Of particular interest to Women.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1209

SPOKANE, Wash. (WOMENSENEWS)--After the assault of rape, a victim often encounters this advice: Contact a trustworthy person, don't shower and see a doctor immediately.

Another practice, however, might soon become more commonly prescribed--carefully consider the hospital in which to seek medical attention--after a survey released in December found that many Roman Catholic hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.

----
Another practice, however, might soon become more commonly prescribed--carefully consider the hospital in which to seek medical attention--after a survey released in December found that many Roman Catholic hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.
----


Any numbers?

[Wolrab]

Never mind, I thought the thread was about me.:(

[Finella]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
a survey released in December found that many Roman Catholic hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims. [/B]

::shudder::

after all, God would have wanted those women to suffer more... and their children....

---,---'--{@

[Yahzi]

Any numbers?

The survey, commissioned by Catholics for a Free Choice, a Washington-based advocacy group that promotes issues of gender equality and reproductive health, found that only 28 percent of Catholic hospitals in 47 states and the District of Columbia would provide emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill" or EC, to rape victims. Fifty-five percent of Catholic hospitals wouldn't dispense emergency contraception under any circumstances.

Third paragraph of the article... you know, the one immediately following the two he quoted.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Finella


::shudder::

after all, God would have wanted those women to suffer more... and their children....

---,---'--{@


Ok, here's my leap into the fires...

If the position that the fetus is alive at the moment of conception is believed, then abortion under any circumstances (save endangering the life of the mother) would be murder. Is it the fetus's fault that he/she was conceived because of a rape? Is it his/her fault that his/her father was a rapist?

Please, reread it before you burn me at the stake, please?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Thumper

If the position that the fetus is alive at the moment of conception is believed, then abortion under any circumstances (save endangering the life of the mother) would be murder. Is it the fetus's fault that he/she was conceived because of a rape? Is it his/her fault that his/her father was a rapist?

Please, reread it before you burn me at the stake, please?
RE-read it a couple times.

Of course the 'fetus' is alive at the moment of conception. The question is whether it is a "person" and therefore subject to all the respect and protection of adult persons.

If you believe killing anything that is alive is murder, you are guilty every time you eat, whether you are vegetarian or not.

As far as the mother is concerned, she doesn't care whose "fault" it is, I don't see why she should be obliged to carry the fetus to term when it is not her choice to do so.

[Thumper]

Oops. You're right. I misspoke there. Even though there is debate on whether the fetus is alive at conception.

Wherever I wrote "alive", substitute "human and deserving of basic human rights".

Thanks for correcting me.

[arcticpenguin]

Every sperm is sacred. (http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/albums-cds/lyrics/every-sperm-is-sacred.html)

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Thumper
Oops. You're right. I misspoke there. Even though there is debate on whether the fetus is alive at conception.

Wherever I wrote "alive", substitute "human and deserving of basic human rights".

Thanks for correcting me.
Just for the purpose of this debate, what do you consider "human" and what "basic human rights" is it deserving of?

Just so you understand, I don't have a strong position on this. I tend to think it is a legal, moral, ethical, religious, etc. cluster f**k that will never be answered conclusively. However, I am interested in your definitions.

[Thumper]

Ok... Remember I said "If the position that the fetus is alive at the moment of conception is believed..."

Definition:

human rights- I think those who hold to this view would settle for a right to life, at the very least. That seems to be the crux of the fight, doesn't it?

human- Jeez. lol How does one actually define human, except in biological fashion? A member of the species Homo homo sapiens?

Do those work for you?

(Oh, and as an aside, I would tend to agree with you that there will be no solution to this until and unless the doctors/scientists can actually prove that the fetus, at conception, is human, thus removing the debate from the normative realm and into the empirical realm.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Thumper
Ok... Remember I said "If the position that the fetus is alive at the moment of conception is believed..."

Definition:

human rights- I think those who hold to this view would settle for a right to life, at the very least. That seems to be the crux of the fight, doesn't it?

human- Jeez. lol How does one actually define human, except in biological fashion? A member of the species Homo homo sapiens?

Do those work for you?

(Oh, and as an aside, I would tend to agree with you that there will be no solution to this until and unless the doctors/scientists can actually prove that the fetus, at conception, is human, thus removing the debate from the normative realm and into the empirical realm.)


