Posted on 02/08/2013 7:22:42 AM PST by marshmallow
News stories declaring that Cardinal Meisner will allow the "morning-after" pill for rape victims were the result of his words being manipulated and scientists giving him inaccurate information about the drug, according to a leading physician.
"It seems that the cardinal's words were manipulated," Doctor Jose Maria Simon Castellvi told EWTN News Feb. 7.
"In any case, the morning-after pill works as an anti-implantation product in 70 percent of the cases where the woman is fertile," said Dr. Simon, president of the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations.
Cardinal Meisner of Cologne, Germany was drawn into the discussion about the morning-after pill after a story surfaced in the local press about a 25-year-old woman who walked into an emergency room and told the attending physician that she thought she was drugged and possibly sexually assaulted at a party the night before.
The doctor on call, Irmgard Maiworm, said she called two separate Catholic hospitals that were nearby and asked if they would admit the woman. Dr. Maiworm said that both of them refused to admit her, since the prescribed course of treatment would involve using the morning-after pill, known in the U.S. as Plan B.
The German public reacted strongly to reports about the incident, and Cardinal Meisner issued a Jan. 22 apology in which he said it was shameful for a Catholic hospital to refuse treatment to a rape victim.
Cardinal Meisner subsequently met with medical experts about the morning-after pill and they told him the latest research indicated the drug does not have anti-implantation effects.
(Excerpt) Read more at ewtn.com ...
Let me know when the Cardinal makes the same claim.
I thought implantation-prevention was the whole point of the "morning-after" pill. If it doesn't have that effect, why administer it (not that I'm trying to make a case for it)?
I’m not expert, but the way I’m reading it is the difference between preventing fertilization and preventing implantation of the fertilized egg.
And, as a general rule, it’s best not to put much stock in mainstream media reports on the Church or Christianity in general until we get more facts or a transcript.
I believe that in some cases, morning-after pills can delay ovulation, which would reduce the change of conception from that act of intercourse. I wonder how they would find out the extent to which the pills prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, vs. how many times ovulation is affected. It seems like this would be all but impossible to test experimentally.
Why? Couldn't the hospitals treat a claimed rape victim for any physical injuries, shock, and effects of the drugs/alcohol she may have ingested, and take samples for law enforcement use, but not perform a conditional abortion?
If the woman is near ovulation, it will prevent ovulation so if given right after a rape (within hours) it will stop ovulation and the woman getting pregnant.
However, if the woman is already pregnant (before the rape, for example) or if she comes in a day or two later, and you give her the medicine, it will thin the lining of the uterus so the fertilized egg can’t implant. So it is also abortifactant.
One new thing that has come up is that the sperm travel faster and impregnate the woman faster than we used to think. So now it is believed that most cases are from the abortifactant qualities.
The problem is that the pill is now being pushed as contraceptive, not abortion causing, as a routine “birth control” measure. And the pro aborts, knowing this, have redefined “pregnancy” to mean implantation of an embryo,not the fertilization of an embryo. Change the definition, and voila, you can deny you are destroying a life.
So the church has to push back from the “fuzzy” areas...
If the woman is near ovulation, it will prevent ovulation so if given right after a rape (within hours) it will stop ovulation and the woman getting pregnant.
However, if the woman is already pregnant (before the rape, for example) or if she comes in a day or two later, and you give her the medicine, it will thin the lining of the uterus so the fertilized egg can’t implant. So it is also abortifactant.
One new thing that has come up is that the sperm travel faster and impregnate the woman faster than we used to think. So now it is believed that most cases are from the abortifactant qualities.
The problem is that the pill is now being pushed as contraceptive, not abortion causing, as a routine “birth control” measure. And the pro aborts, knowing this, have redefined “pregnancy” to mean implantation of an embryo,not the fertilization of an embryo. Change the definition, and voila, you can deny you are destroying a life.
So the church has to push back from the “fuzzy” areas...
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.