If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[KerryR]

I am sterilised, my last pregnancy was extremely tricky and all of my labours have been extremely difficult. In addition I lost a baby past the 23 week stage to an encephalocele and spinal bifida. Three of my pregnancies resulted in c-sections. My situation was a case of had I conceived again medically my womb would have ruptured and my children would have been without a mother. I have no doubt that I did the right thing by consenting to a sterilisation as to leave my children without a mother would have been immoral. As such I believe situations and necessity alters cases, for example a woman HIV positive would be better advised not to have children as this would result in their suffering. Both the old and new testaments promote treating others as you would wish to be treated and no one hopes for a life of suffering. Medical factors, like the rape factor must be taken into consideration.

With regards to abortion, I had an abortion many years ago and painfully regretted it. I wa sin a poor position, under duress and estranged from my husband at that time. None the less the guilt and pain was soul destroying and then I learnt about the suffering of the baby. It took years to get over it. I still would like to go to Rachel’s Vineyard but there are none close at the moment. The experience taught me that abortion is never right.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes that is what he meant.

If I may ask, what is your “narrower definition” of contraception that the Church supposedly uses?

We may actually be in agreement on this “definition.”

Because of this debate I am not sure I can give a definitive answer to that question yet.

What I can say is that it is not just simply any method used to avoid/delay pregnancy. Many people think of contraception this way and so think that the Church is being ridiculous and illogical when they allow NFP but not ABC. Instead it needs to be something which is aimed towards rendering an otherwise fertile sexual act infertile.

I am not sure whether this includes all of the subtlety in the narrowing of the Church’s use of the term contraception because of some interesting points brought up in this thread. But it is a start.

 

[mommamaree]

I am sterilised, my last pregnancy was extremely tricky and all of my labours have been extremely difficult. In addition I lost a baby past the 23 week stage to an encephalocele and spinal bifida. Three of my pregnancies resulted in c-sections. My situation was a case of had I conceived again medically my womb would have ruptured and my children would have been without a mother. I have no doubt that I did the right thing by consenting to a sterilisation as to leave my children without a mother would have been immoral. As such I believe situations and necessity alters cases, for example a woman HIV positive would be better advised not to have children as this would result in their suffering. Both the old and new testaments promote treating others as you would wish to be treated and no one hopes for a life of suffering. Medical factors, like the rape factor must be taken into consideration.

With regards to abortion, I had an abortion many years ago and painfully regretted it. I wa sin a poor position, under duress and estranged from my husband at that time. None the less the guilt and pain was soul destroying and then I learnt about the suffering of the baby. It took years to get over it. I still would like to go to Rachel’s Vineyard but there are none close at the moment. The experience taught me that abortion is never right.

Kerry,
Thanks for sharing your story. You have been through so much. I hope you are able to go to a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat soon. Praying for you…

 

[levinas12]

No, unfortunately, it could still likely be necessary. Sperm can survive for up to and including about five days within the womb, waiting around for ovulation to occur.

But all this depends upon what stage in her cycle a woman happens to be at the time of the rape. A woman is fertile only about 7 days out of every month . And sperm can survive only during the days the “friendly” cervical mucus secretion is present.

Statistically, the chances of getting pregnant from a rape would seem to be low. If you restrict the use of EC to situations where ovulation is not indicated or imminent, then you further narrow the window. So how often do you think EC would really be necessary?

 

[levinas12]

I forgot to add that the mature egg, after leaving the ovary, survives only 12-24 hours.

This too has to be factored into any calculation of probability of pregnancy.

 

[levinas12]

As I understand the biology, sperm usually enter the womb during the fertile phase of the woman’s cycle, precisely around the time of ovulation. During this time, the cervix is covered with a thin and clear mucus and so is relatively open to entry by sperm.

However, during the infertile phases, the cervix has a thick mucus plug which prevents entry .

If EC is restricted to times when ovulation has not taken place or is not imminent, i.e., when the cervix is closed, it’s unlikely that sperm can get through to the womb. So why would EC be that necessary?

 

[Nate13]

But all this depends upon what stage in her cycle a woman happens to be at the time of the rape. A woman is fertile only about 7 days out of every month . And sperm can survive only during the days the “friendly” cervical mucus secretion is present.

Statistically, the chances of getting pregnant from a rape would seem to be low. If you restrict the use of EC to situations where ovulation is not indicated or imminent, then you further narrow the window. So how often do you think EC would really be necessary?

The “7 days of fertility” includes the 5 days sperm could possibly survive. There is really only a 24 hour time period where the egg is available and in the right spot to be fertilized. So most of the time you have to abstain is to prevent against the possibility that sperm might survive long enough to be there when the egg is released. The more doubt there is in the exact day of ovulation, the more buffer days you have to add.

 

[levinas12]

The “7 days of fertility” includes the 5 days sperm could possibly survive. There is really only a 24 hour time period where the egg is available and in the right spot to be fertilized. So most of the time you have to abstain is to prevent against the possibility that sperm might survive long enough to be there when the egg is released. The more doubt there is in the exact day of ovulation, the more buffer days you have to add.

