8 razones y 4 testimonios por los que una violación no justifica que se aborte al bebé

In RL

La asociación Derecho a Vivir ha difundido "ocho razones por las que una violación no justifica abortar a ningún niño", a raíz de un caso de violación con resultado de embarazo en Chile, un país sin aborto desde 1983 y con la mejor salud maternal de todo el continente americano (con la excepción de Canadá).

La violación no justifica el aborto: 8 razones

 
1. El aborto, sea cual sea la circunstancia de la madre, supone acabar con la vida de un ser humano.

2. La violación es una atrocidad y un delito que debe perseguirse. Pero el embrión no es culpable de lo que le sucedió a su madre, ni de que su padre sea un criminal.

3. El culpable de la violación no es el embrión, pero quieren convertirlo en la principal víctima.

4. Si no contemplamos la pena de muerte, ni siquiera para el violador, ¿por qué algunos la defienden para el hijo?

5. La madre no tiene por qué quedarse con el hijo. La adopción es una respuesta más humana.

6. El aborto no soluciona, ni cura, ni hace desaparecer lo ocurrido. Al trauma de la violación se suma el del aborto.

7. La historia personal del embrión o sus características familiares no le restan carácter humano.

8. La cualidad humana del embrión, y por tanto su dignidad y protección, no depende de lo que sucedió entre sus progenitores.

Además, abundan los testimonios de mujeres que han amado a sus hijos tras la violación... y de personas que agradecen no haber sido abortadas pese a ser concebidas en una violación.

Engendrada en incesto: adoptada que adoptó
Kristi Hofferber, por ejemplo, descubrió que fue engendrada en incesto: su abuelo/padre violó a su madre. Y lo que dice Kristi es: "Por favor, no matéis, abortándolos, a niños como yo".

"Le agradezco mucho a mi madre biológica haberme protegido y dado en adopción. Llegué a una familia maravillosa que me acogió con los brazos abiertos y me dio el amor y el cuidado que necesitaba". Kristi hoy ayuda a muchas mujeres, está casada con un adoptado y han adoptado ellos mismos a otro niño.

Su hija hoy le llena de felicidad
También la colombiana Verónica Cardona quedó embarazada a los 16 años de edad tras ser violada por su propio padre. Defendió la vida del bebé y, cinco años después de vivir este drama, exhorta a las mujeres que pasan por casos similares a que “¡no tengan miedo de decirle sí a la vida, no tengan miedo de decirle sí al amor!”.

“Yo no tenía el derecho de arrancarle la vida a nadie, y menos a una personita indefensa, una personita que no me había hecho nada a mí”, señala. Hoy vive feliz con su hija de 5 años y ha sido capaz de perdonar a todos los que la dañaron.

"Puedes sacar algo bueno: yo soy ese algo"
Otro caso es el de Ken, un norteamericano que dice a las madres: "La violación es espantosa, pero lo que quiero decir a las mujeres que nos estén escuchando es lo siguiente: puedes coger eso tan terrible que han hecho contigo y sacar algo bueno de ello. Ese algo soy yo".

Ken cuenta que a su madre "cuando ella tenía 15 años, la golpearon con un bate de béisbol y la violaron. Entonces acudió a una institución católica de caridad y me tuvo a mí, tomó la valiente decisión de conservarme... de dejarme vivir. Luego fui adoptado. Llevo quince años casado, tengo tres hijos... y quisiera hablar en nombre de los que no tienen voz".

"Estoy cansado de que la gente trate a esos niños como si no fuesen nada. Y pueden nacer, pueden crecer, pueden llegar a tener una vida extraordinaria", concluye Ken.

Madre drogada y violada en grupo
Alfar Antonio Vélez cuenta cómo su madre, a los 27 años, fue drogada y violada por un grupo de compañeros de trabajo borrachos en Colombia. Pero era una mujer de fe, tuvo al niño, lo educó... y hoy, para gran orgullo y alegría de ella, Alfar es sacerdote misionero en Argentina.

"Ella decía que, pese a las tan terribles circunstancias, llevaba en su seno el milagro de una nueva vida, una vida que Dios le había dado y que, por sus convicciones, no podía abortar. Y que si Dios se la había dado debía encontrarle el sentido. Para ella lo más duro era no poder mostrarme un padre que me amara, que me enseñara a caminar, pero lo sobrellevaba sintiendo que yo la llenaba totalmente. Y que, tarde o temprano, sería su bastón. De hecho, los tres años que vivió conmigo a raíz de una larga enfermedad hasta su muerte, en 2009, fueron para ella los años más bellos de su vida", recuerda su hijo, que ayuda a muchas personas.

