If contraception is intrinsically evil...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LJN21 said:
I agree with you Marc, I don’t see how preemptive contraception can be morally licit. Especially considering most contraceptives have and aboritfician quality to them which is why in the Post rape case they have to make sure there has been any chance at fertilization before they can use them… Even still the morality of emergency contraceptives post rape is debated by theologians.

For therapeutic reasons which means you have to have medical condition which is being corrected by the medicine. If there is nothing medically wrong to treat it is immoral to take something which would make you sterile. Fertility is not an medical condition requiring of treatment.
Click to expand...
I never argued it was permissible. The greatest problem with taking the pill as a preemptive way to deal with rape is the pills abortifacient properties. It falls under the whole “you wouldn’t shoot into a bush if you thought there was even a 1% chance a human being was hiding in there” idea. Taking the pill beforehand completely negates the whole check process that occurs after a rape to determine if ovulation has occurred before giving ec.
 
Answer this question as well. If a woman knows she is about to be raped and has no way of preventing it, would it be immoral if she asked the man about to rape her to use a condom? Or do you think that is sinful?
 
Nate13 said:
And yet again we are back to the original problem. Is the act of rape supposed to be properly ordered towards procreation? If a woman’s rapist is wearing a condom is she supposed to tell him to take it off if he is going to rape her? If sex is supposed to be a complete gift of oneself, is the woman who is being raped going against the unitive meaning of sex if she doesn’t consent? Rape is not the conjugal act.
Click to expand...
  1. Sex is ALWAYS ordered to procreation naturally. Rape twists and perverts the true purpose of sex, but even so a raped woman CAN get pregnant-meaning it is ordered towards procreation.
  2. If a woman’s rapist is going to rape her she is not responsible for anything he does. He is sinning. If he is wearing a condom, that’s not her problem (she has enough problems already…)
  3. Ummm…if a woman is being raped she is having unconsenting sex. The rapist is the sinner by forcing her to have sex.
  4. No-but sex is sex. It’s always ordered toward procreation. Rape takes it out of its proper context and twists its purpose into something perverted and evil.
 
Nate13 said:
Answer this question as well. If a woman knows she is about to be raped and has no way of preventing it, would it be immoral if she asked the man about to rape her to use a condom? Or do you think that is sinful?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, good question. I’ll think on that one. This question is phrased more emotionally, so it’s a little bit harder to separate the logic from the emotion.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
  1. Sex is ALWAYS ordered to procreation naturally. Rape twists and perverts the true purpose of sex, but even so a raped woman CAN get pregnant-meaning it is ordered towards procreation.
Click to expand...
Let me twist that another way.
  1. Sex is ALWAYS ordered to being unitive naturally. Rape twists and perverts the true purpose of sex, but even so a raped woman CAN possibly feel some of unitive affects of sex. By not consenting she is denying the unitive meaning of sex.
  1. If a woman’s rapist is going to rape her she is not responsible for anything he does. He is sinning. If he is wearing a condom, that’s not her problem (she has enough problems already…)]
Click to expand...
Love thy enemies. She wouldn’t want her rapist to commit a further sin, or involve her in a further sin.
Ummm…if a woman is being raped she is having unconsenting sex. The rapist is the sinner by forcing her to have sex.
Click to expand...
You can’t say all sex is ordered towards procreation by nature and demand that it not be prevented, and then ignore the fact that all sex is also ordered towards bonding and then not also demand for it to not be impeded
  1. No-but sex is sex. It’s always ordered toward procreation. Rape takes it out of its proper context and twists its purpose into something perverted and evil.
Click to expand...
Sex is sex. It’s always ordered towards bonding. Rape takes it out of its proper context and twists its purpose into something perverted and evil.
 
Anyway-the question “Can contraception be used in CASE OF rape?” is one that I’m almost sure I have the correct answer on. No, it cannot.

How do I know? Two reasons.

One, I mention my theology teacher going for his master in bioethics a lot. This question was asked in his class and he answered no immediately, saying contraception was intrinsically evil. (In fact, I was the one who asked the question!)

Two, my teacher’s answer jives with natural law theory, and corroborated what I already thought.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Anyway-the question “Can contraception be used in CASE OF rape?” is one that I’m almost sure I have the correct answer on. No, it cannot.

How do I know? Two reasons.

One, I mention my theology teacher going for his master in bioethics a lot. This question was asked in his class and he answered no immediately, saying contraception was intrinsically evil. (In fact, I was the one who asked the question!)

Two, my teacher’s answer jives with natural law theory, and corroborated what I already thought.
Click to expand...
Your applying your theory inconsistently though when you don’t apply it to the unitive aspect of sex. Plus your theology teacher vs. the director of the National Catholic Bioethics Center…
 
Nate13 said:
Answer this question as well. If a woman knows she is about to be raped and has no way of preventing it, would it be immoral if she asked the man about to rape her to use a condom? Or do you think that is sinful?
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure this has already been answered by theologians as a licit action on the part of the victim. Theologians have also said its licit for women at high risk for rape to wear a Diaphragm for protection. I don’t see how the two situation are that different.

