Condoms to prevent HIV infection during rape

[fix]

To restrain the aggressor if possible, but if not a weapon can be used to wound or kill as a last resort.
A condom is not acceptable against a rape or disease. The Church has made that clear.

The sperm is an unjust aggressor. It has no right to be there. Once fertilization takes place the story changes.

You would be correct if we were talking about mutual embrace. But, we are not talking of sexual intercourse. We are talking about rape.

 

[BiologyBrain]

First of all rape is never permissible so why should the use of a condom be condoned in such a situation? The woman being raped is the one being wronged, and therefore the one being sinned against. No conditions that the rapist does will make the rape right. Also, if a woman did plead with her attacker to use a condom then, and we’ve seen it before in the court system, the rapist’s lawyer can argue that the act was consensual. Besides, why should the rapist consent to such conditions unless the rapist thought it would lessen its crime if not outright erase it. If the rapist was to be considerate to its victim then the rapist would never commit its nefarious crime.
I see no reason for The Church to condone the use of condoms in any situation because, once She does the that’ll be a crack that the misguided will use to try and force the use in a much broader sense.

I completely agree!

1. Rape is never permissible within the Church. It is always wrong. Why double the wrong, but using a condom?
2. Rapists are not generally comply to their victim’s pleas for anything. If they did, the rape would not happen. So this is a stretch at best.
3. Condoms do not always protect against STDs - HIV included. Just think about it this way… A sperm cells is visible using a normal light microscope - clearly visible using an oil immersion lens, but discernable at about 400x magnification. An HIV ‘cell’ is only visible using electron microscopes - ie greater than 10000x magnfication. If sperm cells get through condoms at a fairly regular rate, don’t you think HIV ‘cells’ would get through at a higher rate?
4. During a rape, the woman can and should do anything & everything she can to prevent the rape from happening. If that means she squirms out from underneath her attacker mid-way through (thereby resulting in coitus interuptus/withdrawl), there is no moral concern b/c as previous posters indicated, it is non-consensual and she is protecting herself from and unjust attacker. However, as a previous poster indicated, the victim’s insistence and the rapist compliance on using a condom would make the case harder to prosecute. The condom does not negate the rape in any way. It also doesn’t mean the rapist won’t cause other injuries that can/will lead to transmission of his disease as well. Its not uncommon for rapists to ejaculate in other orifices, cause injuries (resulting in an opening of the skin), ejaculate in other areas, penetrate prior to using the condom (pre-ejaculate also contains sperm cells & ‘viral cells’), etc.
5. The morning after pill may appear to be licit according to the CCC, but if you do your research properly, you’ll find that it is next to impossible to meet the critera required. The requirement is to be sure that conception has not taken place. There is no accurate test for conception until after implantation has occurred. Even if a woman uses NFP and ‘knows’ when she ovulates, there is always a chance that ovulation has not occurred when she thinks or that the sperm cells or egg can survive longer than average. There is also no accurate test for exactly when ovulation has occurred or will occur. Even those tests used for IVF (which usually involve transvaginal ultrasound) are not 100% accurate.

For those who wonder about the actual percentage of condom use in rapes, I know through my job as a forensic biologist, that MOST rapists do NOT use condoms. Even date-rapists, who are theoretically having consensual sex w/ their date don’t generally use condoms. Even fewer make the victim wash-up after the assault. Even in this day & age where everyone ‘knows’ about DNA, rapists (criminals in general) think they are above the law &/or that they won’t get caught. Some rely on intimidating the victim to get her not to report. Some rely on the victim’s past to protect him during court. Some rely on he-said-she-said. Most of them don’t think beyond the moment & the power trip they get from subverting our God-given sexuality.

I think those who think a rape victim should shout at the rapist to use a condom are not being realistic. In a way, it seems to me that should the victim not shout out for condom use, there are some who are blaming the victim for the rape &/or transmission of the disease. Rape is not the well-planned, easily defended measure many think of it. It happens quickly and with very little time ofr thought, much less intense thought like that required for requesting condom use. Most victims are lucky to be able to protest before penetration. In many of my cases, the protestation occurs after the rape/penetration has commenced. In these cases, it is clearly too late for condom use, even if the rapist would comply.

All in all, I think people think condoms are a silver bullet against disease transmission and pregnancy. However, at best condoms are a band-aid that may offer some protection, but in reality, practical use, fail to give more than a small amount of protection.

 

[Jermosh]

To restrain the aggressor if possible, but if not a weapon can be used to wound or kill as a last resort.
A condom is not acceptable against a rape or disease. The Church has made that clear.

That is a false statement. usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

 

[turtle18]

This is a pretty hypothetical situation, indeed. I’m certain that if the rapist, by a long stretch of the imagination, agreed to use a condom, then it would be okay with the Pope. The whole scenario is implausible however.

