Condom use in case of rape

[manualman]

Fair criticism 1ke.

I still think the premise is absurd, but for hypothetical discussion sake.

1. Catholicism teaches that contraception is wrong because it purposely sterilizes married sex at time when God’s order of nature intends that it be fertile. By intentionally sterilizing it, the couple change from being mutually giving to mutually taking.
2. There is no sacred unitive OR procreative function to rape. A woman has a right to protect herself from the rapist in virtually any way possible AND to protect herself from his semen right up to, but not beyond the point at which sperm and egg join and form an INNOCENT new human person.
3. Since using this hypothetical condom as a defense during rape would NOT violate #1 or #2 above, there is really no moral problem with it, if you can swallow the utter impracticality aspect of deploying the thing during a rape…

In fact, I have argued in the past, based on my understanding of the whole issue that a woman familiar with where she is in her cycle and is raped during the early days in which ovulation has not yet occurred would be morally justified in taking “emergency contraception” (i.e. the pill) to prevent ovulation. She could NOT, however use it if she had already ovulated as it would in that case function as a chemical abortion by preventing implantation. This is based on the underpinning of WHY contraception is immoral in the first place - none of those reasons apply in the case of a rape. As far as I know, there is no authoritative teaching on this matter and theologians disagree. If I’m wrong, I’d like to be pointed to such authoritative teaching…

 

[agapewolf]

Fair criticism 1ke.

I still think the premise is absurd, but for hypothetical discussion sake.

1. Catholicism teaches that contraception is wrong because it purposely sterilizes married sex at time when God’s order of nature intends that it be fertile. By intentionally sterilizing it, the couple change from being mutually giving to mutually taking.
2. There is no sacred unitive OR procreative function to rape. A woman has a right to protect herself from the rapist in virtually any way possible AND to protect herself from his semen right up to, but not beyond the point at which sperm and egg join and form an INNOCENT new human person.
3. Since using this hypothetical condom as a defense during rape would NOT violate #1 or #2 above, there is really no moral problem with it, if you can swallow the utter impracticality aspect of deploying the thing during a rape…

In fact, I have argued in the past, based on my understanding of the whole issue that a woman familiar with where she is in her cycle and is raped during the early days in which ovulation has not yet occurred would be morally justified in taking “emergency contraception” (i.e. the pill) to prevent ovulation. She could NOT, however use it if she had already ovulated as it would in that case function as a chemical abortion by preventing implantation. This is based on the underpinning of WHY contraception is immoral in the first place - none of those reasons apply in the case of a rape. As far as I know, there is no authoritative teaching on this matter and theologians disagree. If I’m wrong, I’d like to be pointed to such authoritative teaching…

Actually, you are correct…this was mentioned earlier in this thread I think. I think this is a worthwhile intellectual exercise.

The bishops up in new england recently (about 2 years ago), had to deal with the hospitals allowing for emergency contraception. That is why it is allowed in that case, because it is a defense against a violation. I realize this is probably not definitive church teaching as it stands, but it makes sense to me.

(The issue of whether “emergency contraception” really works as it says is a whole different issue- this is a theoretical discussion).

 

[Rach620]

I agree with others who have said that we ought to re-focus our discussion on the topic at hand, rather than talk about how it is absurd to expect a rapist to put on a condom per his victim’s request.

In a couple of my earlier posts I tried to broaden the discussion to the use of non-abortifacient forms of contraception by rape victims during or after an attack. This is the real issue here, the one over which we seem to be debating: Is it morally licit for a rape victim to use any sort of non-abortifacient contraceptive method in order to prevent conceiving during her rape or to prevent contracting an STD from her rapist?

I posted earlier two different directives from the USCCB on this topic. The directive to Catholic hospitals in the US is yes, non-abortifacient methods of contraception can be used to treat a rape victim who comes into a Catholic hospital following her rape. For example, it would be licit for a rape victim to use spermicide, for her hormone levels to be tested to see if she has ovulated yet, and to administer drugs to suppress imminent ovulation (so long as these drugs do not also have abortifacient effects).

The principles at work, from my amateur reading, seem to be that: (1) Deliberate ending of a human life is always intrinsically evil; (2) The use of contraception when a woman has been raped falls under the realm of self-defense from the effects of an act of which she was a victim, not a freely willing (and therefore responsible) participant.

What really needs to be emphasized is that the moral guidelines regarding birth control that the Church offers to married couples do not apply in the case of rape. Rape is not the marital embrace; rape is a violent crime, a crime of power, which just happens to be sexual in nature. Contraception use in marriage is illicit because it violates the sacramental gift of husband and wife to one another in the marital embrace–it frustrates the procreative end of sex. Rape has neither unitive nor procreative meanings. It is a violent crime in which sex is the weapon. Rape itself is an abuse of the gifts of God, both of the woman herself and the gift of sex as well. A woman can defend herself with proportionate means that do not also attack the dignity of innocent human persons (ie, end the life of her preborn child). This is what the USCCB seems to be saying, anyway.

 

[dixieagle]

LOL at some of the responses here… If you’re going to carry something on you to protect you from a rapist, can’t you come up with something better than a condom? How about something useful like a gun or at least some pepper spray? Also since we’re presuming here that the rapist is going to suddenly stop and listen to whatever you have to say, that would only make it all the more easy for you to tell him, “oh, hold on a second… let me just reach into my purse to get this condom that I carry around with me…” And then BAM! A bullet, mace, whatever, right in the head before he even knows what hit him.