I think the bottom line is he has no right to her body, she has they right to protect herself in anyway she can, even if that meant killing him. What are a few sperm to a human life?
 
LJN21 said:
I’m pretty sure this has already been answered by theologians as a licit action on the part of the victim. Theologians have also said its licit for women high risk for rape to wear a Diaphragm for protection. I don’t see how the two situation are that different.

I think the bottom line is he has no right to her body, she has they right to protect herself in anyway she can, even if that meant killing him. What are a few sperm to a human life?
Click to expand...
Its a contraceptive action though according to Marc and thus as he rightly then concludes based on that it cannot be licit because contracepting is an intrinsic evil and thus never justifiable. Preventing sperm = preventing fertility = contracepting
 
I’m sorry, but from my point of view your answers are going further and further from the mark and are making less and less sense.

She doesn’t want her rapist commit a further sin??? Using a condom while raping someone is just another part of raping someone.

I don’t even get what you mean about a woman “needing” to consent to rape for “bonding” purposes. Whaaaat??? :confused: By definition rape is sex without consent-forcing somebody to have sex is the sin, resisting is just trying to leave a horrific situation.

Are you saying that every time somebody wants to have sex with a woman she needs to consent whether she wants to or not because otherwise she’s perverting “bonding”? :confused:

Annnd your point about rape being perverted because it perverts the bonding aspect of sex is true, yeah.

And finally, this isn’t MY theory. It’s Thomas Aquinas’s. And I don’t think your objections really make sense.
 
Nate13 said:
Its a contraceptive action though according to Marc and thus as he rightly then concludes based on that it cannot be licit because contracepting is an intrinsic evil and thus never justifiable. Preventing sperm = preventing fertility = contracepting
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see his point.

However, it seems to me that the attacker has no right to ‘leave his package’ in the first place. She has no obligation to keep it. I also don’t see this as contraception but defending her self from the attack.
 
Nate13 said:
Its a contraceptive action though according to Marc and thus as he rightly then concludes based on that it cannot be licit because contracepting is an intrinsic evil and thus never justifiable. Preventing sperm = preventing fertility = contracepting
Click to expand...
As it applies POST-rape may possibly go by different logic, and this is what I’m investigating.

Pre-rape? Absolutely no contraception.
 
LJN21 said:
Yeah, I see his point.

However, it seems to me that the attacker has no right to ‘leave his package’ in the first place. She has no obligation to keep it. I also don’t see this as contraception but defending her self from the attack.
Click to expand...
Possibly-but then in the end are you not still impeding conception? Then isn’t it contraception?
 
LJN21 said:
Did he specificity say that the rape victim had no recourse to self defense?
Click to expand...
First, let me clarify that I don’t mean to say that I’m applying it correctly, only that natural law theory isn’t my invention. But he DOES say contraception is an intrinsic evil.

EDIT: And even if we accept it as self-defense, honestly I still don’t really see how Nate’s answers make much sense, actually.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
EDIT: And even if we accept it as self-defense, honestly I still don’t really see how Nate’s answers make much sense, actually.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t really think it makes sense either, its tossing Natural Law out the window. Natural Law is supposed to be the bases of all Moral Theology. The other argument sounds like a couple of lawyers sitting in a room going trying to find loop holes in terms they don’t really understand.
 
Is there a moral difference between “contracepted” fornication and “uncontracepted” fornication? If not, then we have to conclude that “contraception” outside of marriage, per se, is not wrong.

So, e.g., parents who institute a birth control regimen (pill, etc) for their unmarried daughter are not doing anything wrong. If fornication occurs, it’s only the daughter’s fault; and it’s only the fornication which is wrong, not the birth control regimen.

I probably need to open another thread on this issue. I have (sort of) wandered off the reservation. But feel free to respond anyway.
 
LJN21 said:
Does he have any thread of a right to attempt to conceive with his victim?
Click to expand...
No, but that’s not really the question, right? The question is whether or not there is ANY circumstance a woman is permitted to impede conception. Since conception is an intrinsic evil I’m not sure if there is, unless I’m honestly misunderstanding somebody.

**
 
levinas12 said:
A woman goes on the pill to play it safe. She believes that fornication is wrong. But then again you never know what might happen. Especially in a moment of passion.

Is this OK?

So far, there’s no fornication. Not even an intention. Only suppression of ovulation.

**Some on this thread have argued that taking the pill is only a sin within the context of marriage. **

So what about this scenario?

Marc Anthony, you already know what I think.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely 100000% false. NO ONE HERE has EVER said that taking the pill is ok. In fact, we’ve ALL been saying the exact opposite… the pill is abortifacient, and the only time it is ever ok to take it is for medical purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top