Un vecindario volcado en acoger
En 2011 en Argentina se conoció la historia de la hija de Hilda, que fue violada por un pariente que se aprovechó de su minusvalía psíquica. Quedó embarazada. Pero el vecindario de esta familia, pobre pero generoso, se volcó en ayudarles y desarrolló una gran ternura por el bebé: engendrado en la violencia, pero nacido rodeado de amor.

HLI Position on Administration of "Plan B" Contraceptives to Victims of Rape

In HLI

May victims of rape be administered a “Plan B” (levonorgestrel-only) contraceptive?

Catholic bishops, ethicists, and researchers have given a variety of answers to this question. Some forbid its use entirely, others permit it only after certain tests are done, still others allow it every time a victim of rape seeks care. This disparity in policy is primarily a result of the status of the science that continues to explore how this drug works. Recently a furor over the announcement by the German bishops that Plan B was approved for use at Catholic hospitals seemed to end with widespread confusion and a deepening of divisions between those who disagree on the issue. We believe that such a resolution on so important a question is completely unsatisfactory.

Given the findings of the latest science that Plan B may very well have an abortifacient or embryocidal effect, it is Human Life International’s position that all use of Plan B in Catholic hospitals should be discontinued. We respectfully request that all bishops and those who advise bishops on these matters reconsider as soon as possible the approval of Plan B for use in Catholic hospitals.

The Church’s moral teaching regarding this matter is summarized by the Bishops of the United States in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services:

A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault...It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum. (36)

With this moral principle in place, the question then becomes, Does Plan B cause early abortions? We set out to explore this through a series of articles published on our Truth and Charity Forum (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6). By publishing some of the strongest authors on the subject, all of whom approach the relevant science through the lens of orthodox Catholic moral theology, we wanted to provide a resource for bishops, and for those who advise bishops on the question of Plan B. Having researched the question and completed the series, HLI makes the following conclusions:

1.    Recent large and robust studies indicate that Levonorgestrel-only contraceptives such as Plan B rarely block ovulation, and most likely do result in the death of the embryo if administered during the first 4-5 days of the fertile window.*

2.    A Luteinizing Hormone (LH) protocol – a test whose outcome has been understood to determine whether a drug can be administered based on where the victim is in her cycle – cannot in fact detect that a woman is in these first days of her fertile window. Therefore a negative LH test may well encourage administration of Plan B precisely when it is most likely to cause an early direct abortion.**

3.    Because recent scientific studies have provided very strong data that indicates Plan B rarely has any contraceptive effects and is likely to have embryocidal effects, a medical practitioner cannot attain moral certainty that administration will not lead to early abortion.

4.    Since one cannot attain moral certainty that abortion will be avoided, protocols and policies that currently permit Catholic health care providers to administer Plan B need to be reconsidered by the appropriate diocesan authorities and hospital administrators. Nations in which abortion is illegal should be aware of this potential abortion-inducing effect and should prohibit the administration of these drugs.

These are our conclusions pending any developments in scientific research. Further, it appears that no contraceptive exists that is known to meet the reasonable criteria expressed by the Church above.

The urgency of addressing this matter comes to light when one considers the Church’s teaching regarding abortion expressed most recently in Dignitas personae:

It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived, and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion. … Therefore the use of means of interception…fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. (23)

Here we have considered the use of a contraceptive following the unjust act of rape. We must, however, also reaffirm the Church’s unchanged and unchangeable doctrine on both abortion and the contraception of the marital act – both remain morally illicit without exception. As Pope Paul VI wrote in Humanae vitae, “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” (11)

We hope that Catholic bishops and those who advise them in these issues will see the urgency of revisiting the approval of Plan B for treatment of women who have been raped. These women deserve the absolute best life-affirming care possible, and this care should not include drugs that only compound the violence already suffered by causing abortions.

Further, we ask those concerned both for women who suffer rape and for nascent human life to approach bishops on these questions with respect, and pray for our shepherds that these and all answers to questions about human life and dignity may express, in the words of Dignitas personae, “a great ‘yes’ to human life.”

__________________

* There is a distinction in the scientific community between an abortifacient effect, which disrupts a pregnancy after implantation, and an embryocidal effect, which is “interceptive” or prevents implantation. Plan B appears to have the latter, embryocidal, effect. Since a human life is destroyed in either case, the distinction is not moral but technical, so we have stayed with the common language term and note here the difference.

