German Bishops Rebel Approve Abortion Pill

[Aloysius]

hmm... I'm really not out to be the most practical force on the earth, so while it is indeed impractical for me to say that, and would be ineffectual not to deal with this harshly and politically as a breach of the towing of the line (and I certainly think that even if something could be imagined towards these lines where we could have more scientific certitude, it would definitely be politically weakening to the overall goal of defending life to come up with a way to allow for it; just like Pope Benedict's comments about condoms and gay prostitutes that got the world all crazy were politically inexpedient to the practical success of our overall message)... so yeah, I don't know, you might be right, but I prefer to deal with the issue in an in depth and considered way, even if that's not the most expedient way of accomplishing goals, perhaps motivated out of sympathy for the victims of rape and acknowledgment that to not really treat it in depth when it revolves around the type of emotionally shattering crisis in their lives just because I'm afraid x, y, or z is going to become emboldened in their mission against our pro-life anti-contraception moral positions would not really be a good explanation to such a distraught woman.

 

I suppose I could be painted as being too wishy washy here, though don't get me wrong I have definitely affirmed that I think that this position is wrong, I'm just throwing out thoughts.  the situation for these individual victims of rape is too grave not to at least allow for some consideration that treats the deep philosophical, theological, moral, and scientific depths of our pro-life position.  I think brushing it off too easily on the basis of the practicalities of the politics of moral teaching would be too callous from my perspective, but I acknowledge that my posts are not really the right comprehensive answers because I am leaving too many openings to my questions, perhaps someone can gracefully tie all my loose knots here in a way that's a good in-depth moral-theology response.

[Basilisa Marie]

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.

 

And for the record, these drugs don't destroy any fertilized zygote if it's already implanted in the uterus.  

[Evangetholic]

It is potentially true that I am a pastoral disaster as result of running to fortress Roma to escape "compassion" that leads to cooperation in evil. Women who have been raped deserve sympathy. Homosexuals deserve sympathy (and apart from revelation I don't see the big deal tbh). Everyone deserves sympathy. I (and I know you'll agree Aloysius, I've been reading and admiring you) however may not cooperate in things Jesus Christ considers sinful. And if I am cooperating in such evil, then I still dare not and be publicly disobedient to the Church or use high sounding words that are hollow and only intended to enable people to violate Church Teaching.

And for the record, these drugs don't destroy any fertilized zygote if it's already implanted in the uterus.  

 

If this is true then why was the drug refused in the first place?? Why are they called "abortion pills"? Case of people confusing rigorism and orthodoxy? These are serious questions.

[Aloysius]

My intention is certainly not to allow people to violate Church teaching or to cooperate in the evils of abortion no matter what the circumstances of their conception were, I was trying to contextualize the German Bishops' position while at the same time largely disagreeing with it.  honestly, if there were a scientific way to know for certain that a conception had not yet occurred, then the German bishop's position would probably be acceptable.  if there were a way to ensure that you were just killing off the sperm and were not threatening the life of a fertilized egg, the position would probably be acceptable.  the position of the German Bishops here is basically making that kind of assumption, it is in the realm of our scientific questions and certitudes here.

 

anyway, I appreciate your position and like I said, somebody does need to come in and tie the loose knots I've left in what I've said here.  I suppose I'm not properly joining in the battle of the politics of moral theology and actually that is a definite weakness of my posts in this thread.  I'm not trying to justify it, just trying to discuss it with the depth I think that it deserves I suppose.

[Evangetholic]

My intention is certainly not to allow people to violate Church teaching or to cooperate in the evils of abortion no matter what the circumstances of their conception were, I was trying to contextualize the German Bishops' position while at the same time largely disagreeing with it.  honestly, if there were a scientific way to know for certain that a conception had not yet occurred, then the German bishop's position would probably be acceptable.  if there were a way to ensure that you were just killing off the sperm and were not threatening the life of a fertilized egg, the position would probably be acceptable.  the position of the German Bishops here is basically making that kind of assumption, it is in the realm of our scientific questions and certitudes here.

 

anyway, I appreciate your position and like I said, somebody does need to come in and tie the loose knots I've left in what I've said here.  I suppose I'm not properly joining in the battle of the politics of moral theology and actually that is a definite weakness of my posts in this thread.  I'm not trying to justify it, just trying to discuss it with the depth I think that it deserves I suppose.

 

 I agree with your posts--the only disagreement I've had is the one line I quoted. (Tone is hard to get on the internet, but I think you think I think something's wrong with how you think. :p )

[Aloysius]

 

If this is true then why was the drug refused in the first place?? Why are they called "abortion pills"? Case of people confusing rigorism and orthodoxy? These are serious questions.

 

they don't do anything to implanted zygotes I believe, but to zygotes before implantation, so a fertilized egg could still be killed.