A condom… haha… honestly, people…

I think we can all agree that the original question was hypothetical in the extreme, but, she asked…

 

[dixieagle]

I agree with others who have said that we ought to re-focus our discussion on the topic at hand, rather than talk about how it is absurd to expect a rapist to put on a condom per his victim’s request.

In a couple of my earlier posts I tried to broaden the discussion to the use of non-abortifacient forms of contraception by rape victims during or after an attack. This is the real issue here, the one over which we seem to be debating: Is it morally licit for a rape victim to use any sort of non-abortifacient contraceptive method in order to prevent conceiving during her rape or to prevent contracting an STD from her rapist?

I posted earlier two different directives from the USCCB on this topic. The directive to Catholic hospitals in the US is yes, non-abortifacient methods of contraception can be used to treat a rape victim who comes into a Catholic hospital following her rape. For example, it would be licit for a rape victim to use spermicide, for her hormone levels to be tested to see if she has ovulated yet, and to administer drugs to suppress imminent ovulation (so long as these drugs do not also have abortifacient effects).

The principles at work, from my amateur reading, seem to be that: (1) Deliberate ending of a human life is always intrinsically evil; (2) The use of contraception when a woman has been raped falls under the realm of self-defense from the effects of an act of which she was a victim, not a freely willing (and therefore responsible) participant.

What really needs to be emphasized is that the moral guidelines regarding birth control that the Church offers to married couples do not apply in the case of rape. Rape is not the marital embrace; rape is a violent crime, a crime of power, which just happens to be sexual in nature. Contraception use in marriage is illicit because it violates the sacramental gift of husband and wife to one another in the marital embrace–it frustrates the procreative end of sex. Rape has neither unitive nor procreative meanings. It is a violent crime in which sex is the weapon. Rape itself is an abuse of the gifts of God, both of the woman herself and the gift of sex as well. A woman can defend herself with proportionate means that do not also attack the dignity of innocent human persons (ie, end the life of her preborn child). This is what the USCCB seems to be saying, anyway.

Once again, you put this all in context so beautifully, Rach.

 

[Rach620]

I think though (I emphasize ‘I think’) that there is a difference between taking something that has as a primary purpose contraception (which is morally evil in the sense that it is deliberately used to prevent pregnancy through a barrier) and using it in a secondary sense as a possible defense against disease.

But it is a very narrow ‘defense’. Because it does open up some further gray areas.

I need to go back and look at Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii, and JP2’s TOB, but I am fairly certain that “contraception…deliberately used to prevent pregnancy through a barrier” is not intrinsically morally evil in every case. It is evil in every case in which a married couple chooses to use it when they freely choose to engage in sexual intercourse because it frustrates the ends of the sacred act which they, as husband and wife, are engaging in. Intention and circumstances are important.

Again, we are not talking about married sex here. We’re talking about a violent attack which is sexual in nature. In my mind it is an entirely different circumstance in which the beautiful teaching set forth for married men and women to live out their vocation chastely does not easily apply, if it applies at all.

A woman who is raped has the right to defend herself against the possible effects of that attack–pregnancy included. A rapist’s sperm is not sacred.

Like: If it is morally licit in this scenario, then what else will open up? If to protect against disease, then what else? it will be argued that the disease threatens the life of the victim, and that certain pregnancies also ‘threaten the life’ and if you permit it for the one, why not the other?

This is not just about protection against disease in every situation. It is about this situation, where a woman is raped, and what she is able to do in order to defend herself from the potential effects of the attack. As long as she is not harming the innocent life of a child which she may have conceived, I see nothing in Church teaching which would prevent her from seeking to prevent conception by any and all possible non-abortifacient means.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m no expert in rape prevention, but if rape is a realistic and possibly imminent concern, I can imagine better defensive measures than conventional condoms.

Right. First, if you find yourself out after dark in a scary part of town, walk quickly and purposefully - project “I am expected; I know where I am going; I will be missed if I don’t show up in the next five minutes.”

Second, when out walking, even if it’s only a short distance, always wear shoes you can run in - if you can’t run, you are an easier target. Carry your pretty shoes in a bag, and put them on when you reach your final destination.

Third: Make direct eye contact with anyone who seems to be following you. Be able to describe him to the police, if it turns out to be necessary. If he is staring at you, say to him in a loud voice, “Are you lost, or something?” If he turns out to be a common beggar, he will ask for money (for pity’s sake, don’t show him where you keep your wallet, whatever you decide regarding giving him something). If possible, find a store that is open, and “browse” until the guy goes away. If he lurks in wait, buy something in a spray can that you can use as a weapon to spray in the guy’s face. If the clerk seems like someone who can help you (ie: not a teenager) mention to him or her that you feel like you are being followed.

Under no circumstances should you go anywhere with a stranger, no matter how “nice” or “harmless” he may seem.

If he attacks you right on the street, drop your purse (or hit him with it), and then grab his arms and spread them apart while driving your knee as hard as you can between his legs and up into his groin. If he doesn’t go down, bite, scratch,and kick him until he does. When he goes down, don’t stand there and wait to see if he is okay - just grab your purse and run! As soon as you feel safe, call the police, tell them what happened, and give them a description of the guy. If you left a mark on him (ie: if you bit him or scratched him) describe the mark - what you did, and where (ie: bite mark on his left hand).