So how likely is a pregnancy from a rape in the absence of the Catholic use of EC (i.e., EC when there is no indication of ovulation)?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think we’re all on agreement about that (except maybe Marc?) yet we’re all still arguing back and forth for some reason…

I’m not going back through the thread, but wasn’t there at least one other poster who thought this might be questionable?

Anyway, spermicide after rape clearly isn’t against Church teaching, anyway. Even if that can be allowed, I think the critical issue here is terminology.

 

[Ana_v]

…Then why is it morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill? (given no fertilization has taken place)

From what I understand, when an act is intrinsically evil, it means that the act is ALWAYS wrong. No matter who what where when why.

Thank you for bring up this question. It’s one of the many I’ve had in my mental “questions to post on CAF” list.

Logically speaking, by definition of what it means for something to be intrinsically evil, there can be no exceptions to the morally prohibited use of contraception for the purpose of preventing conception.

That said, the 'rape victim can use a post-intercourse contraceptive ’ argument is a very interesting one if nothing else. It’s a micro version of the moral argument for self-defense. It basically states that a woman (micro: ovum) has a right to protect herself from an aggressor (micro: invasive sperm), thus the use of something like Plan B is an act of self-defense.

The argument itself is not problematic. What is problematic is to on the one hand claim that contraception is intrinsically evil, and on the other claim their are scenarios in which it is a licit means of preventing pregnancy. That’s a glaring contradiction.

But let’s say we entertain this hypothesis that the use of Plan B by a woman post-rape, pre-conception, is morally permissible. It raises another question: if it is permitted for a woman to contracept after rape, can she do so, prior to rape? For example, if a woman lives or works in an area in which she is statistically vulnerable to being raped, can she use contraception with the mindset “in the event that I am raped, I want to prevent myself conceiving”. In other words, can she use contraception as a precautionary measure, rather than only reactionary? If not, why not?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

For example, if a woman lives or works in an area in which she is statistically vulnerable to being raped, can she use contraception with the mindset “in the event that I am raped, I want to prevent myself conceiving”. In other words, can she use contraception as a precautionary measure, rather than only reactionary? If not, why not?

I can tell you this for (almost) sure. I mentioned my theology teacher earlier. This exact question, essentially word for word, was brought up. He said absolutely not, contraception is intrinsically evil.

 

[Nate13]

So how likely is a pregnancy from a rape in the absence of the Catholic use of EC (i.e., EC when there is no indication of ovulation)?

Well I would think they would be using it in those 5 days prior to ovulation. If the act occurs within the 24 hours of ovulation or the 24 hours prior to ovulation your looking at anywhere between a 25% to 50% chance of conception on average during those two days depending on the age of the woman and man involved as well as a host of other mitigating factors. How long the sperm survive and how likely conception is if the act occurs 2 or more days before is going to depend on the health and age of the man involved, but it would be less than 25% for sure

 

[Nate13]

For example, if a woman lives or works in an area in which she is statistically vulnerable to being raped, can she use contraception with the mindset “in the event that I am raped, I want to prevent myself conceiving”. In other words, can she use contraception as a precautionary measure, rather than only reactionary? If not, why not?

Any form of birth control that could possibly cause the death of a newly conceived child would not be permissible. You may be able to argue that methods that have no potential to harm a possible unborn child might be morally permissible. If you did argue this, you would do so by arguing that your not committing the sin of contraception by doing so. From my understanding you can only commit the sin of contracepting within marriage. Outside of marriage the sin is called rape, forncication, adultery, or prostitution all of which are already contraceptive by nature because they occur outside of marriage and therefore do not fulfill the unitive meaning.

 

[levinas12]

If the act occurs within the 24 hours of ovulation or the 24 hours prior to ovulation …

Catholic hospitals would not be able to perform EC in this case given that ovulation has occurred or is about to occur.

 

[Debora123]

LJN,
What are you talking about? What do you see in my posts that you are objecting to? You are seriously confusing me. You seem to be objecting to something that you think I am saying, but then restate many of my points. Please try to read my posts more carefully in future.