** Previous scientific statements on Plan B’s mechanism of action declared Plan B to work mainly by preventing ovulation. Recent scientific evidence suggests, however, that Plan B does not work by preventing ovulation. Moreover, recent scientific evidence also shows that Plan B has no effect on cervical mucus or sperm function. Finally, as suggested in Point 1, recent evidence suggests that due to shortening of the luteal phase and other indicators, Plan B may likely prevent the new embryo from implanting into the uterine wall, resulting in an embryocidal effect.

When in Doubt, Choose Life: Symposium on Plan B (Morning-after Pill): Part I - by Allison LeDoux

In Truth and Charity Forum 

Editor’s Note: The editors present this series (read part 2, part 3, part 4) on the recent furor over Plan B as an opportunity for our fellow pro-lifers to slow down, step out of activist mode, and enter into the conversation in a prayerful and thoughtful way.

The Church encourages conversation among faithful scientists and theologians as new science comes to light and as we deepen ethical reflection. Typically such conversations occur in academic settings, but since the recent furor pushed the issue into the open, causing much confusion and scandal, we felt it important to present the latest science and moral reflection in a context of faithful discussion.

We offer this series in a spirit of obedience to the Magisterium, and as an opportunity for faithful Catholics and people of good will to come to a greater understanding of the nuances of the Church’s teaching and the complexities of the science and art of medicine in the difficult situations involving the treatment of women who have been raped. There has been no (and will be no) revision in the Church’s teaching concerning direct abortion or contraceptive sexual acts between spouses. Both are morally illicit without exception.

As with all Truth and Charity Forum articles, opinions belong to the author alone and do not necessarily represent the official position of Human Life International.

---

It seems the infamous issue of emergency contraception (hereafter as EC) and rape victims is back in the news. In Germany, it was recently announced that Catholic hospitals would allow the “morning-after pill” to be given to victims of sexual assault. LifeSiteNews and other news sources have reported on the particulars of the situation. Our purpose here is not to repeat the news reports and analysis, but to consider some of the medical/moral questions that are often asked when the issue of administering “emergency contraception” to rape victims arises.

In the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, the guiding document that applies Catholic moral teaching to Catholic health care facilities in the U.S., directive 36 discusses the issue of treating victims of sexual assault:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. 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. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

No one would deny the need for sensitive and compassionate care to a person, who has been done such violence. The Church teaches that a female rape victim should be able to defend her bodily integrity. However, things can seem a little complicated when we look at exactly what that might entail, so let us try to clarify the issues at hand.

Directive 36 indicates the need for “appropriate testing” to determine if conception has occurred already. There are two types of testing: pregnancy testing and ovulation testing. Both however, have limitations.

A positive pregnancy test means the woman was already pregnant before the rape, and thus there would be no logical or medical reason for prescribing emergency contraception. A negative pregnancy test does not tell us whether or not the woman has conceived.

If conception has occurred (as a result of the rape, or even another act in the past few days), it still takes about a week for the newly conceived developing embryo to travel through the fallopian tube to implant in the uterus. A pregnancy is clinically detectable only after implantation.

Ovulation testing might make it possible to ascertain whether or not the woman was in the ovulatory phase of her cycle at the time of the rape. If it were possible to effectively determine that the woman was in an infertile time of her cycle, again there would be no logical or medical reason for prescribing EC. But, what is the likelihood that the victim would faithfully chart her cycles and could determine her fertile time with pinpoint accuracy? Additionally, ovulation testing, while helpful, can sometimes miss the hormone surge needed to determine the potential window for fertilization, so we have to ask, can we ever be truly sure that emergency contraception wouldn’t cause an abortion?

Let’s say, for the sake of example, that it is deemed “safe” for the victim to be offered drugs to prevent conception. Then we must ask the question, what drugs are capable of doing what Directive 36 defines as acceptable?

According to Directive 36, it is permissible to treat the victim with drugs that would be contraceptive per se, but it is not permissible “to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.” Reports on the recent controversy of the Catholic hospitals in Germany, indicate that this principle holds there as well.

It has not been proven that any of the drugs used to treat rape victims, which are commonly known as “morning-after pills” or “emergency contraception” (usually Plan B, NextChoice, or sometimes higher doses of regular birth control pills), only prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.

