Contraception and Rape?

[whatevergirl]

LOL !!!

Sorry to seem to laugh in light of the OP’s topic BUT::::::)

I would also like to add this on topic contribution :

" Bananas are yellow for a reason "

Sorry, it has been that kind of a day for me ( LOL )

No disrespect intended ( Love you all )

Peace,
CJ

 

[baylee]

But what about what St. Aquinas said, about rape being not-as-bad-as masturbation, sodomy, and beastiality, simply because it WAS open to life?

It may be open to life, but it is clearly not unitive.

 

[LJN21]

I still don’t see what’s so wrong? What’s so bad about abstaining, and not requesting the "marital debt’ to be paid whe she’ld be unable to have a child anyhow? After all, it is about the children!

I apologize for skipping over the bit about marital debt in your first reference.

But what is so wrong about not collecting the marital debt on holidays? You day should be spent in prayer and meditations not…procreation! How steadfastly you married folk hold to this one act! Can you not even hold back for one day?

No matter how wrong St. Aquinas’s medicine might have been, I’ve yet to see any fault in his theology or moral teachings.

Are you going to say that because his biology is outdated, his morality must be, too? God’s teachings seem mightily outdated in modern society! Should we abandon them aswell, simply because they don’t conform to our “enlightened” understanding of the universe?

There is nothing wrong with abstaining (assuming its mutual) but that is completely beside the point.

My original statement that Aquinas is flat out wrong about some of his ideas regarding sexuality and human reproduction therefore he might not be the best source to bring up in this topic.

You asked for proof and there it is.

He is wrong that its a venial sin for a married couple to have sex on holy days and he is wrong that a child could be conceived during Menses. His logic is wrong because he did not understand what we know now medically and theologically about sex in marriage.

 

[LJN21]

Mainstream culture introduced birth control though, so if a woman takes birth control after being raped, let’s say, it won’t do anything if she is already pregnant from the rapist. This is why I’m confused.

Since sperm can live several days (don’t remember the exact number) after being deposited, in theory, they could just hang out in there until you ovulate and then you could conceive a couple days after the fact. So they are saying it would be moral to do something to kill the sperm or delay ovulation until they died.

 

[kevinsgirl]

Since sperm can live several days (don’t remember the exact number) after being deposited, in theory, they could just hang out in there until you ovulate and then you could conceive a couple days after the fact. So they are saying it would be moral to do something to kill the sperm or delay ovulation until they died.

This is how I understand it to read as well. Theoretically sperm can survive for up to 5 days. So if a woman was raped and it was determined that she hadn’t ovulated yet (but that ovulation would occur soon), I see nothing morally wrong in giving her hormones to prevent her ovulating at all that cycle.

However, if the woman had already ovulated, then conception may have already happened and using hormones to make her uterus hostile to an embryo would be wrong.

So basically I think it has to do with WHEN the rape happens in relation to a woman’s cycle. Morally you can take measures before conception can take place but you cannot do anything to jeopardize a possible baby after conception might have happened.

 

[baylee]

Since sperm can live several days (don’t remember the exact number) after being deposited, in theory, they could just hang out in there until you ovulate and then you could conceive a couple days after the fact. So they are saying it would be moral to do something to kill the sperm or delay ovulation until they died.

Yes, and this makes sense to me. As far as I’m concerned I see no contradiction with Church teaching here. For anyone to even suggest/imply that rape is similar to the marital act just because it is open to life is quite disturbing to me. There are sexual acts that are just procreative and there are sexual acts that are just unitive. The marital act is both and rape is not.

 

[whatevergirl]

Since sperm can live several days (don’t remember the exact number) after being deposited, in theory, they could just hang out in there until you ovulate and then you could conceive a couple days after the fact. So they are saying it would be moral to do something to kill the sperm or delay ovulation until they died.

ah, ok, I see. I need to go back to biology 101.