And if we ever do give the foetus “full human rights” many women are going to be in very serious trouble with the law.

People who are against abortion under any circumstances – for instance the hospitals that won’t give “emergency contraception” to a rape victim seem to forget the simple fact that many women have “spontaneous abortions” i.e. miscarriages.

If the foetus is to be given “full human rights” wouldn’t these women suddenly find themselves in court – at least on manslaughter charges?

http://www.womenone.org/health06.htm

A miscarriage is an intensely sad and devastating experience. It is a loss of pregnancy that occurs before 20 weeks gestational age (approximately up to 5th month). Many women who lose a pregnancy do not even know they are pregnant and about 20 % of them have "Silent Miscarriages". Some experience cramping, bleeding and pain, which may eventually end in a miscarriage.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Thumper

human- Jeez. lol How does one actually define human, except in biological fashion? A member of the species Homo homo sapiens?

Every sperm is sacred. (http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/albums-cds/lyrics/every-sperm-is-sacred.html)

So you're willing to let biology, a science, decide, and not religion?

[Smalso]

That's one of the big problems with the Falwell types. They consider a fertilized egg a human life because the moment of fertilization is the moment the soul enters. Where they came up with such ideas, I have not a clue.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Smalso
That's one of the big problems with the Falwell types. They consider a fertilized egg a human life because the moment of fertilization is the moment the soul enters. Where they came up with such ideas, I have not a clue.
In my view, if they take that tack they have lost the argument. I've got a piece of paper that says they will not impose their religious beliefs on me. I call it "The Bill of Rights".

[Smalso]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

In my view, if they take that tack they have lost the argument. I've got a piece of paper that says they will not impose their religious beliefs on me. I call it "The Bill of Rights".

Of course; but what do those types care about a little thing like that? Note, too, that none of them have ever been able to prove the existance of a soul.

[Doctor X]

Please, reread it before you burn me at the stake, please?

BURN!! BURN!!! BURN!!!

Sorry . . . been a quiet night. . . .

Well, I think the point is that a religious institution has a right to practice a religious belief no matter how ridiculous. . .

. . . however, a hospital has certain obligations to the community. Should the "Jesus Christ Savior" or whatever the Hell the White-Supremacists call themselves these days open a hospital and try to deny treatment to the people they hate, they will find themselves if significant trouble.

Thus, someone may be able to sue these institutions for failing to provide a standard of care.

--J.D.

Originally posted by Yahzi

Third paragraph of the article... you know, the one immediately following the two he quoted.


The article doesn't compare the numbers to any other group.

How do we know if it is high or low? Above average, below, or normal?

[TexasBEAST]

At the risk of losing what few friends I've made in the short while I've been posting...

I'm generally against abortion. As others have said, I don't have clearcut definitions of all the terms involved, and I am trying to keep an open mind and be willing to be persuaded to see things differently. Of course, being a single man, it just doesn't affect me as directly and vividly as it does women. But it still seems wrong.

I agree that those private religious hospitals should be able to decline to provide certain types of treatment that they feel is immoral. That's their choice as a private institution. Don't like it? Find another hospital. That's your choice as a private citizen. Just like with public v. private schools.

I don't think the zygotes/fetuses should be punished with the ultimate punishment because the father was a rapist. That is absolutely unfair. True, it's unfair to punish the woman as well, but right now I think killing is the more unfair thing to do than burdening the mother with carrying and delivering the child. No, I wouldn't feel good establishing that as policy. It's just how I feel at the moment.

I think the fetus should be considered "alive", "human", and a "person". All those things. It's just a person at a very early stage of development. But we shouldn't take that fact as justification to intentionally kill it. No more than we should use a retarded or elderly person's developmental stage as justification to kill them.

I don't feel comfortable with telling a rape victim she is obliged to carry the child. That's insult atop injury. But I think facilitating the killing of the child is an even worse exacerbation of the wrong already committed. Rape is a horrible evil crime. But murder is even worse. As bad as coercing a person to endure suffering would be, it wouldn't be as bad as consenting to "fetucide".

(Now what to do with the rapist--that should make an equally interesting discussion.)