These drugs are purposefully designed to have multiple mechanisms of action. That is, they may sometimes prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization, but, they also may act as abortifacients by inhibiting the implantation of a newly conceived child in his or her mother’s womb. There is no way of knowing for sure when particular mechanisms of the drug will “kick in.”

To date, there is no such drug that meets both criteria (contraceptive, but not abortifacient).

Some studies mislead by suggesting there is no “post-fertilization” effect and claim the drugs only act by preventing conception. A study cited in the journal Contraception made this erroneous assertion in 2012. This study has been called into question because the lead author is affiliated with the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drug. Other researchers do admit to the post-fertilization (abortifacient) effects. EC proponent and researcher James Trussell, in a recent study, acknowledges that post-fertilization effects do exist.

It is always important to consider the source. What degrees of objectivity and truth are there in a given study or opinion? Proponents of contraception (“emergency” or otherwise) typically operate by a false definition of pregnancy, as beginning at implantation. This is approximately one week later than when pregnancy truly begins – at conception. God is not the author of confusion!

One of the best ways for us to understand what is at stake is to remember the classic analogy of the hunter in the woods. Two men are hunting deer. One goes off on his own. Suddenly the hunter hears a noise, and readies his gun. But, is it a deer or is it his hunting buddy returning? Obviously, the hunter would not proceed in doubt and risk shooting his hunting partner. Neither should we proceed in doubt by offering emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault when a human life may be at stake. One life lost is too many.

How do we sort through the conflict? With one simple axiom: “When in doubt, choose life!”

 read part 2, part 3, part 4

Raped women who had their babies defy pro-choice stereotypes - by Sarah Terzo

In LiveActionNews.org

Anyone who is been in the pro-life movement for a while has been confronted with the argument “Shouldn’t abortion be legal in cases where the woman has been raped?”

 

Even though, according to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, less than 1% of all abortions are performed on women who were raped or were victims of incest, pro-choice activists insist that abortion must be legal for these women, even if it leads to thousands of women a year having abortions for other reasons.

In fact, Roe v. Wade was based on the rape argument– Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff Jane Roe, claimed that she had been gang-raped and needed an abortion. Years later, she admitted that the rape story was false and was made up in order to garner sympathy for the pro-choice cause.

Pro-choicers have been very successful in convincing the general public that rape victims need abortions. Implied is the belief that women who are pregnant by rape cannot possibly want their children, that they could never be happy giving birth, and that it is completely unnatural for a woman to want to have a rapist’s baby.

When pro-choice activists argue that abortion must be legal in cases of rape, there is always one thing missing from their rhetoric – the voices of women who were raped and kept their babies. These are the people whom the pro-life and pro-choice movements should be listening to. These are the people who are intimately acquainted with the emotional trauma of rape and the horror of a pregnancy resulting from rape. And what they’re saying may surprise you.

Kathleen DeZeeuw, the mother of a child conceived in rape, spoke out against pro-choicers who were making the argument that abortion must be legal in cases of rape:

I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child ‘conceived in rape’, feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we’re being used to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve not been asked to tell our side of the story. (1)

How should people respond to a woman who has been raped and is considering abortion? DeZeeuw says:

As I stated before, a woman is most vulnerable at a time such as this, and doesn’t need to be pounced on by yet another act of violence. She needs someone to truly listen to her, care for her, and give her time to heal. (2)

DeZeeuw claims that many times, rape victims are pressured into having abortions by those around them. People are often very uncomfortable around a rape victim. They don’t know how to deal with her trauma, they don’t know how to comfort her, and many times they wish the problem would just go away, that she would “get over” it. These feelings are exacerbated when the rape victim is pregnant. When they say that a rape victim is constantly reminded of the assault by her pregnancy, they are actually saying that they themselves are constantly reminded of the assault by seeing her pregnant. While it is true that being pregnant after rape is very traumatic, rape victims who have kept their children often say that they wish the people around them had been more supportive.

Statistics about rape victims and abortion are surprising to many people. There have been two studies done about pregnant rape victims. In each study, 70% of the women chose to keep their babies. This defies the stereotype that all raped women want abortions. According to the two doctors who conducted one study, Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D.:

[This study indicates] that pregnancy need not impede the victim’s resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, nonjudgemental attitudes, and empathic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden or pregnancy. (3)

The second study, conducted in 2000, revealed that 78% of the 30% of women who had abortions after their rapes felt that they’d made the wrong decision and said that “abortion is not the answer for women who were raped.” In contrast, not a single one of the 70% who had their children regretted it. Some of these women had given up their babies for adoption, and some of them had kept their babies – but the unifying factor among all of them was that none of them regretted giving birth.