And what in the situation where there is a Siamese twin, one of them being a eunuch, the other not–if he rapes a woman, is his Siamese twin liable? Suppose he decides to use a condom and his Siamese twin doesn’t stop him–will his Siamese twin be guilty of rape?

 

[thistle]

That is a false statement. usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

It is not a false statement. Read the USCCB statement carefully. There is absolutely no mention of condoms. They talk about a situation AFTER a rape has taken place and not before.

 

[Middleman]

And what in the situation where there is a Siamese twin, one of them being a eunuch, the other not–if he rapes a woman, is his Siamese twin liable? Suppose he decides to use a condom and his Siamese twin doesn’t stop him–will his Siamese twin be guilty of rape?

How about the case where a Russian Siamese twin marries a Turkish Siamese twin, and his Siamese twin brother uses a condom while he’s parachuting into Mongolia? The condom breaks and the girlfriend of the second siamese twin sues the first Siamese twin for child support?

 

[LilyM]

The act that occurs during rape may not be God’s will - but certainly should the result of a rape be that a child is conceived, that conception, that new life, IS God’s will.

So in that way the rape act actually IS fulfilling one of the purposes that God (clearly) ordained for the sexual act for - in all its forms. It is fulfilling the procreative function. Since contraception frustrates the procreative purpose for which God created sex, then I can’t see how it could be anything other than wrong.

I don’t get the apparent interpetation of the USCCB document either - if a woman who has been raped is shown not to have conceived as a result of that rape then surely there’d be no need even to use the morning-after pill?

 

[Jermosh]

It is not a false statement. Read the USCCB statement carefully. There is absolutely no mention of condoms. They talk about a situation AFTER a rape has taken place and not before.

“A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.”

Condom can be used exactly for that.

 

[Jermosh]

I don’t get the apparent interpetation of the USCCB document either - if a woman who has been raped is shown not to have conceived as a result of that rape then surely there’d be no need even to use the morning-after pill?

The “pill” can stop ovulation.

 

[LilyM]

The “pill” can stop ovulation.

Firstly - a woman who HAS BEEN raped is NOT a woman WHO IS GOING TO BE raped. Wrong verb tense. So condoms for starters are out according to the wording of the USCCB document, since they cannot be used by a woman who HAS BEEN raped.

As for my question - she already knows she’s not conceived, there’s no need to stop ovulation

Surely you’re not saying ‘unless conception has already occurred’ only applies to conceptions occuring on the day/time of the rape? Someone who reports the rape five minutes after it happens has no possibility of knowing she hasn’t conceived, so clearly has no right to use contraception.

By the time you can be absolutely sure conception hasn’t occured, the morning-after pill would probably be no use anyway - doesn’t it need to be taken within 48 hours?

 

[Jermosh]

Firstly - a woman who HAS BEEN raped is NOT a woman WHO IS GOING TO BE raped. Wrong verb tense. So condoms for starters are out according to the wording of the USCCB document, since they cannot be used by a woman who HAS BEEN raped.

As for my question - she already knows she’s not conceived, there’s no need to stop ovulation

You are taking it out of context and using bad logic. If the Church says she is allowed to protect herself from contraception, do you really think that it must be only after the fact?

Surely you’re not saying ‘unless conception has already occurred’ only applies to conceptions occuring on the day/time of the rape? Someone who reports the rape five minutes after it happens has no possibility of knowing she hasn’t conceived, so clearly has no right to use contraception.

Conception can happen up to 3-5 days after the act. This is why fertility Drs state that interourse should start 1-2 before ovulation so the sperm is givin a chance to reach the tubes.

 

[dixibehr]

Would a rapist really stop to put on a condom?

You actually think he would be THAT considerate of his victim?

 

[Jermosh]

Would a rapist really stop to put on a condom?

You actually think he would be THAT considerate of his victim?

Actually they usually use them to protect themselves.

 

[thistle]

Actually they usually use them to protect themselves.

The Church only permits the use of a condom for one purpose and that is the use of a perforated condom to collect some sperm for fertility testing.
The Church does not allow the use of a condom for any other purpose. Not against rape nor any disease.

 

[Jermosh]

The Church only permits the use of a condom for one purpose and that is the use of a perforated condom to collect some sperm for fertility testing.
The Church does not allow the use of a condom for any other purpose. Not against rape nor any disease.

Again, not true. I would ask for a link, but it seems to be impossible to get any Magisterium, papal, or council decree stating as such.

 

[thistle]

Again, not true. I would ask for a link, but it seems to be impossible to get any Magisterium, papal, or council decree stating as such.

You cannot find such a Church document because it does not exist.
Apart from the perforated condom to collect a sample of semen for sperm testing the Church does NOT permit the use of condoms for anything else, not for contraception, not against rape, and not against disease.