As I understand it, "human" just means "of the earth" ("humus"), like "Adam" ("man-creature") and the "adamah" ("ground" or "earth"). All life as we know it could loosely be called "human". (An exercise in equivocation that doesn't really help us, I know.)

I don't consider killing "anything" to constitute "murder"--just killing a fellow homo sapiens person. Killing a fetus is murder; killing a cow is another form of killing, less offensive than "murdering" a person.

I don't feel comfortable even with killing animals and plants, either. But sadly, that's how we are built. We have to kill other lifeforms for nutritional purposes. I don't like that fact. It seems cruel. Nature is cruel. That's part of why I am an Atheist. I cannot believe that this world was created by a loving benevolent being. There is too much killing apparently designed into the process for it to have been created by a loving peaceful being. This world is violent. If there is a "god", it wants violence and death and killing. I reject that. I don't want to be like that hypothetical "god". I don't think we should kill just to kill. We should kill for survival, and for nutritional needs. Not for comfort or to alleviate suffering.

If this world were created by a loving being, we would have been created with chlorophyl in our blood, instead of melanin, so that we could photosynthesize our food from the sun and basic minerals in the soil, without having to prey on other living things. But no, we have to kill and maim other lifeforms for our survival. Arrghh!

But even though there is some killing that we have to do, that doesn't mean that we should kill in every situation just because we can. We shouldn't kill innocent babies, no matter how early of a stage of development they are in.

I wouldn't criminalize a woman who had a spontaneous miscarriage because that would be a natural involuntary act. I would blame nature--not her. (Another exercise in futility.) At any rate, that would be a completely separate fact from whether or not she chose to deliberately have the baby killed. That would be wrong.

I ordinarily hate churches and many of their policies, but on this one, I support them. I think their cause is right in this case. But of course, I could be wrong...:confused:

this is sad and cruel, rape is one ordeal but being denied (allegedly) the morning after pill by a religion is in my eyes as bad as the rape. This breaks my heart and is probably why I hate religion so much.:mad:

Why, life is one thing but how can they expect a rape victim to go through with what would be an unwanted pregnacy and possiblly re-live that horrifc event.

I feel sick and cold reading this.

[ebola]

I, too, am generally against abortion. But that is NOT what happens with the morning after pill. The morning after pill ( emergency contraception, or EC ) referred to in the article, delays the release of the egg so that it cannot be fertilized by the sperm. The egg is not fertilized, there is no embryo, there is no fetus, there is no abortion. Discussing the rights of the fetus is extremely premature. Even the anti-abortion crowd agrees that life begins with fertilization. It does not begin with a sperm deposit.

The morning after pill is no different than any other form of contraception. Contraception is the simple act of preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg, and this is clearly what happens here. The reason the Catholic church will not dispense EC is that they are opposed to contraception in any form. Tossing abortion into this issue comes from a desire to elicit an emotional response, unnecessarily clouds the discussion, and is simply incorrect.

Eric

[Marvel Frozen]

I, too, am generally against abortion. But that is NOT what happens with the morning after pill. The morning after pill ( emergency contraception, or EC ) referred to in the article, delays the release of the egg so that it cannot be fertilized by the sperm. The egg is not fertilized, there is no embryo, there is no fetus, there is no abortion.

You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing. In this case the hospitals are not preventing the woman from "killing" a fertilized egg, they're preventing the prevention of a potential pregnancy. In my opinion, this makes the act of withholding emergency contraception even more reprehensible.

[Yahzi]

Texas Beast
I agree that those private religious hospitals should be able to decline to provide certain types of treatment that they feel is immoral.
What if they feel emergency medical treatment for black people is immoral? Would you support them then?

There are institutions which are privately owned, but have public duties. Hospitals recieve a license from the state to operate. Part of the requirements to recieving that license is an agreement to provide certain public services.

I agree that a private hospital can refuse service to whomever it wants; but only if you agree that the State can refuse to license any hospital it wants. And I elected my State officials with the understanding that they would not license public institutions that would use rape as a method of foisting their religious beliefs onto the population.

Are you aware that hospitals are required by federal law to provide emergency service to anyone who walks through their doors? Allowing them to deviate from normal medical practice for religious reasons is just another way of violating the law.

