Posted on 05/06/2005 6:23:19 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel
WASHINGTON, May 5, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study funded by the radically pro-abortion organizations, the John Merck foundation and Catholics for a Free Choice, surveyed staff at all 597 Catholic hospitals in the United States and found that only 55% of them refused to dispense the abortifacient morning after pill.
Despite the deceptive name, “emergency contraceptive” works in many cases by stopping an already formed unborn child from attaching to the uterine wall. This effect is disputed by no reputable scientists. Catholic medical ethics is clear that abortion is, in all cases, and at all stages of development, the moral equivalent to murder and can never be condoned.
There could be trouble ahead for those Catholic hospitals who still adhere to Catholic teaching moreover. Washington State, Illinois and California have laws requiring emergency rooms to provide rape victims with information about the drug.
“What Catholic hospitals do is based on religious directives,” says Sister Sharon Park, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference. “They follow the teachings of our religious beliefs, which are protected under the First Amendment.”
The question remains, however, if Catholic hospitals adhere to Catholic moral teaching. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services which are supposed to be followed by Catholic hospitals in the US contain some serious ambiguities. One clause says, that a woman who has been raped “should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault.”
The rules say, “If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation or fertilization.” The use of testing to determine pregnancy is, however, extremely unreliable before some time has elapsed in a pregnancy. The morning after pill requires that no more than 72 hours has passed to be effective. Even a blood test cannot determine pregnancy within 72 hours of conception. Sister Sharon Park said that the use of ‘emergency contraception’ could be allowed in some cases because the drug does not in every case cause an abortion.
This ambiguity is rapidly becoming par for the course in modern Catholic hospitals. The erosion of Catholic medical ethics can be seen in the widespread support among Catholic bioethicists for pre-term inducement of pregnancy with handicapped children and passive euthanasia.
Read Interim article on the prevalence of euthanasia support among Catholic bioethicists:
http://www.theinterim.com/2004/jan/03priestargues....
Murder?
How about rape?
I don't believe in capital punishment for rape, and I doubt you do either. Castration? Sure!
So why do some people advocate Capital Punishment for the other innocent victim of rape, not the woman but the baby so conceived?
While pregnancy following rape is uncommon, In the individual patient to whom it occurs it's incidence is 100%.
We limit treatment to 72 hours.
Feel free to treat YOUR patients by any rules you choose. I am very comfortable with how I treat mine.
You do whatever you wish. Just know that if you are working in a Catholic institution, and your regimen violates what I posted, you are violating basic and foundational Catholic moral teachings.
There are a lot of cruelties in the world. It doesn't give license to kill an innocent person in order to soothe one's feelings.
The God-given Right to Life recognized by our Founding Fathers supercedes the consent of those so inconvenienced.
A baby's right to life trumps a woman's right to consent. Its the not baby's fault that a criminal violated the mother's right to consent, and the baby should not be sentenced to death for the crime/sin of the rapist.
Fact: I did not consent to be born.
Question: Do I have a moral obligation to care for my parents if they become capacitated later in life - either by caring for them personally or taking on the financial burden for someone else to?
or
Would it be immoral to leave them to lay in their own waste, uncared for in a deteriorating and inhuman environment?
Can I argue, with a clear conscience, since I did not consent to be born, I don't have a moral obligation?
Sorry - "incapacitated"
ping
Your obligation is to stay on the gurney since an innocent life depends on your doing so.
You should not be. If you provide abortifacients, regardles of any other consideration, you assist in murder. You feelings, or absence of feelings, do not alter the objective moral reality.
This is so simple, so common sense. Only in this post-Christian era could otherwise decent people be so deceived as to think otherwise.
Our society is rushing headlong into a vegetative state.
You're not talking about single cells. A Zygote is not visibly human, but it is very defnitely multi-cellular.
This analogy fails for a lot of reasons. A pregnant woman is not nearly so constrained. In fact, I will go way out on a limb as a man and say that the emotional complications far outweigh he physical complications.
I really don't know if she could successfully detach the child from the event.
But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a woman who knowingly had an abortion following a rape would be nearly as tortured by her decision as any other abortive mother who truly reflects on what she has done.
It would be nice to be able to believe that this sort of thing could be resolved by taking a pill, but I really can't buy that. When someone commits an evil act, the destruction is real as are the consequences. Attempts to quickly and easily undo that evil are often just as destructive as it is.
I think this is a very difficult situation; I think Bush means well, but any time a group starts taking federal money, it also becomes subject to a million laws that will essentially undermine its religious nature.
Personally, I think even hospitals could make enough money to exist without federal funding, if they offered a genuine alternative to the modern US attitude towards life (which is, "get rid of it!"). That and bringing back religious orders dedicated to nursing, which they had back in the old days before the good sisters decided they wanted to put on performances of the Vagina Monologues and maybe get ordained to the priesthood while they were at it.
There are definitely some good Catholic hospitals left. I think we'll see more of them under the new Pope, too.
And many religious charities are chomping at the bit to get their piece of the Federal money pie.
I'm not a religious person, but if I were I would run screaming from any suggestion that my particular group get intertwined with government when it came to charitable works.
Very good analogy.
I disagree. It's simple, the government has no legitmate role in churches or charity whatsoever.
I think Bush means well
So did Roosevelt. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
but any time a group starts taking federal money, it also becomes subject to a million laws that will essentially undermine its religious nature.
Precisely, not to mention involving themselves with force based groups, like government.
Personally, I think even hospitals could make enough money to exist without federal funding,
Indeed, no involvement with hospitals is needed or useful. Anything which cannot exist on it's own without the use of force isn't valued enough by people to exist in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.