 

[jwashu]

I still don’t see what’s so wrong? What’s so bad about abstaining, and not requesting the "marital debt’ to be paid whe she’ld be unable to have a child anyhow? After all, it is about the children!

I apologize for skipping over the bit about marital debt in your first reference.

But what is so wrong about not collecting the marital debt on holidays? You day should be spent in prayer and meditations not…procreation! How steadfastly you married folk hold to this one act! Can you not even hold back for one day?

No matter how wrong St. Aquinas’s medicine might have been, I’ve yet to see any fault in his theology or moral teachings.

Are you going to say that because his biology is outdated, his morality must be, too? God’s teachings seem mightily outdated in modern society! Should we abandon them aswell, simply because they don’t conform to our “enlightened” understanding of the universe?

Considering that for some who try to follow the teachings of the Church and use NFP, those days may be some of the few that are available to collect that “debt” - for both spouses.

 

[Dtmccameron]

I’ve a question. With the Bishop’s standing on this issue, what effect would that have on the Catholic pharmacies which were under a deal of Government heat because they refused to hand out contraceptives?

 

[jwashu]

Yes, and this makes sense to me. As far as I’m concerned I see no contradiction with Church teaching here. For anyone to even suggest/imply that rape is similar to the marital act just because it is open to life is quite disturbing to me. There are sexual acts that are just procreative and there are sexual acts that are just unitive. The marital act is both and rape is not.

Please note I’m not trying to compare the 2 at all

I could get into a bunch of what ifs but my point is larger I guess. The Vatican wouldn’t ok the use of condoms to prevent AIDS in Africia where women are being gang raped and even being raped by their husbands. Where in some nations young girls are being raped because they believe sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.

In these cases the moral aspect of stopping AIDS, just like birth control for medical reasons with contraception being a secondary effect, to save lives seems more important.

So this point for me was about a much larger issue. We can OK the morning after pill after the fact to stop a pregnancy because it’s rape, but we can’t allow condoms for women who might be exposed to the AIDS virus… The Vatican’s “official” study I believe said condoms really didn’t stop AIDS, which of course goes against almost every other study ever published in peer review journals.

My point is that I believe we are getting ourselves into the potential issues here by allowing this… that’s all.

Joe

 

[Em_in_FL]

In rape, the sperm is viewed as a foreign invader who have no right to be inside the woman’s body. Therefore, it is moral to incapacitate them. In married sex, it is a union of two persons, and that union includes fertility. Contracepting a -married- sexual act is wrong because sex MUST include both unitive and procreative aspects. Rape is NOT sex. Rape is forced, it is an invasion, and an assault that mimics the motions that a married couple would engage in, but it carries none of the same responsibilities that married sex does. Aka, the responsibility to be open to life.

Hope that helps.

EXACTLY!

But what about what St. Aquinas said, about rape being not-as-bad-as masturbation, sodomy, and beastiality, simply because it WAS open to life?

As pumpkinbeast mentioned… marital sex MUST include both unitive and procreative aspects.
I’m grasping here … but *maybe *St. Aquinas was noting that rape did cover the procreative aspect, while what Dtmccameron mentioned contains neither aspect…

 

[LJN21]

Please note I’m not trying to compare the 2 at all

I could get into a bunch of what ifs but my point is larger I guess. The Vatican wouldn’t ok the use of condoms to prevent AIDS in Africia where women are being gang raped and even being raped by their husbands. Where in some nations young girls are being raped because they believe sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.

In these cases the moral aspect of stopping AIDS, just like birth control for medical reasons with contraception being a secondary effect, to save lives seems more important.

So this point for me was about a much larger issue. We can OK the morning after pill after the fact to stop a pregnancy because it’s rape, but we can’t allow condoms for women who might be exposed to the AIDS virus… The Vatican’s “official” study I believe said condoms really didn’t stop AIDS, which of course goes against almost every other study ever published in peer review journals.

My point is that I believe we are getting ourselves into the potential issues here by allowing this… that’s all.

