Rape, Abortion, D&C

[Guest :: Sinner ::]

My daughter attends a Catholic high school. They were discussing abortion. She relates that they were informed that after a rape, a D&C usually happens, and that with this procedure abortion may be an indirect result.... but because the result is indirect, the Catholic Church accepts this procedure after rape. True or False? I say false. Please advise and any supportive documentation would be great.

Thank you.....

[Laudate_Dominum]

That statment is categorically false.

1. An abortion procedure is not the "indirect result" of an act of rape.
2. The Catholic Church teaches that there are no circumstances in which procured abortion can be morally justified; it is an intrinsically evil act.

The Catholic Church does not endorse procured abortion in the case of rape and the principle of double effect in no way supports direct abortion but on the contrary condemns it.

According to the principle of double effect the action (in this case abortion) must be either good or morally indifferent, however abortion is of itself intrinsically evil.

Based on Catholic teaching it is never morally permissible to undergo an abortion procedure because the direct action is in all circumstances intrinsically evil.

[i]"What could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou shalt not kill:"[50] The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the "law of extreme necessity" which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent...Evil is not to be done that good may come of it."[/i] - Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI

[i]"If it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promoe a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow there from...in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. "[/i] - Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI

[i]"If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular cicumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain 'irremediably' evil acts per se and in themselves … Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by nature of its object [the kind of act willed] into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice... Furthermore, an intention is good when it has as its aim the true good of the person in view of his ultimate end. But acts whose object is "not capable of being ordered" to God and "unworthy of the human person" are always and in every case in conflict with that good."[/i] - Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II

The assertion that a D&C (Dilation and Curettage) procedure is usually performed after rape strikes me as false. As a form of abortion D&C is a second trimester procedure involving the scraping of the uterine wall and the dismemberment of the unborn child. The other type of D&C procedure as I understand it is used to remove tissue following a problematic miscarriage or to obtain a sample of the uterine lining for diagnostic purposes or something else of this sort.
My understanding is that hospitals make use of the so-called "morning-after pill" following rape, and that the vagina is swabbed and cleaned (perhaps a spermicidal douche is used), but the idea of a D&C procedure immediately following rape makes no sense. As far as I can tell this procedure would only make sense in the second trimester as a form of procured abortion.

In any case, the heinous fact of rape would not make a D&C abortion, or any other direct abortion procedure, a morally permissible act. In fact, the "morning-after pill" is also unjustifiable because of its abortifacient effects.

For a more complete explanation of the use of the principle of double effect with regards to abortion check this out:
[url="http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html"]Abortion and Natural Law[/url]

Some Church Documents:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html"]Declaration on Procured Abortion[/url]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html"]Statement on the so-called 'morning-after pill'[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

phatty thought I should add something from our private conversation.. Here are quotes from our PM convo:

You [phatty] quoted the key point in my post that answers this question. In ectopic pregnancy the life of the mother and child are in immanent danger and a medical procedure must be carried out which puts the child's life at risk. Based on the principle of double-effect this endangerment of the child is a justified secondary effect of the act in question (life saving surgery). The categorical difference between this and procured abortion is that the act of abortion is intrinsically evil of itself, whereas life saving surgery in a situation such as ectopic pregnancy is morally neutral or possibly good. There is no directly intended killing of the child.
That CUF article agrees with this and I don't have any problems with it. It says:

[i]"In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion"[/i]

[i]"There can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child."[/i]

The article I linked up [speaking of my above post here in the QA: [url="http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html"]Abortion and Natural Law[/url]] explains the principle of double effect in some detail if you're interested. 90% of the time when I read posts where people bring this principle into the discussion they are grossly misapplying it. Here is the gist:

1. The action to be performed must be good in itself, or at least indifferent.
2. The evil effect must not be directly intended for itself but only permitted to happen as an accidental by-product of the act performed.
3. The good intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effects.
4. There must be a resonably grave reason for permitting the evil effect.

[i]"That these examples of 'other medical actions' are not morally licit unless all four conditions of the principle of double effect are fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, even though the other three are, those medical actions are morally wrong."[/i]

In short, a pregnant woman who is faced with the grim reality of impending death short of the use of, e.g., chemotherapy or hysterectomy, may use these and other morally licit medical treatments an procedures for the reasonably grave reason of saving her life, as long as the death of her unborn child is not directly intended as the end (or purpose) of using these procedures, or is the means by which her life is saved, but only allowed or permitted o happen as an accidental by-product of these medical actions, and no other reasonable medical treatment is available. However, the directly intended death of an unborn child by means of procured abortion remains morally indefensible - even to save the life of the mother, or for the best of intentions, or under very difficult circumstances - even in the case of incest or rape.

The link to phatty's article:
[url="http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57"]http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57[/url]

Another related article on the morning after pill:
[url="http://catholicinsight.com/online/bioethics/mornpill.shtml"]http://catholicinsight.com/online/bioethics/mornpill.shtml[/url]