The statistics seem counterintuitive and almost impossible to believe. But they are true. Women who have their babies often have a better psychological outcome than women who do not. One woman who had an abortion after her rape spoke at a pro-life rally in Mississippi. Here is an excerpt from her testimony:

I was raped a month before I turned 18. And because of that rape I was so fearful and so shameful that I chose abortion, out of fear. My rape was nothing compared to what I did to my child. What my rapist did to me does not compare to what I chose to do to my baby. My rapist didn’t kill me, I’m standing here alive right now. I have three beautiful children at home and a husband who loves me. But I chose to kill my child out of the shame, out of guilt, out of fear because of what a man did to me. Rape is no excuse for abortion. I want to say that. … I’m tired, as a person who was raped and a person who had an abortion, I’m telling you right now, I’m tired of using rape as an excuse. … For years I lived in depression, contemplated suicide, attempted suicide, I spend years drinking to numb the pain, to numb the horrific nightmares, was later diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, not just because of the rape but because of the abortion. We have got to speak up, it’s not just about the babies, it’s about the moms like me who think they’re making a good decision but they’re not.

You can see a video of the entire testimony here.

Another woman who was raped and had her baby speaks out:

We are so under represented in the media…..but we might have to fight back with brutal honesty to show up the lies. I was raped, suppressed it and a growing belly for 7 months, had a baby girl, and placed her for adoption. If you hear anyone use the stupid line again, “well what if you were raped, then why should you have to carry to term a baby?” Pleas [sic] refer them to me! I’m sick of them persuading people on stuff they don’t even bother asking a real woman that has been through it …Why do they assume automatically women can’t handle it? Two wrongs don’t make a right. I am so mad at the abortion industry, I can’t explain it. It’s just that they would made it so easy for me to walk in the door and kill my daughter that first day I found out I was pregnant (without telling my parents or anyone first) luckily I didn’t thanks to God taking over. My opinion on everything changed full over after just a few days of letting the fact that this is a little life, sink in. But they made it so easy for me to kill my daughter, and since she means the world to me today, this grudge isn’t going to ever go away[.] … (5)

Another woman was grateful that her rape occurred before Roe versus Wade and she did not have the option of abortion:

Never, in the years after her birth, did I ever regret giving life to my daughter. However, there have been many times when I have looked back grateful that no state legislature had provided an easy, instant answer of a free abortion for me. I’m grateful because, at that time, I might have bought into the lie that an abortion would fix all my problems. But fortunately that temptation wasn’t there. (6)

Another woman who was raped and had her baby, identified as Sharon, says:

There is no doubt in my mind that abortion should be discouraged. Abortion is a terrible way of dealing with a pregnancy resulting from rape, although I suppose it is a way for people to ignore the victim and her needs. (7)

Rape counselor Joan Kemp agrees:

After sexual assault there is, for varying lengths of time, a natural revulsion toward anything associated with the rape. That may include the location, or characteristics of the rapist such as clothing, race, mustache, etc. It is normal for this feeling to attach to the unborn child conceived in rape. However, these feelings normally fade with time. When this does not happen spontaneously, counseling with someone qualified to treat rape victims is highly effective. Rape victims I have worked with were quite aware and distressed by the inappropriateness of these feelings. They would not, for instance, have welcomed anyone telling them that men of their attacker’s race are natural criminals. Nor do women welcome being told that their children conceived in rape are unworthy of life, genetically prone to crime, and bound to feel unwanted and bitter. A person in crisis is seeking positive solutions, not a counsel of despair. (8)

Lee Ezell, author of the book The Missing Piece (Servant Publishing) was raped and became pregnant. She describes meeting her daughter, whom she gave up for adoption:

We met for the first time just a month after our first phone conversation. There are no words to describe my exact feelings as Julie walked into my hotel room.
Here was the child whose memory I’d hidden in my heart for so many years, the child who has given me my first grandchildren[.] …
She embraced me. We cried. Bob [her husband] said with all the love in the world in his voice: “Thank you for not aborting Julie. What would my life be like without her?”
…
Finding my daughter has enriched my life beyond measure. The couple, who adopted her, Eileen and Harold Anderson, are beautiful people.
Julie, Eileen and I have been speaking to various groups about what happened to us. I guess our message is that just as bad things can happen to good people, so can something beautiful come from a wicked act. Julie is living proof of it. (9)

