Emergency contraception for Rape?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monicathree
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
i ask this coz i’m an indian and here, the law did not recognise till recently (i’m not sure it is any different now legally) that sexual intercourse within marriage cannot be classified as rape even if it was forced. what’s your take on this?
is sexual assalut within marriage rape and do the rules discussed above apply to it too?
Click to expand...
Here in the United States, any forced sexual act is considered rape, even within marriage.
 
This is a very good thread. I read the quote from the bishops and it seems to be in line with Catholic teaching, but as was pointed out there is no definitive test today that can say when conception will occur or has occured. What is a Catholic to do? Get the lavage ASAP, meaning within the first 24 hours?
 
40.png
fix:
This is a very good thread. I read the quote from the bishops and it seems to be in line with Catholic teaching, but as was pointed out there is no definitive test today that can say when conception will occur or has occured. What is a Catholic to do? Get the lavage ASAP, meaning within the first 24 hours?
Click to expand...
When I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that this teaching is somewhat related to the Church’s teaching regarding operations that result in abortion, such as removing a fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy. In such a case, the operation is allowed because the intent is to save the mother’s life, not kill the child (though the child does die).

Can a similar line of thinking can employed here, namely that the intent is to prevent conception, and actions are taken to do this to the best of our ability. Since is not the intent to expel an embryo, even if it does occur, perhaps it would not be sinful?

Of course, I’m not a trained theologian so I could be completely off-base.
 
Dr. Colossus:
When I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that this teaching is somewhat related to the Church’s teaching regarding operations that result in abortion, such as removing a fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy. In such a case, the operation is allowed because the intent is to save the mother’s life, not kill the child (though the child does die).

Can a similar line of thinking can employed here, namely that the intent is to prevent conception, and actions are taken to do this to the best of our ability. Since is not the intent to expel an embryo, even if it does occur, perhaps it would not be sinful?

Of course, I’m not a trained theologian so I could be completely off-base.
Click to expand...
Well, fair questions. You are referring to the principle of double effect. A good action, or neutral moral act can have two effects. One good and one evil. As long as the evil one does not outweight the good, then it is permissible. The key here is that the inital act must not be intrinscially evil. It must be good or neutral. Contraception is an intrinsic evil, it may never be done for any reason.
 
“There has been increasing recognition on the subject of the Church’s anti-contraceptive teaching is not biological intercourse which would be *coitus *in Latin but marital sexual intercourse, called usus matrimonii in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.”

John F. Kippley, Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality, p. 299.
 
40.png
fix:
Well, fair questions. You are referring to the principle of double effect. A good action, or neutral moral act can have two effects. One good and one evil. As long as the evil one does not outweight the good, then it is permissible. The key here is that the inital act must not be intrinscially evil. It must be good or neutral. Contraception is an intrinsic evil, it may never be done for any reason.
Click to expand...
I agree with the point you make, but not necessarily the way you’ve made it. Let me explain:

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the possible evil consequence (the death of a child) does not outweigh the alternate consequence, the death of both child and mother. However, regarding emergency contraception, the potential good of preventing the victim becoming pregnant does not equal or outweigh the potential evil of the death of a child. I was mistaken in my thinking on this point.

What I don’t agree with is that contraception is intrinsically evil. The Catechism states:
In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
But notice that this teaching is dealing with “the conjugal act”. While rape is a sexual act, it is not conjugal because both parties were not willing participants in the act.
 
40.png
Tom:
Great question, even if it is hypothetical. Rather than give an opinion, I’m going to do some research. BTW I’ve also heard the 24 to 72 hours after the sexual act. the conception is not consider to have occurred until the fertilized egg is implanted and transferring. This takes between 24 and 72 hours. Until that time its just a fertilized egg, it can not develop on its own, it needs to be implanted to develop.
Click to expand...
Conception occurs when the sperm and the egg combine. The fertilized egg (a human person) begins growing prior to implantation. It must be implanted to continue developing. Destruction of this human, even if not implanted, is homicide.
 
Dr. Colossus:
What I don’t agree with is that contraception is intrinsically evil. The Catechism states:
In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

But notice that this teaching is dealing with “the conjugal act”. While rape is a sexual act, it is not conjugal because both parties were not willing participants in the act.
Click to expand...
It seems that the when the Church uses the term “contraception” it applies only to that which are used in reference to the conjugal act. In that sense, “contraception is intrinsically evil.” Perhaps there’s a different term in regards to rape.
 
I think I have smoke coming out of my ears :confused: I guess I am having trouble clearly understanding what is being said here. And then the whole double effect thing confuses me anyway. I know the end does not justify the means. So, if I have an ectoptic preg. the means of making me healthy is removing my fallopian tube which would kill the baby. I am not getting it. Please bare with me, I am a new convert 2002 and haven’t gotten my theology degree yet!! 😉

peace
 
Don’t feel bad Monicathree, we’re all trying to understand it. I believe, regarding ectopic pregnancy, that a child cannot survive one anyway, because the fallopian tube would burst. Thus removing the tube to save the mother is allowed because the alternative would be the death of both mother and child.
 
Just a heads-up to everybody, this same question was just posted in the “Ask an Apologist” section. It hasn’t been replied to yet, but hopefully soon we’ll have a definitive answer.

Update
Here’s the answer as it was posted in the “Ask an Apologist” forum. Not too much more information than has been discussed here, unfortunately, but a couple of good links:
Because rape is a forcible sexual assault on a woman, moral theologians have argued that it is permissible for a woman to defend herself against a potential conception when she has been raped. These theologians contend that she may licitly receive those treatments that would prevent conception from occurring, but that no treatment that would remove or destroy the fertilized egg or would prevent implantation would be morally licit. In short, the assertion is that a woman who has suffered rape may seek to prevent conception, but she cannot abort an already-conceived child.