Ebola, Marvel
Are you sure? It was my understanding that many forms of hormone based contraception prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus wall, whether it is fertilized or not.

All of you
I'm generally against abortion
That's because you are for the oppression of women. The abortion debate is not about the fetus - who the hell cares about another baby in this overcrowded world? - it is about who will control the means of production. If women have an unfettered right to abortion, then men have no control whatsoever over childbirth. This is unfair to men. But this biological injustice cannot be corrected by robbing women of their rights. To do so would be like the old canard about equality: will we tie wieghts to the swift and the strong so they can't run faster than the slow?

Concern over the rights of some miniscule bit of tissue is irrelevant. I don't have the right to chain you down for 9 months while I use your internal organs to keep me alive. Your chosing to have sex with someone does not give me that right. End of story. Even if the fetus is a person, it's a person with no right to the property of others unless others want to give it to them.

Amazing, isn't it, how quick men are to defend their property from the clutches of the have-nots when property is defined as taxes -yet how swift they are to dispense with property in the name of the poor and needy when property is defined as a woman's body?

Forcing women to yield their physical assets to these new citizens is the ultimate act of weath transferall. You guys won't even vote tax money to feed or educate immigrants from another country, but you'll vote women's bodies to feed these immigrants from nowhere?

And if you even think of suggesting the woman is somehow responsible for having had sex - then just give up the notion that you will ever get laid again. If the use of birth control is not an adequate and sufficient act to discharge her from the risk of pregancy, then you might as well resolve yourselves to having sex 2.4 times in your entire life.

[Yahzi]

I wouldn't criminalize a woman who had a spontaneous miscarriage because that would be a natural involuntary act.
But if we really thought spontaneous abortions were the death of innocent people, wouldn't we be morally obliged to spend some of our research dollars on figuring out how to lower the rate? Just like we spend money on diseases that kill people?

And once we had the medical technology to prevent or reduce spontaneous miscarriages, wouldn't it be the woman's moral duty to use it?

And then wouldn't we just make sex 3 times more likely to result in pregnancy than it already is? (Because spontenaous miscarriages are about 3 out of 4 pregnancies). Wouldn't that make women 3 times more likely to not have sex?

Whose side are you on, anyway?

[Marvel Frozen]

Are you sure? It was my understanding that many forms of hormone based contraception prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus wall, whether it is fertilized or not.

I found this page: http://www.contraception.net/emergency_cont/types.asp. Which says that the "morning after pill" prevents "a pregnancy from starting by preventing ovulation". There are, however forms of contraception that prevent an egg from attaching the uterus wall, as well as other forms that basically cause an abortion of an already fertilized egg. I assume the article is refering to the "morning after pill", though.

[ebola]

Yahzi wrote:

Ebola, Marvel
Are you sure? It was my understanding that many forms of hormone based contraception prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus wall, whether it is fertilized or not.



Some forms do prevent implantation. The most common form delays ovulation:

www.plannedparenthood.org/library/BIRTHCONTROL/EC.html


Emergency Contraception Is Not Abortion

Emergency contraception cannot end a pregnancy. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "Emergency contraceptive pills are not effective if the woman is pregnant; they act by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova (thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby inhibiting implantation)" (FDA, 1997). A recent study found that most often, ECPs reduce the risk of pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation (Marions, et al., 2002). Emergency contraception reduces the risk of pregnancy and helps prevent the need for abortion; it itself is not a form of abortion (Grimes, 1997; Guillebaud, 1998; Hughes, 1972; Van Look & Stewart, 1998).


And, from here:

www.nfprha.org/pac/factsheets/ecps.asp


Does Use of Emergency Contraception Cause an Abortion?

No. Emergency contraception cannot interrupt or disrupt an established pregnancy. If a woman takes EC, but is already pregnant, she will remain pregnant. In fact, emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for abortion.

How Are Emergency Contraceptive Pills Different from RU-486?

RU-486 (also known as mifepristone, or Mifeprex) is an entirely different drug than the birth control pills used for emergency contraception in the United States.


Another technique involves an IUD, but this is not the "morning after pill" to which TBK's article refers.

The tirade for abortion rights deserves its own thread.

Eric