A woman who was raped and had a child wrote a letter to the editor:

Consider my beautiful daughter, Jessica. She is eight months old, has no teeth but a full head of hair and seems to be developing a fondness for Apple juice. She is loved by me, her grandparents, her uncle and her two sisters more than words can say.
She is also a child conceived during a rape.
I was raped in 1992. I did my civic duty and reported the rape. I worked with the assistant district attorney to prosecute my assailant. He was eventually pronounced “not guilty” because date rape is difficult to prove.
When I discovered I was pregnant from the assault, I was horrified. I debated long and hard over what choice I should make.
Common sense would dictate that an abortion was the answer, right? Wrong. No matter how hideous my child’s conception had been (and rape is a degrading, demoralizing act that alters one’s whole life), I knew that there was a life growing inside me. I chose to accept this child is being my baby – not the rapist’s. My friends and family supported me 100%, but the choice was mine to make and I know I made the right one.
All children are gifts from God. It makes no difference how they are conceived.
I feared I would see my rapist’s face every time I looked at my child – but I don’t. I see a beautiful, happy, little girl who wasn’t planned and wasn’t the result of an act of love – but nonetheless is loved very, very much. (10)

The woman who gave this testimony is not the only person who fell in love with a child conceived by rape. Rebekah Berg, who was raped and chose to give life to her son, told the following story in Courageous, the new book by Kristin Hawkins which profiles pro-life young pro-life activists from around the country.

My son is the product of rape, and he is the exception to the rule, as they say. Multitudes of women in my situation have had abortions, giving different reasons for their choice. But that child is still a child, no matter how he or she was conceived. I certainly did not choose to be raped and definitely did not choose to become pregnant. No more did my child ask to be conceived. I had no right to take his life because of the horrible situation that happened to me.
The thought that he would bear the same genes of my rapist was one of the questions that continue to linger at my soul during my pregnancy. Was I going to birth another rapist? Was I doing more harm than good with giving him life? My own son’s gentle spirit and thoughtfulness of others confirms that there is not a “rapist gene.” When I look into my son’s eyes, I only have love and have only loved him since he was laid on my chest after birthing him. (11)

None of these women who chose to have their children after rape would say that their decision was easy. The trauma of being raped can haunt the victim for the rest of her life. But adding abortion to that trauma often exacerbates the situation.

These women, and thousands of others, have discovered that giving birth to their babies allowed them to rise above the rape, to commit a truly selfless act, and to heal. It is most of all important for rape victims to have the support of those around them, whether they are pregnant or not. In cases where they are pregnant, we should not give them “the counsel of despair.” Rather, we should encourage them to make a choice that both they and their baby can live with. We should remember that when we oppose abortion in the case of rape victims, we are not just saving babies – we’re helping women as well.

1. David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa, and Amy Sobie. “Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting From Sexual Assault” Springfield, IL: Acorn Books 2000) p 46
2. Ibid.
3. Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D. “Sexual Assault and Pregnancy” in Thomas Hulgers, Dennis Horan and David Mall, “New Perspectives on Human Abortion” (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1981) 194
4. David C. Reardon, et al. “Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting From Sexual Assault”
5. Message to Pro-Life Blogs February 8, 2009 http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2009/02/abortion_after.php
6. David C. Reardon, et al. “Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting From Sexual Assault” 94
7. David C. Reardon, et al. “Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting From Sexual Assault” 89
8. Joan Kemp “Abortion: The Second Rape” SisterLife, Winter 1990 Feminists for Life of America, 811 E. 47th St. Kansas City, MO 64100
9. Lee Ezell “I Was Raped” Lovematters.com advertising supplement, Vol. 18, 2009
10. Tamara L Roleff. Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (San Diego, Greenhaven Press, 1997) 137-138
11. Kristin Hawkins. Courageous: Students Abolishing Abortion in This Lifetime (Students for Life of America, 2012) 16

UN Event Promotes Life in the "Tough Cases" - by Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

NEW YORK, March 8 (C-FAM) As UN delegates in closed rooms debate language regarding access to abortion for women who have been violated, two women at an event blocks away presented a powerful argument for breaking the cycle of violence by rejecting abortion even when the child's conception is the result of rape.