Recommended reading:
Click to expand...
Emergency Contraception and Rape: A Catholic Perspective
by the Massachusetts Catholic Conference

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services
by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

The “Morning After” Pill by John B. Shea, M.D.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Colossus:
I agree with the point you make, but not necessarily the way you’ve made it. Let me explain:

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the possible evil consequence (the death of a child) does not outweigh the alternate consequence, the death of both child and mother. However, regarding emergency contraception, the potential good of preventing the victim becoming pregnant does not equal or outweigh the potential evil of the death of a child. I was mistaken in my thinking on this point.

What I don’t agree with is that contraception is intrinsically evil. The Catechism states:
But notice that this teaching is dealing with “the conjugal act”. While rape is a sexual act, it is not conjugal because both parties were not willing participants in the act.
Click to expand...
Interesting observations. So contraception is intrinsically evil only when talking of the conjugal act? What about fornication? Both participants give consent, but it is not within marriage? Can they contracept without an additional sin?

What if a woman knows her husband like to cheat on her? Can she demand he wear a condom before having the marital embrace with her? Would that be licit?

I read the links about emergency contraception. There are many positions, but has Rome spoken? I read about the opinions of theologians, but no formal position by the Vatican?

In summary, is it fair to say any abortifacient therapy may never be done in a rape case, but some limited forms of contraception may be done if it can be reasonably certain no fertilization as taken place?
 
40.png
fix:
Interesting observations. So contraception is intrinsically evil only when talking of the conjugal act? What about fornication? Both participants give consent, but it is not within marriage? Can they contracept without an additional sin?
Click to expand...
The term “conjugal” is derived from the word “conjoin”, so any time 2 people “join together” willingly it would be considered a conjugal act. Contraception regardless of marital status would still be sinful.
What if a woman knows her husband like to cheat on her? Can she demand he wear a condom before having the marital embrace with her? Would that be licit?
Click to expand...
No. She is still willing to engage in sexual union, so it would still be conjugal.
I read the links about emergency contraception. There are many positions, but has Rome spoken? I read about the opinions of theologians, but no formal position by the Vatican?
Click to expand...
To my knowledge there is no Vatican document so far. The most authoritative source I have seen is the quote above from the USCCB.
In summary, is it fair to say any abortifacient therapy may never be done in a rape case, but some limited forms of contraception may be done if it can be reasonably certain no fertilization as taken place?
Click to expand...
That’s what it sounds like to me, too.
 
Dr. Colossus:
The term “conjugal” is derived from the word “conjoin”, so any time 2 people “join together” willingly it would be considered a conjugal act. Contraception regardless of marital status would still be sinful.

No. She is still willing to engage in sexual union, so it would still be conjugal…
Click to expand...
I have read that in parts of Africa there are some nuns who carry condoms with them because they fear being raped. As crazy as it sounds they think they may get their attacker to put on a condom. Some Catholic theologians were quoted as stating by the principle of double effect the nuns may ask their attacker to use a condom.

Would such thinking be in line with moral theology?
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
The only tests that can detect fertilization are those that detect above average levels of human chorionic gonadatropin (HcG). This usually doesn’t occur until the conceptus has moved downthe fallopian tube and has embedded in the wall of the uterus 93-5 days after conception). Once this occurs, the body begins to produce increasing levels of HcG. One way that an OB can tell how long you’ve been pregnant is by your HcG levels. But,as I’ve indicated, this increased output doesn’t happen until 3-5 days after conception, adn then we are talking about a person, not an egg and sperm.
Click to expand...
Scott,

What they attempt to detect is when OVULATION has occured. This is done by measureing the level of progesterone and LH in the blood stream. If ovulation has occured within the previous 72 hours, these level will be elevated.

If no ovulation has occured in the previous 72 hours, there is no danger that emergency contraception (which will also include a spermicide) will be abortative, as there is nothing there to abort.
 
40.png
fix:
I have read that in parts of Africa there are some nuns who carry condoms with them because they fear being raped. As crazy as it sounds they think they may get their attacker to put on a condom. Some Catholic theologians were quoted as stating by the principle of double effect the nuns may ask their attacker to use a condom.

Would such thinking be in line with moral theology?
Click to expand...
In the case of a married couple, the woman has the option of refraining from intercourse. But if a woman knows that she cannot prevent being raped, she is not a willing participant. Therefore, I would think that asking her attacker to use a condom would be morally similar to an emergency contraception situation.
 
40.png
fix:
So contraception is intrinsically evil only when talking of the conjugal act?
Click to expand...
Contraception has not been defined as intrinsically evil.

By definition, something that is intrinsically evil can never be permitted. But contraception, unlike abortion, has not be ruled to evil instrinsically, but is defined as intrinsically grave matter.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Contraception has not been defined as intrinsically evil.

By definition, something that is intrinsically evil can never be permitted. But contraception, unlike abortion, has not be ruled to evil instrinsically, but is defined as intrinsically grave matter.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? I think it is intrinsically evil. It may never be done, for any reason, in any point in history.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Scott,

What they attempt to detect is when OVULATION has occured. This is done by measureing the level of progesterone and LH in the blood stream. If ovulation has occured within the previous 72 hours, these level will be elevated.

If no ovulation has occured in the previous 72 hours, there is no danger that emergency contraception (which will also include a spermicide) will be abortative, as there is nothing there to abort.
Click to expand...
I thought serum HCG detected fertilization after it has been embedded in the uterous which is a few days. Ovulation is detected by LH levels?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top