survivors" under those conditions, the statement said. Richard E. Barnes, executive director of the Albany-based conference, said in the statement that Catholic hospitals "are second to none in providing compassionate, holistic care to survivors of rape. This legislation will not affect how that care is provided. Catholic hospitals in New York will continue to offer these medications to rape survivors, consistent with this law and with church teaching."

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 17, 2003.

And just what does that mean? How do they know that a woman who was raped 24 hours ago "is not pregnant"?? The whole point of the drug is to make sure that if she is not pregnant, she doesn't become pregnant, AND that if she is pregnant, she doesn't stay pregnant. Since there is NO way of medically establishing whether a woman is pregnant or not that soon after intercourse, the wording of the legislation is just meaningless babble. I can't believe that the Catholic Conference is stupid enough to think that such wording brings the legislation in any way into agreement with Catholic doctrine. Therefore I would have to assume that the bishops are knowingly allowing early abortions to occur, while changing the description of such abortions to cover their episcopal posteriors. Pitiful!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 17, 2003.

Exactly Paul, it is quite distressing.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 17, 2003.