Joe

First, its not the morning after pill that is okay here, they say expressly that terminating the pregnancy if conception has already happened is not moral.

Second, condoms don’t stop AIDS, that’s the whole problem. If it was something that cured AIDS but left the couple sterile or had the side effect of BC my guess is would be allowed under the rule of double effect. The fact is Condoms tend to promote more promiscuous behavior under the falsehood that its now “safe”. Its not safe, they fail and preventing AIDS and conception at a caluable rate.

 

[baylee]

Please note I’m not trying to compare the 2 at all

I could get into a bunch of what ifs but my point is larger I guess. The Vatican wouldn’t ok the use of condoms to prevent AIDS in Africia where women are being gang raped and even being raped by their husbands. Where in some nations young girls are being raped because they believe sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.

In these cases the moral aspect of stopping AIDS, just like birth control for medical reasons with contraception being a secondary effect, to save lives seems more important.

So this point for me was about a much larger issue. We can OK the morning after pill after the fact to stop a pregnancy because it’s rape, but we can’t allow condoms for women who might be exposed to the AIDS virus… The Vatican’s “official” study I believe said condoms really didn’t stop AIDS, which of course goes against almost every other study ever published in peer review journals.

My point is that I believe we are getting ourselves into the potential issues here by allowing this… that’s all.

Joe

Thanks for adding this…it helps me to better understand your concern. Perhaps the difference is that we know for a fact that a woman was raped…but we do not know for sure who was exposed to the AIDS virus?

 

[pumpkinbeast]

Please note I’m not trying to compare the 2 at all

I could get into a bunch of what ifs but my point is larger I guess. The Vatican wouldn’t ok the use of condoms to prevent AIDS in Africia where women are being gang raped and even being raped by their husbands. Where in some nations young girls are being raped because they believe sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.

In these cases the moral aspect of stopping AIDS, just like birth control for medical reasons with contraception being a secondary effect, to save lives seems more important.

So this point for me was about a much larger issue. We can OK the morning after pill after the fact to stop a pregnancy because it’s rape, but we can’t allow condoms for women who might be exposed to the AIDS virus… The Vatican’s “official” study I believe said condoms really didn’t stop AIDS, which of course goes against almost every other study ever published in peer review journals.

My point is that I believe we are getting ourselves into the potential issues here by allowing this… that’s all.

Joe

Let’s break this down a bit:
The original issue was medication used AFTER a rape had occurred. Nothing could be done to stop the act, now let’s deal with the aftermath.
This is a new question: is it okay for condoms to be handed out to rapists so they can make sure they don’t spread AIDS while raping women? Um, NO. Why would you want to hand out something that would make the rapist’s work easier? If you knew a guy was going to rape a woman, would you give him a condom, or would you try to stop him? That’s the issue at hand, not condoms. At best, allowing condom use would be a band-aid solution on a gaping chest wound. What needs to be stopped is the RAPE. Then the spread of AIDS will be less. To put it in another perspective: if you know that in a population, it’s considered fine for men to beat their wives, what would you do to solve the problem? Enclose the women in protective suits? It doesn’t make sense.

 

[chevalier]

Rape is not freely chosen by the victim, therefore, she can choose to resort to post-coital contraception unless there is a chance of killing a conceived foetus. There may be more detailed conditions, such as if the rapist is the husband (I’ve read in that case contraception is not allowed), or if there’s a chance of preventing conception (but not aborting a foetus) from lawful intercourse - in the latter case I don’t know or can’t recall.

 

[LJN21]

… or if there’s a chance of preventing conception (but not aborting a foetus) from lawful intercourse - in the latter case I don’t know or can’t recall.

Okay I don’t understand this one. By lawful intercourse meaning consentual marital intercourse? Would seem if this were the case condoms would be okay for BC.