When people say that women pregnant by rape should get an abortion, "I can tell you that it hurts," said Rebecca Kiessling. She was conceived in a brutal rape. "But I do understand that people don't put a face to this issue. For most it is just a concept." Read More

German Bishops “Approve” a Morning-After Pill that Does Not Exist - by Steven W. Mosher

In PRI 

According to a new statement by the German Bishops’ Conference, Catholic physicians and hospitals can now prescribe and administer the morning-after pill (MAP) in cases where a woman is a victim of sexual assault as long as it does not cause an abortion.

The trouble with this declaration is that the morning-after pill is a known abortifacient. While it acts in some cases by preventing conception, in others it prevents the implantation of an already conceived human being. The embryo is aborted. Because it is impossible to say in any given case how it will act, a MAP abortion is always a possibility.

How did the German Bishops’ Conference come to such a pass? The short answer is that it caved under intense media pressure.      

Last month in Cologne a woman who claimed to be a victim of sexual assault was given a prescription for the “morning after pill” by an emergency center doctor, Irmgard Maiworm. Maiworm later claimed that she had contacted nearby St. Vincent’s Hospital to do a follow-up exam on the woman but was refused.  Both the hospital and the Cologne Archdiocese later denied that potential rape victims were being turned away.

Pardon me for thinking the whole scenario was a set-up.  

Set-up or not, much of the German media seized the opportunity to attack Catholic hospitals and, by extension, the Church itself, for “refusing to treat victims of sexual assault.” At this point the German Episcopal Conference attempted to placate its critics by announcing that it had approved the use of certain kinds of MAP in rape cases.

It justified its about face by referring to a presentation by Cardinal Karl Lehmann (Mainz), the president of the Doctrinal Commission of the German Bishops’ Conference. Cardinal Lehmann called for the use of the “morning after pill” to be reevaluated in the light of new formulations of the pill which may only prevent conception, not implantation. The text does not identify these “new formulations,” however.

Now as far as we at PRI are aware, no MAP pill exists, whatever its chemical formula, that does not prevent implantation at least part of the time. The "new formulations" referred to by the German bishops that supposedly do not cause abortions do not, in fact, exist.

If such formulations existed, then Bayer Schering Pharma, the principal manufacturer of MAP, would surely be shouting it from the rooftops. The company would prevail on the FDA to stop calling MAP an anti-implantation drug. It would shut down its shadow MAP factories in Latin America, which it created in order to avoid having the abortion controversy negatively impact its other business there. But Bayer Schering is doing none of these things.

Instead, the company has this to say about its latest MAP, Levonelle:
 

The precise mode of action of Levonelle One Step is not known.

At the recommended regimen, levonorgestrel is thought to work mainly by preventing ovulation and fertilisation if intercourse has taken place in the preovulatory phase, when the likelihood of fertilisation is the highest. It may also cause endometrial changes that discourage implantation. Levonelle One Step is not effective once the process of implantation has begun. (italics added)

Not to mince words, but if you “discourage” a human embryo from implanting then you kill it, plain and simple, by denying it nutrition and hydration.

There have always been those who—whatever cocktail of chemicals a particular brand of MAP contained—have denied an abortifacient effect. Their usual tactic is to define MAP abortions out of existence.  They do this by claiming, falsely, that pregnancy begins at implantation, not conception. Thus they are able to tell women who have already conceived that “MAP can’t cause you to abort because you are not pregnant.”

To their credit, the German Bishops’ Conference does not rely on this “implantation deception” in approving MAP. But it is equally unscientific for the Conference to claim that “non-abortifacient” morning after pills exist in the absence of evidence of same.  

Where human lives are at stake, we must always err on the side of caution.   

As far as rape is concerned, the Church’s position is clear: In the strictest sense, rape is not a sexual act at all, but is rather a violent assault where the victim has the right to self-defense. To put it bluntly, the rapist has no right to have his sperm fertilize the eggs of the woman he has raped. It is therefore permissible to prevent his sperm from doing so by removing them from the body of a woman who has been thus violated. If there were a pill that acted only to prevent conception in cases of rape, then it would be licit to use it.

Once conception has occurred, however, the situation changes, since another human being has come into existence and, as such, is deserving of protection. The German Bishops’ Conference rightly rules out the use of “any methods that involve the death of the embryo.” To reiterate: every known morning after pill has abortifacient effects.

The German Bishops’ Conference has neatly boxed itself in. On the one hand it wishes, in cases of rape, to authorize the use of a kind of morning-after pill that does not exist. On the other hand it condemns the use of all kinds of morning-after pills that do exist.

