« Zipcar - a Review | Main | Don't Pay For Your Car Stereo With $2 Bills - At Least Not at Best Buy, Or In Baltimore County »

Comments

JRP

Interestingly enough, the Catholic Church claims that 'emergency contraception' like this, in the case of rape, is acceptable - if you are not already pregant.

The actual (rather than the as-reported-by-the-MSM) position of the Church is moderately well nuanced.

According to the UCCB's ethics and religious directives for Catholic Health Care services directive 36 - a woman "who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault", however if a treatment would "have as [its] purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation", it's illicit because it's killing an innocent.

This is in line with the dual-effect doctrine.

So - you do a test to see if they're pregnant (and, remember, they could very well be pregnant by their husband/someone other than the rapist, and killing the baby in this instance would be a moral wrong by almost any measure), and if it comes back negative, then you give the contraceptive. Conception can happen hours or days after sexual intercourse, and pregnancy doesn't take effect immediately, it takes some time for the body to show signs.

The real problem Catholics have with the pending legislation across the country is that the intent by the forces supporting it (the pro-abort crowd) is that they either don't want the test to be given, or want to force those who are pregnant to be given a specific contraceptive/abortifacient without any counseling about the alternatives, or want to force people who strenuously and religiously object to be required to hand out abortifacients on demand. None of those positions are tenable.

carpundit

JRP, Thanks for the comment. I appreciate your views. But I completely disagree with a couple of your assertions about the proposed laws:

"[supporters] want to force those who are pregnant to be given a specific contraceptive/abortifacient without any counseling"

No they don't. No one wants to force abortifacients on anyone without informed consent. That is a base falsehood propagated by anti-abortion groups as a scare tactic. The pro-choice objection is to forcing the already-decided women into listening to an anti-abortion pitch. A woman's choice is difficult enough without having to listen to suasion from people whose interests are separate from her own.

"want to force people who strenuously and religiously object to be required to hand out abortifacients on demand"

If they want to be licensed by the state to dispense drugs, yes, they are forced to dispense drugs. Too bad. If they are that strenuously opposed, they can change jobs.

It's a good idea to have these drugs reasonably available on demand. It will cut down on abortions. I strongly favor reducing the number of abortions. (I also strongly favor increasing the amount of contraception.)

The comments to this entry are closed.