Sex, Punishment, and Plan B
In the comments on my previous post on the Connecticut bishops’ decision to allow Catholic hospitals to administer the Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims who do not pass a pregnancy test, Adriana offers some very astute comments:
“There is something a bit sickening about the idea that abortion should be allowed in case of rape. Why? Because since the woman was an innocent party, then she does not deserve to carry a baby to term. She cannot be punished when she is not guilty.
“Somehow the baby got identified with punishment for the sin of fornication. If you consented to have sex, then the baby is your punishment and should not be allowed to abort because you are evading punishment, but if you were innocent, then of course, abortion is your right.”
Sadly, it appears that the Connecticut bishops have been affected by this mindset. I’m not suggesting that they are intentionally sanctioning chemical abortion. On the contrary, they make it clear that they don’t think that the use of Plan B amounts, in some cases, to a chemical abortion:
“If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened.”
Since Barr Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Plan B, have demonstrated to the FDA’s satisfaction that the drug works, in part, by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, we’re left with two options: Either the Connecticut bishops are being dishonest (by introducing doubts that Barr doesn’t have, or by saying that they researched the issue exhaustively, when they apparently didn’t even read the manufacturer’s materials); or something is clouding their judgment.
Being an inveterate optimist, I’m opting for option number 2. But that, I think, is where Adriana’s insight comes into play. See, for instance, the following line from Bishop William Lori of the diocese of Bridgeport, who tried to offer a ”clarification” two days after the original statement:
“It’s not that the Church opposes administering Plan B to victims of rape; these women have suffered a gravely unjust assault.”
The sentence is constructed in such a way that we’re supposed to understand that, of course, the first part follows from the second. But does it? And if so, how?
It can follow only if the bishops have fallen for the mindset that Adriana has so acutely diagnosed. Either the assault ended when the rape ended, in which case the only way to right the injustice is to bring the rapist to justice, or it continues on, and the use of Plan B can somehow mitigate the injustice.
If the latter is the case, however, then the bishops are saying precisely what Adriana laid out: A child conceived as a result of a rape is a punishment, a continuation of the rape, and therefore everything possible should be done to prevent such a conception.
Such reasoning is not only common today; it’s almost universal. But it’s not Catholic, and it’s sad to see bishops of the Catholic Church get caught up in it.
Abortion | Catholicism | Pro-life
Comments
are you opposed to fertility clinics as well?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Lester:
I’m not opposed to fertility clinics, as long as they’re offering fertility treatments that are moral and in accordance with natural law. I presume that what you mean by your question is in vitro fertilization and other such procedures, which aren’t in accordance with natural law, nor are they “fertility treatments,” properly speaking. They are, in fact, ways to take the question of fertility entirely out of the equation. And, in the process, they create human lives that are doomed to be destroyed.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
so you are oppsed to the procedure of destroying fertilized eggs. Do you realize how many of these are destroyed every day?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@lester,
either you are incredibly obtuse, or just a troll.
Of course he is aware of how many are intentionally
destroyed, and that’s why he is trying to stop it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
the paleo part of this blog is just hliarious to me. it’s all putting on airs and chest thumping
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There you are, Adriana--with his last comment, Lester has revealed that he’s just a troll.
Please don’t feed the trolls. : )
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Lester,
Are you suggesting that it is preferable to undergo a procedure that kills
fertilized eggs than to simply adopt a child in need of a home? Growing up
I knew a number of children who were adopted. There were happy families
in the town I grew up in that consisted entirely of adopted children.
Isn’t this preferable to destroying life just so so a couple can conceive
a child? There is no greater act of kindness any of us could ever do than
to adopt a child. There is also no greater act of cowardice and cruelty
than to kill an unborn child
Click to flag this comment as abusive
scott- because i disagree with your fringe views on abortion I am a contrarian and a troll. this isn’t “the name of the rose” the church isn’t the way to have power over people anymore. You’re several centuries too late.
M Nucci- so if i join the catholic church I can’t attempt to have children if, say, my wife was injured somehow that made conceiving difficult? and a ferilized egg is a human life?
great, abortionists and less judgemental religions will have more customers
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Lester:
“Fringe views”? Every pro-lifer I know claims to believe that life begins at conception. Let’s repeat that: conception. Not implantation.
If you’re arguing that life begins at implantation, then you’re, at best, on the fringe of the pro-life movement.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Scott
Trollum alimenta non est.
Do not feed the troll.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Adriana:
I know, I know. I’ve never been good at taking my own advice. : )
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m not in the pro life movement. and i wasn’t aware that the pro life movement was as opposed to destorying fertilizd eggs, something that occurs every day in fertility clinics. the signs at abortion rallies usually have gory picturees and slogans about abortion, not fertility clinics. So you think abortion clinics and fertility clinics are equally evil?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I disagree with your analysis of the bishops’ intentions. They were deciding a rather narrow question. Namely, would it be proper to endanger the accredidation of the hospitals and face possible civil penalties or allow those rape victims to use their civil right to obtain Plan B? The ovulation test did not effect the outcome of the 75 cases (per Bp Lori) where Plan B was requested. Testing of Plan B (See American Papist’s coverage) has indicated that the chemicals in Plan B need to be consumed over a longer period than prescribed under Plan B to have an abortifacient effect. Reasonable people could conclude that taking Plan B would not be prudent for those seeking abortifacient effects. Therefore, the object of Plan B is not abortifacient. This is not a minor consideration, and this is why the bishops stated it wasn’t intrinsically evil. As such it is admissable for CT hospitals to submit to the administration of Plan B without the ovulation test under the Principle of Toleration and the law of Connecticut.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.