 

[jwashu]

Let’s break this down a bit:
The original issue was medication used AFTER a rape had occurred. Nothing could be done to stop the act, now let’s deal with the aftermath.
This is a new question: is it okay for condoms to be handed out to rapists so they can make sure they don’t spread AIDS while raping women? Um, NO. Why would you want to hand out something that would make the rapist’s work easier? If you knew a guy was going to rape a woman, would you give him a condom, or would you try to stop him? That’s the issue at hand, not condoms. At best, allowing condom use would be a band-aid solution on a gaping chest wound. What needs to be stopped is the RAPE. Then the spread of AIDS will be less. To put it in another perspective: if you know that in a population, it’s considered fine for men to beat their wives, what would you do to solve the problem? Enclose the women in protective suits? It doesn’t make sense.

Ok you guys may not understand the situation.

There are large Catholic groups in Africa who, as good Catholics, won’t use condoms / contraception.

The problem is that AIDS is rampant. The rapes are one aspect but other aspects are protecting women in marriage because of the infidelity of their spouses… I’m not suggesting condoms are a cure all… and of course the “right” thing to do would be to tell them not fool around but there are strange cultural problems people are working through.

Anyway… it’s a bigger issue than this just. I’m not an expert though. When I saw this earlier today it just hit me as being inconsistent with the greater teachings. I can’t exactly put my finger on it but will keeping thinking when I have a chance.

Joe

 

[kevinsgirl]

Ok you guys may not understand the situation.

There are large Catholic groups in Africa who, as good Catholics, won’t use condoms / contraception.

The problem is that AIDS is rampant. The rapes are one aspect but other aspects are protecting women in marriage because of the infidelity of their spouses… I’m not suggesting condoms are a cure all… and of course the “right” thing to do would be to tell them not fool around but there are strange cultural problems people are working through.

Anyway… it’s a bigger issue than this just. I’m not an expert though. When I saw this earlier today it just hit me as being inconsistent with the greater teachings. I can’t exactly put my finger on it but will keeping thinking when I have a chance.

Joe

Ok, I seriously doubt a rapist is going to use a condom to begin with (the exception would be in order to not leave “fluids” that could be used to prosecute him). And if you feel that your spouse is cheating on you, condoms aren’t going to help anything.

ETA: Also, like the following poster pointed out. Condoms don’t prevent AIDS…

 

[LJN21]

Ok you guys may not understand the situation.

There are large Catholic groups in Africa who, as good Catholics, won’t use condoms / contraception.

The problem is that AIDS is rampant. The rapes are one aspect but other aspects are protecting women in marriage because of the infidelity of their spouses… I’m not suggesting condoms are a cure all… and of course the “right” thing to do would be to tell them not fool around but there are strange cultural problems people are working through.

Anyway… it’s a bigger issue than this just. I’m not an expert though. When I saw this earlier today it just hit me as being inconsistent with the greater teachings. I can’t exactly put my finger on it but will keeping thinking when I have a chance.

Joe

No I understand the point. Its just not a valid argument. Condoms don’t treat or cure AIDS. The argument that they are used to try and prevent the spread of the disease just doesn’t not hold water. They frequently fail at preventing even pregnancy (moral issues aside) and a woman isn’t even fertile all the time. Whats failure rate at reducing the spread of AIDS? Over a long enough time line the uninfected partner will get it. Pretending that a condom works only makes the problem worse as people are ignoring the risk they are taking by having sex with an infected person.

The only way to NOT get AIDS is to follow morality and not have sex until your married and then stay monogamous. Cultural issues doesn’t just magically make something that’s intrinsically evil an option just for them.

 

[chevalier]

Okay I don’t understand this one. By lawful intercourse meaning consentual marital intercourse?

Yup. But non-consensual marital intercourse doesn’t warrant contraception, while still dreadful.

Would seem if this were the case condoms would be okay for BC.

As in by the rapist or by the male victim of female rape (that does happen)? Rape is so disordered it makes little point wondering whether it’s better or worse when the perpretator uses a condom (not a sin for the victim who asks). As for male victim of female rape, I’d guess it wouldn’t be a sin to use a condom.