German Bishops Rebel Approve Abortion Pill

[Basilisa Marie]

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.

 

Yeah, but we're also talking about rape victims.  I won't go into details, but I was an RA at a college for three years, and dealt with my share of rape and assault incidents.  Those experiences changed how I talk about situations like these, because although it's crucial to speak for the unborn, we must make sure we are also showing charity toward the rape victim. We can't be callous. 

[KnightofChrist]

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

And that is why this is at least an act against prudence. Which isn't exactly moral. The fact there is no real way to confirm that babies will not be killed, means that this an act of imprudence. So far most at least seem to agree with that, though that may change now that I said most agree on that much.

[Slappo]

I'd be far more comfortable with the idea of some sort of injection of a sperm killer that cannot affect the sperm and the egg once they unite as this would negate the possibility of any medicine/contraceptive acting as an abortificient in cases of rape.

 

I think the German bishops tread a thin line, but I don't see where they have overstepped morally as they have still specifically disallowed for anything that would act as an abortificient. 

[Evangetholic]

Yeah, but we're also talking about rape victims.  I won't go into details, but I was an RA at a college for three years, and dealt with my share of rape and assault incidents.  Those experiences changed how I talk about situations like these, because although it's crucial to speak for the unborn, we must make sure we are also showing charity toward the rape victim. We can't be callous. 

 

I'm a survivor of sexual abuse. I understand the severity of the damage that can be done by it. I'm not trying to be callous and I'll go ahead and say what no one else here will say: I cannot imagine that this would ever subjectively be a mortal sin for the women concerned (as a result of the severe mental/spiritual damage). Still though, a hospital belonging to the Church that invented the phrase "culture of death" should not be involved in handing these pills out unless and until it's clear that deaths of children won't happen.

[KnightofChrist]

I'd be far more comfortable with the idea of some sort of injection of a sperm killer that cannot affect the sperm and the egg once they unite as this would negate the possibility of any medicine/contraceptive acting as an abortificient in cases of rape.

I think the German bishops tread a thin line, but I don't see where they have overstepped morally as they have still specifically disallowed for anything that would act as an abortificient.

I think it's real great they've said they disallow for anything that would act as an abortificient. But the pill they've approved is an abortificient, and they have no way of knowing for sure it will not act as one in certain cases. So I strongly disagree that this doesn't cross the line and isn't at least a little immoral. Edited February 22, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Didacus]

The fact that the debate is used in order to set a <trap> for whole of the Catholic Church certainly does nothing to add value to the debate.

[Apotheoun]

, , , 

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.

It must take time after swallowing the pill for it to become effective (i.e., to diffuse throughout the body), and so the 30 minute window is not real.  I suppose if the woman took the pill before being raped it could be effective in preventing conception, but otherwise I think it likely that the pill in many cases will be working as an abortifacient.  I think the German bishops have moved in the wrong direction, but hopefully the Vatican will clarify the matter in time.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/21/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

[KnightofChrist]

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.

Only if this pill were to be taken several days before the moment of ovulation could it sometimes act to prevent the latter (in this case it would function as a typical "contraceptive").

However, the woman who uses this kind of pill does so in the fear that she may be in her fertile period and therefore intends to cause the expulsion of a possible new conceptus; above all, it would be unrealistic to think that a woman, finding herself in the situation of wanting to use an emergency contraceptive, would be able to know exactly and opportunely her current state of fertility.

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.

5. A further consideration should be made regarding the use of the morning-after pill in relation to the application of Law 194/78, which in Italy regulates the conditions and procedures for the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

Saying that the pill is an "anti-implantation" product, instead of using the more transparent term "abortifacient", makes it possible to avoid all the obligatory procedures required by Law 194 in order to terminate a pregnancy (prior interview, verification of pregnancy, determination of growth stage, time for reflection, etc.), by practising a form of abortion that is completely hidden and cannot be recorded by any institution. All this seems, then, to be in direct contradiction to the correct application of Law 194, itself debatable.

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.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html

[Evangetholic]

absolute unlawfulness

[Aloysius]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/21/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

If the science cited in this article is indeed true, and it is based upon studies that are more up to date that the Pontifical Academy for Life 2000 statement posted above, which I will also add is also clearly directed at entirely different situations than those of rape) then indeed the German Bishops' position actually makes perfect sense.  It would obviously only be permissible for victims of rape (anyone who had consensual sex using these types of things would be committing contraceptive/sexual sins at the very least), but from what I read in this article, apparently it is strongly indicated that these particular medications operate differently than RU 486.

 

as I was saying before, the real question here is a question of science.  if the scientific indication really is that these particular drugs do not operate as implantation blockers at all, then there is actually zero problem with the German Bishops' statement.  if there is indeed a way to block fertilization that would not directly attack a fertilized egg, as the studies cited in that NPR article indicate, then that is something that would be acceptable for victims of rape.  the Pontifical Academy for Life statement is clearly based upon the scientific understanding of its time, if the science really indicates that these things don't operate that way then I'd actually expect the Vatican to probably end up backing up the German Bishops' position.  the Vatican would likely take a while to evaluate whether there really are reliable studies showing that, we'll see.

 

would anyone argue that if the studies cited there are indeed true and it is not an implantation blocker that the German Bishops' statement wasn't correct?  Or is it, like it appears to be to me, a disagreement over the scientific premise with the German Bishops accepting the argument of these studies that indicate that it does not block implantation?

[Evangetholic]

If the NPR article is correct I think the Bishops' action is not wrong (it just sort of looks that way). I think you could make a case that it appears at variance with the way many Catholics will have understood the issue and NEEDS clarification from the Pontiff (the Bible--which is no dead "text"--warns us not to scandalize the weak in faith with even licit actions), but barring some future objection from the Holy Father it appears that the Bishops are within their rights and God's law. And I (the Great, the Perfect, the Quite Correct) have spoken rashly--ah, the burden of being a devilishly handsome young rogue.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Evangetholic

[KnightofChrist]

But what if the studies are wrong or do not actually prove that the pill can never ever act as an abortifacient? What if other studies still show the pill can act as an abortifacient? Would justice require us and the bishops to err on the side of life?


http://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/plan-b-rape-and-abortion-err-on-the-side-of-life

[Evangetholic]

Well. Is it necessary that there be zero risk to fetal life for something to be licit? Need it really be that certain? I know the kind of question this might sound like, but that's not what I'm to. It's an honest question from someone who had a poorly catechized Catholic childhood and only came back to the Church two days ago after a ten year absence.

[Evangetholic]

"but that's not what I'm to." Should read: but that's not what I'm up to.