KnightofChrist Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/germany-catholics-rape-idUSL6N0BLAS420130221 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregorMendel Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 ....Go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 There's nothing wrong here... In a case of non consensual sex where fertilization has not occured, taking a drug to prevent the invading sperm (as it was non consensual) from causing a pregnancy is morally licit. It isn't a contraceptive in such a case, it is a form of self defense. The woman is defending her eggs from the attacking sperm. It can only be viewed this way in cases of rape though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 The real crux of the problem is that there's no way (that I know of) to prove without a doubt that: A. Pregnancy has not already occured B. Pregnancy will not occur in the time between when the pill is swallowed and has time to prevent pregnancy from occuring in which case the pill then acts as an abortificient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 The real crux of the problem is that there's no way (that I know of) to prove without a doubt that: A. Pregnancy has not already occured B. Pregnancy will not occur in the time between when the pill is swallowed and has time to prevent pregnancy from occuring in which case the pill then acts as an abortificient. Bingo Bango, that's the problem. It's akin to giving approval of the destruction of a residential building without knowing whether or not it is in fact empty of persons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 There's nothing wrong here... In a case of non consensual sex where fertilization has not occured, taking a drug to prevent the invading sperm (as it was non consensual) from causing a pregnancy is morally licit. It isn't a contraceptive in such a case, it is a form of self defense. The woman is defending her eggs from the attacking sperm. It can only be viewed this way in cases of rape though. You're rationalizing the fact that the German Bishops have at least approved the use of the abortifacient 'morning after' pill as a form of contraception for rape victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Have things really reached such a radical level of revolt that Bishops may openly advocate things like this? (Not immoral, secretive, "pastoral" decisions, but public cooperation in evil from the men who are to guide us. Shades of Anglicanism.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Have things really reached such a radical level of revolt that Bishops may openly advocate things like this? (Not immoral, secretive, "pastoral" decisions, but public cooperation in evil from the men who are to guide us. Shades of Anglicanism.) The bishop's aren't allowing anything immoral as their directives still expressly forbid anything that would act as an abortificient. The directive is that one can intentially prevent conception in cases of rape as in this case the male sperm were not consensually allowed to enter the woman's body and are part of an attack. In non-consensual sex there's no requirement to be open to life. If life however does result from the rape, that life must be given all the dignity and respect worthy of a human person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 How would you ever establish in the very first moments after conception that it had occurred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 How would you ever establish in the very first moments after conception that it had occurred? You cannot, which is why this allowance is negligence and immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie12 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 The bishop's aren't allowing anything immoral as their directives still expressly forbid anything that would act as an abortificient. The directive is that one can intentially prevent conception in cases of rape as in this case the male sperm were not consensually allowed to enter the woman's body and are part of an attack. In non-consensual sex there's no requirement to be open to life. If life however does result from the rape, that life must be given all the dignity and respect worthy of a human person. This is bad though because Its preventing God's creation from existing. Its not a kids fault he was created. God made him, even if it was though an immoral act. God can turn bad things into good (i.e. creating a human being in the womb of a rape victim). If God wants to do it I don't see how we can justify stopping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) our standard mix of science, morals, and theology has generally opposed this viewpoint on the basis of the potential for abortion, the analogy of demolishing a building while being uncertain whether anyone was in it at the time applies to that viewpoint that we have developed based upon our understanding of the science interpreted theologically and morally. the way the bishops expressly disallow that it could be ever done after conception occurs is a way to technically uphold the same principles, in which case the debate here centers around science and degrees of certitude and whether this could ever imaginably be permitted, under some principle of double effect and the mitigation of the uncertainty as to when the conception actually has occurred. scientifically, conception can occur between 30 minutes after sex and FIVE DAYS after sex (according to Discovery Health, which made me click through a couple pages of random practical information about fertilization not realizing I was seeking more philosophical answers). A huge degree of uncertainty exists during that time period. if science were to advance to the point where we can know with certainty whether conception has occurred yet, the German Bishops' principle would be absolutely sound. You can engage in a contraceptive defense during or after rape, the sexual sin of contraception only applies to sex you are engaging in by your will. considering that the minimum time is 30 minutes, it might even be possible to grant certitude to a moral position that one could take a plan B pill as long as it was less than 30 minutes after the rape. but it would be difficult to really establish such a time limit, it would seem callous and strange and be rather untenable, but where we should go from there is by no means easily certain. These are just some thoughts, they are by no means an endorsement of the German Bishops' position, which I do indeed disagree with. But it is not an idle thought. the whole abortion issue is based on a confluence of science, morals, and theology by which we have had to stand up for life based on the overwhelming scientific fact of its unique existence at the moment of conception, this question here involves all facets of that basis for our position, and should be approached very thoroughly especially considering the gravity of the situations we are discussing. Of course, there is no question that an existing child, even if conceived in rape, cannot be killed at any stage of life starting with conception, because the circumstances of conception cannot be blamed on the child. I would advise a discussion going on along these lines among all sides of the issue, those who would agree with the German Bishops and those that would vehemently disagree with them, ie those like me who would disagree with them for the love of life but remain unsettled and prayerfully not certain... treating it politically as a 'rebellion' of the German bishops strikes me as a bad way to deal with it... Edited February 22, 2013 by Aloysius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 "treating it politically as a 'rebellion' of the German bishops strikes me as a bad way to deal with it" And how has not calling spades spades worked out for the Church over the last fifty years or so? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.3578d4578768b8f5be5d7af6172f9b23.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now