 

[centurionguard]

Being a victim of torturous gang-rape at gunpoint myself I would have to say that Very few Rape Victims are ever going to be thinking about their rape assailant(s) using a condom when faced with the heightened fear and prospect of being raped in a traumatic moment such as rape assault. Particularly any rape that involves torture and violence.

Rape and survival, both are related. What happens to someone who has been raped? What happens to any women, man or child who has been raped during their life? How does a rape victim get over that single traumatic event that changes their entire life? How does the rape victim get past that roadblock that stands firm in the middle of their entire existence? How does a rape victim live, even one day at a time, after an event that is one step short of murder? Rape has often been called (“Soul Murder”). Those who have never been raped (“do not”) understand the “full mental impact” that rape has upon the victim.
Some see rape as a one-time crime that is ended the moment the day is over. Others see rape as an act of sex. Still others see rape as something that does not exist. But only those women, men and children who have been raped or those who have been victims of attempted rape know the full impact of this illegal act. Rape affects the mind, body, and soul. It changes the victim and their very life existence from the very instant that it happens. Yet, because of the nature of the crime and because of the way society acts towards the victims and criminals, the real truth rarely comes out about rape or about rapists.
Rape is not an act of sex and will never be an act of sex.
Rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape is purely an act of violence and control. Plain and simple, violence and control are the key goals of most rapists. The criminal wishes to control the victim and, most times, the criminal exerts that control through violence or threats or both at once. Only once one realizes that rape has nothing to do with sex can one finally come to understand what rape really is.
Rape has never been about sex. When you hear a rapist claim that the act of rape was sex or consensual sex, right off the bat, you can pretty much guess that the criminal is fabricating a story. Rape is not about sex. Rape is not sex.
There is nothing sexy at all about rape, and anyone can fall victim to it. Rape does not discriminate on the basis of physical appearance, clothing, nationality, age, religion, ability, status, class, or nationality. Rapists are criminals and they will rape anyone that they want to rape. However, there are things that you can do to lessen your chances of being that next victim. There are no guarantees—just preparations and warnings.
Rape is not about asking for it.
No rape victim asks to be raped nor wants to be raped. When society does not understand the crime of rape, society ignorantly states that the victim asked for it. No one would want a violent crime committed against her, and that includes rape victims.
When we judge or stigmatize the victims of rape and when we allow rapists to go free, we allow society to think that is okay to rape.
Anyone can be a rapist.
All that is necessary is a violent nature and the wish to control another human being. A rapist can be a 18-year-old or a rapist can be a 78-year-old. Rapists do not fall into a particular category, description, or stereotype. Rapists know no limits and transcend all ages, professions, religions, classes, neighborhoods, ethnicities.

 

[Middleman]

Thank you, centurion guard, for that sobering personal testimony.

 

[centurionguard]

I absolutely cannot believe what I’m reading here. This site has some unbelievable things written on it. It makes the Catholic Church, frankly, look ridiculous in some cases.

I thought I was fairly conservative before coming to this site.

Frankly; I really can’t see how any argument in this thread is going to save any rape victim or even the assailant from the possibility of contracting HIV. No use of a condom has ever proved with conclusive scientific study that such use will guarantee the stop of a possible HIV virus or even warding off pregnancy for that matter. And that’s despite what huge international pharmaceutical companies convincingly state while producing condom’s making lucrative multi-millions of dollars at the expense of a global gullible populace. There are no free rides with regards to promiscuous sexuality. In the end the guilty party must give answer before the throne of God.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Actually they usually use them to protect themselves.

Actually rapists do not regularly use condoms to protect themselves. Rapists don’t generally use condoms PERIOD - for any reason. As CenturianGuard indicated, rape is not about sex, so the rapist isn’t necessarily thinking ‘OMG I might get AIDS from my victim’ or ‘OMG I might get my victim pregnant’ or even ‘OMG I might get caught’. What the rapist is generally thinking is about the power-trip he gets from the abuse of the victim. Subverting the victim’s will to his own. In all actuality, very little thought about the victim or even the rapist’s health is give by the rapist. Rape is an inherently self-ish, violent act. An abuser (of any sort) isn’t going to use a nerf bat to beat their victim - they’re going to use an aluminum or wooden bat to get the most damage and the most satisfaction for themselves. The majority of men think that condoms inhibit their satisfaction. Even though rape isn’t about sex, the satisfaction that comes from the rape can have sexual overtones (meaning orgasm is acheived by the rapist & he feels ‘good’ b/c of it).

I would hazard a guess to say that although it may not be as clearly laid out in the CCC or any other Catholic document, the Church is against the use of condoms in ALL cases. Especially, since the Pope recently said that the promotion of condoms to slow the spread of AIDS was not the way to go. If condoms aren’t allowed for married sero-disparous couples, why would they be allowed or encouraged for rape vicitms, who have much LESS say than any one else in the matter? Think logically please.