 

This confusion has, not surprisingly, invited attack from those who wish to see the moral authority of the Church destroyed. A number of German media outlets have editorialized that the “approval” of MAP does not go far enough, and that the Church needs to accept abortion, at least in cases of rape. By the way, they add, it should also ordain women.

We hope the German Bishops’ Conference will reconsider its statement as soon as possible.

Pírulas dos dias seguintes - por Nuno Serras Pereira

27. 02. 2013

O Cardeal Meisner autorizou que nos hospitais da sua Diocese se recorresse à “pílula do dia seguinte” nos casos de mulheres violadas, uma vez que alguns desses fármacos não teriam efeitos abortivos mas somente anovulatórios, isto é impediriam a ovulação no caso de esta não ter ocorrido, mas nos casos em que a fecundação se tivesse verificado não estorvariam a nidação da pessoa recentemente concebida no aconchego do seio ou útero materno. A ortodoxia do Senhor Cardeal na declaração Doutrinal que faz é inatacável: se um fármaco não tem efeitos abortivos deve ser aplicado nos casos de violação para, no caso de que a ovulação não tenha ocorrido, se evite a concepção. Já a decisão, que deriva do seu poder de governo eclesial, de autorização da pílula do dia seguinte nos hospitais não goza de autoridade Magisterial (Doutrinal), mas trata-se tão-somente de uma decisão prudencial (ou imprudente…) que pode, e talvez deva, ser discutível. Por isso, não admira que tenha estalado a polémica no mundo católico. Em defesa do Cardeal Meisner saiu a Conferência Episcopal alemã. Numa entrevista informal, o Presidente da Academia Pontifícia para a Vida, o Bispo (Opus Dei) Ignacio Carrasco di Paula, um eminente Académico na área da Bioética, confirmou a Doutrina e adiantou que a verificação da abortividade dos fármacos competia aos médicos. Se interpreto bem as suas declarações, julgo que poderão dar azo a alguma ambiguidade, não lançando um esclarecimento definitivo sobre o assunto. Entretanto, Bispos, médicos eminentes e mesmo, pelo menos, uma Conferência Episcopal, pelo seu porta-voz, têm repudiado as conclusões da Conferência Episcopal alemã.

Para delimitar bem o problema creio ser importante esclarecer, desde já, que nos casos de violação a toma de um fármaco cuja finalidade seja o de impedir a fecundação, do ponto de vista moral, não é de modo nenhum um acto contraceptivo. Para que se dê um acto contraceptivo é necessário que se intente (voluntariamente) esterilizar uma entrega mútua, livremente consentida, que de si poderia dar origem a uma nova pessoa humana. É isto que a Igreja ensina ser intrinsecamente perverso, uma vez que separa propositadamente os significados de união e de procriação, e que não admite excepções. Ora, a violação não é um acto de união mas sim de violenta invasão.

A polémica, toda ela, centra-se pois na capacidade abortiva, ou não, da pílula do dia seguinte (pds) (expressão usada pela Conferência Episcopal alemã). Nesta controvérsia estão implicados médicos eminentes, que contestam, com erudição e perspicácia, os estudos apresentados ao Episcopado alemão que o terá levado à decisão de autorizar algum tipo de pds, nos casos de violação. Pelo que me parece totalmente compreensível a reacção da Conferência Episcopal espanhola quando afirma que se a Conferência Episcopal alemã possui estudos credíveis, sem falhas nem manigâncias, que os mostre para apreciação pública. O eminente médico Renzo Puccetti, da Academia Pontifícia da Vida, critica vigorosamente os estudos que pretensamente “provam” a não abortividade de um dos preparados da pds e reclama que a Conferência Episcopal alemã peça um parecer formal à Academia Pontifícia da Vida.

Com tanta divergência entre gente tão graúda e qualificada parece-me elementar que se recorra ao princípio da precaução. Isto é, que não se aplique tal fármaco na dúvida de ter ocorrido ou não a ovulação; pois se não existe a certeza (objectiva e não meramente subjectiva) de que um acto irá assassinar uma pessoa eminentemente inocente e vulnerável, como é o ser humano quando desponta para a vida, é elementar reconhecer que só se pode suspender tal acto. 

Espera-se pois que a Santa Sé venha a tomar, tão depressa quanto possível, uma posição clara sobre este assunto da maior gravidade, pois estamos todos meio pírulas nos dias seguintes a estas controvérsias