 

of course to be fair, many fertilized eggs naturally die without making it to implantation in the first place (some try to argue on this basis that implantation is the beginning of life, but just like birth that's just a change-of-environment move so one can't really justify implantation as a good philosophical start of life IMO), but to directly intend for that to happen would indeed be abortive.  if you intend to kill a fertilized egg, whether it's implanted yet or it's frozen in some laboratory, that's killing a nascent human life.  the fact that there is the possibility of a fertilized egg that has not yet been implanted that this plan B pill could kill is the problematic "demolishing a building where there might be someone in it" scenario.

[Basilisa Marie]

Aloysius, I think you outline the great difficulty in this - how do we respond to women in a way that is Christ-like without compromising our pro-life values? 

 

The Church believes life begins at conception (sperm meets egg) because we don't know when the soul is fused with the body, so we go with the earliest possible moment just to be safe.  We don't know when conception occurs after sex (I've seen anything from a few minutes to a few days - but then, these stats are from the same people who say that you can literally get pregnant at any time in your cycle, so...really the answer is probably closer to somewhere inbetween).  I'm with Slappo on this one - and I would come down on the side of getting a rape victim the pill during the first 24 hours after her attack, the sooner the better. If the fertilized egg implants anyway, the pill wouldn't do anything to harm it.   

 

I dunno, I just find the way most people talk about this issue to be extremely callous - you guys are doing a pretty good job here so kudos to you - but most people arguing about it seem like they've never had to console a rape victim before, never had it happen to themselves or one of their friends.  Most people seem to defend the right of the new child to live at all costs...but have absolutely no ideas of how we go about helping the woman recover from her trauma, or often even mention it.  And thus the pro-choice lobby becomes the one women go to, because they're the only ones who offer any kind of "support".  We need to find some way to reach out to these women. 

[Aloysius]

 I agree with your posts--the only disagreement I've had is the one line I quoted. (Tone is hard to get on the internet, but I think you think I think something's wrong with how you think. :P )

:cool: I get ya, no worries :smokey::

[KnightofChrist]

For me this touches on matters of Faith and prudence, and not a matter of politics. This action of the German bishops seems to challenge both matters of faith and prudence. 

[Aloysius]

Basilia, personally I feel the question of "when the soul is fused" puts it in too dualistic of terms.  a unique human life has a unique human soul, if it's alive and has a unique fully human genetic code (ie once an egg is fertilized), physically being alive is synonymous with having a spirit in my view, and the moment of a unique genetic code is the moment that such spirit is an eternal human soul rather than the spirit of some microscopic human bio matter.

 

of course, saying that leaves me open to the critique of splitting into twins after fertilization and whether that "splits" the soul per se, but I'm willing to go pretty far in a non-dualistic fashion that yes, those twins at one time shared the same soul because they were a single physical human being, and when they split they became two unique human souls.

 

the practical point of that is that I don't think it's just being-overly-cautious that leads us to call conception the beginning of life, it's necessitated by the scientific facts applied to our view of the soul as the life force of the body, not some dualistic ghost in the machine.

 

ultimately, I definitely agree with your point about the overly theoretical callousness the issue often gets treated with.

[Didacus]

reuters

 

:hehe: 

 

They'll do anything to get attention...

[KnightofChrist]

New forms of interception and contragestation

 

 

23. Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

 

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods,[43] it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.

 

When there is a delay in menstruation, a contragestative is used,[44] usually one or two weeks after the non-occurrence of the monthly period. The stated aim is to re-establish menstruation, but what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted.

 

As is known, abortion is “the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth”.[45]  Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law.[46]

 

DIGNITAS PERSONAE 

Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

 

[Aloysius]

this by no means clearly settles the German bishop's treatment of possibly the first 24 hours after rape, as the example given in DH that references the use after a missed period (clearly the whole scenario being discussed in that part is also extremely different than the rape scenario).  I haven't exactly sided with Basilia and Slappo and the German Bishops, but we are talking about something that is really bringing up issues in the realm of the science and philosophy here much different than the passage in DH you quoted I think (though yes it's the interceptive idea, the scenario of rape makes the abortive intentionality far less clear cut IMO).  trying to prevent implantation is abortive, the German bishops even affirmed that, they suggested as the scientific scenario something which truly prevents conception immediately after a rape.  if there were a truly scientifically established understanding of doing that, of knowing there was not yet conception or of truly being able to only do something that could prevent the conception without the possibility of killing a fertilized egg, then there would be no problems with the German Bishops position.  as it is, there is a high degree of lack of certitude, conception can occur anywhere from half an hour to five days after sex.  the analogy I think you yourself gave early on of demolishing a building when you're not sure if someone's inside it or not is very apt I think.  the desperation of the situation and the consideration of there possibly not yet being anyone inside that building are at the very least mitigating factors in this kind of scenario, factors that we should not take lightly.

[ImageTrinity]

I'm not sure I'd call the Bishops' action a revolt. This particular situation is the subject of hot debate among moral theologians.

[Evangetholic]

I would and indeed did.

The fact that it is "debatable" and involves the potential of dead babies makes me think the word is not uncalled for.