I stand by the guidance of the Church that rape is a violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. I agree that the rape victim has the right to repel the rapist at any time. The documents we have been sharing here say she may repel him before, during and after the attack, and that this includes his sperm (which is also an unjust aggressor). I agree with the instructions to carefully determine whether or not a woman is already pregnant or if she has already ovulated prior to administering Plan B. In fact, I even agree that the addition of a couple of extra tests, such as ultrasound imaging of the ovaries would be wise. This would help alleviate the victim’s fear of accidental abortion, and would focus upon preventing ovulation, if it is possible to do so at that time in her cycle. I agree that cleansing her of her rapist’s semen/sperm, whether with spermicides or regular douches, is a reasonable idea. After all, what woman would not want to be allowed to cleanse herself after an assault. I never ever ever said that barrier method is morally neutral for marital relations. In fact, marital relations may NEVER be contracepted, before, during, or after.
My only assertion that you seem to take issue with is the fact that I have no problem with medical professionals referring to EC after rape as contraceptive medicine. I don’t have a problem with medical professionals using that term there. I also do not have a problem with them using the word “spontaneous abortion” when referring to miscarriage, despite the fact that I have experienced two emotionally painful miscarriages. Their terminology is their terminology and it doesn’t always sound pleasant or acceptable to our ears.
Take a look back at some of the documents we have shared in this discussion regarding the treatment of rape victims. You see that even Church leaders are using the medical terminology in those instances, because they are not theological treatises, they are instructions to medical personnel. I am not a theologian. I enjoy reading theological works, up to a point. But as I said before, what it all boils down to for me is “Lord, what must I do?”…as in the question the young man asked our Lord…?
I care about the practical realities that follow from theology. That is what most lay Catholics must concern themselves with. I will continue to leave it to the Bishops to make the decisions and the explanations.
So please, stop ascribing to me motives that are not there. Having grown up with a sociopath for a mother, I cannot handle the slapdowns for motives that I do not even have.

 

[Debora123]

To #1: There it is again “I am sorry you feel…”

To #2: You are not as straightforward and succinct as you might like to imagine yourself to be. You used some pretty strong language and ascribed motives to myself and several other posters that simply were not there. You cannot claim that brevity or succinctness is the problem.

To #3: Again, for the third time…I did not address that post to you at all. It was extemporaneous waxing on the changing definitions of words over time, and how that, plus increased human knowledge, makes misunderstandings more common when we refer to older theological works without understanding the difference in those definitions. Obviously a problem here…so kinda proves my point.

To #4: Do not address me as “Y’all” when you should know very well that I never said anything about being “old” or “not infallible”. Additionally, the affected Southern twang as an indication of attempted politeness only works face to face. I know. I am a Carolinian. We say “y’all” down here when we are being super polite and approachable. You, however, continue to ascribe motives that are nonexistent.

 

[levinas12]

Well I would think they would be using it in those 5 days prior to ovulation. If the act occurs within the 24 hours of ovulation or the 24 hours prior to ovulation your looking at anywhere between a 25% to 50% chance of conception on average during those two days depending on the age of the woman and man involved as well as a host of other mitigating factors. How long the sperm survive and how likely conception is if the act occurs 2 or more days before is going to depend on the health and age of the man involved, but it would be less than 25% for sure

Well, maybe we should just look at how likely it is that a woman could get pregnant from a rape.

I have seen some estimates as low as one or two pregnancies per every 1,000 rapes.

And then we should look at how effective the Catholic EC would be in preventing pregnancies that would otherwise happen if it were not performed.

By the way, where do your percentages come from?

I just don’t see much likelihood in a woman getting pregnant in situations where Catholic EC would be allowed. Thus, Catholic EC would seem to be unnecessary.

 

[Ana_v]

Looks to me like we ourselves a moral question that is worthy of being formally resolved by the Church, in addition to the definition of “sex” and “contraception”, which apparently are up for debate.

I disagree with those commenters who have said something to the effect of “rape is not sex, it is an act of violence” on that basis that it is a false dichotomy (if by violence, they meant physical violence).

There is no purpose to the term “consensual sex” if there doesn’t exist its opposite: non-consensual sex.

Also, an act of rape is not necessarily violent. It can take the form of a man who drugs a woman and “enters her” while she is not conscious and without using physical force or aggressively handling her body.

That aside, the most intriguing argument that I saw, in favor of the use of the morning after pill by a rape victim, is the one put forward by the commenter who made mention of that fact that a third party (person) who intervenes in the rape act, in defense of the victim, is morally justified in his intervention, but we would not call him an agent of contraception on that basis. Similarly, we probably all agree that if the victim fought off her rapist while he was inside her such that ejaculation did not occur, she is morally justified, and is not guilty of the sin of onanism. If this can be granted, then, I fully admit, it is difficult to see how the use of the morning after pill post- rape, pre-conception, is objectionable. For the time being though, I will remain agnostic as to this issue.

One other question though (for those proposing that contraception pertains only to marriage, thus it is impossible to commit the sin of contraception outside of marriage):
WHAT ABOUT MARITAL RAPE? Should be an interesting addition to the discussion.

 

[Debora123]

WHAT ABOUT MARITAL RAPE? Should be an interesting addition to the discussion.

This is easy.

Marital rape is still rape, meaning it’s RAPE not the marital act (even if they are married). Thus it should be treated as a rape because that is what it is.

 

[Debora123]

(for those proposing that contraception pertains only to marriage, thus it is impossible to commit the sin of contraception outside of marriage)

You’re missing the point. No one is saying contracepted fornication wouldn’t be a sin. It would absolutely be a sin of grave matter because fornication is grave matter and a disordered act. What we are saying is that whether or not contraception was used in fornication is a moot point… (unless it is abortifacient)