Non-abortvie Contraception always wrong, but it doesnt add up if

[carn]

a women can expect to be raped. Assumption for the discussion is that the women could use diaphragm or spermicidic creme or other non-abortive contraceptive methods, which do not rely on the man doing his part. Second assumption is that a women knows it is likely she will be raped (meaning her options to avoid being raped are not reliable for whatever reasons).

If i understood correctly contraception (of course i am not talking about NFP here) is wrong because:

• it turns martial realtionship into a lie.
  Well, thats not a problem here, using contraception is certainly no lie, because the women does not want to have sex obviously
• it encourages immoral behavior
  The rapists will not ask, so it certainly does not encourage anything in that direction
• it changes the natural way things work by direct human interference
  Drawing a gun and putting a bullet into the would be rapist head is also a planned human intereference and it is something that - lacking alternatives - would not be immoral

So i cannot see that using non-abortive contraception methods would be always immoral in that circumstances, though of course there are a lot of other options, what the women is allowed to do to defend herself and this option is inferior to many others (e.g. informing the police, so the would be rapist is arrested). But it would depend on the situation.

 

[Corki]

reductio ad absurdum

 

[Loriab]

Um, Would a rapist necessarily give a woman enough time to grab the contraception even if this was moral?

 

[carn]

Um, Would a rapist necessarily give a woman enough time to grab the contraception even if this was moral?

For the question whether something is true/false, in all possible circumstances it is not relevant, if under normal circumstances it is true/false, if there are some circumstances, where it is false/true.
Or in other words i would need to spell out just one scenario, that is possbile to solve the problem you see. Is it necessary for me to spell out a scenario or can you accept the assumption, that the women somehow has time but still the likelyhood of rape is high?

@corki
What is wrong with reductio ad absurdum?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

a women can expect to be raped. Assumption for the discussion is that the women could use diaphragm or spermicidic creme or other non-abortive contraceptive methods, which do not rely on the man doing his part. Second assumption is that a women knows it is likely she will be raped (meaning her options to avoid being raped are not reliable for whatever reasons).

If i understood correctly contraception (of course i am not talking about NFP here) is wrong because:

• it turns martial realtionship into a lie.
  Well, thats not a problem here, using contraception is certainly no lie, because the women does not want to have sex obviously
• it encourages immoral behavior
  The rapists will not ask, so it certainly does not encourage anything in that direction
• it changes the natural way things work by direct human interference
  Drawing a gun and putting a bullet into the would be rapist head is also a planned human intereference and it is something that - lacking alternatives - would not be immoral

So i cannot see that using non-abortive contraception methods would be always immoral in that circumstances, though of course there are a lot of other options, what the women is allowed to do to defend herself and this option is inferior to many others (e.g. informing the police, so the would be rapist is arrested). But it would depend on the situation.

I made a honest effort to understand, I read 3 times. Sorry, I could not understand.
Is it immoral for a prostitute to use condoms and pills?
Is it immoral for a 60 year old woman which has passed menopause to use condoms and pills?
Is it immoral to use condoms as ballons in a Birthday Party?
Is it immoral for a man to eat pills?

 

[carn]

I made a honest effort to understand, I read 3 times. Sorry, I could not understand.

Women is abducted by single man and put into the closed back of a van. He says he is driving to some place where he is going to rape her. When checking the interior of the van, she doesn’t find anything to defend herself. Since the man uses the van for transporting medical goods, she finds by chance a package of diaphragms and spermicide. She thinks about applying both to avoid getting pregnat due to being raped. Moral or immoral?

And the difference between the prostitute is that the prostitutes actions are immoral whether she contracepts or not. This women up to that point did not act immorally in any way.

 

[Loriab]

“For the question whether something is true/false, in all possible circumstances it is not relevant, if under normal circumstances it is true/false, if there are some circumstances, where it is false/true.
Or in other words i would need to spell out just one scenario, that is possbile to solve the problem you see. Is it necessary for me to spell out a scenario or can you accept the assumption, that the women somehow has time but still the likelyhood of rape is high?”

That a woman would have time to grab contraception in the event of a rape is, for the most part, highly unlikely. More likely that the rapist would use a condom in the effort not to leave DNA evidence.

 

[Mudgely]

Women is abducted by single man and put into the closed back of a van. He says he is driving to some place where he is going to rape her. When checking the interior of the van, she doesn’t find anything to defend herself. Since the man uses the van for transporting medical goods, she finds by chance a package of diaphragms and spermicide. She thinks about applying both to avoid getting pregnat due to being raped. Moral or immoral?

And the difference between the prostitute is that the prostitutes actions are immoral whether she contracepts or not. This women up to that point did not act immorally in any way.

I think that Catholic teaching is that the rapist is acting immorally. This does not give the woman license to act immorally. Preventing even the slightest possibility of conception by means other than abstinence is considered wrong in Catholic doctrine and practices. It would violate Catholic doctrine for a man to wear a condom while having intercourse with a woman who has had a tubal ligation because there is a minuscule chance of impregnation. The fact of the rape does not factor into the woman’s moral choice, when it comes to contraception.

 

[PatriceA]

I think that Catholic teaching is that the rapist is acting immorally. This does not give the woman license to act immorally. Preventing even the slightest possibility of conception by means other than abstinence is considered wrong in Catholic doctrine and practices. It would violate Catholic doctrine for a man to wear a condom while having intercourse with a woman who has had a tubal ligation because there is a minuscule chance of impregnation. The fact of the rape does not factor into the woman’s moral choice, when it comes to contraception.

This.

AND if I have the mobility and access to stuff in the back of the van, the last thing on my mind is contraception. I’m looking for some kind of instrument to defend myself and plan my escape.

 

[Loriab]

I also have to agree with Mudgely and PatriceA

 

[Godfollower]

I think it might be helpful to review the Catechism here. Contraception is an offense against marriage. How is the marriage harmed by the use of contraception during a rape?

I also see nothing in *Humanae Vitae *that suggests a duty on the part of rape victims to risk STDs and pregnancy. Again, they’re victims. They have almost no duty toward their attacker, and certainly not a duty to have his child or take on his diseases.

And this scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it might sound. There have been several instances of rape victims saying something to the effect of “Please, at least use a condom.” I for one would find it very difficult to tell a rape victim that she sinned by trying to avoid an STD on top of the trauma she already knew she was about to suffer.

There is nothing inherently evil about condoms (ask any soldier who has placed them over the muzzle of his weapon to keep it dry in the rain). The evil comes from the interference with the marital act. Well, it seems to me that rape is not a marital act. Ergo, the evil of condom use (or spermicide or whatever) doesn’t attach.

 

[Nate13]

I think it might be helpful to review the Catechism here. Contraception is an offense against marriage. How is the marriage harmed by the use of contraception during a rape?

I also see nothing in *Humanae Vitae *that suggests a duty on the part of rape victims to risk STDs and pregnancy. Again, they’re victims. They have almost no duty toward their attacker, and certainly not a duty to have his child or take on his diseases.

And this scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it might sound. There have been several instances of rape victims saying something to the effect of “Please, at least use a condom.” I for one would find it very difficult to tell a rape victim that she sinned by trying to avoid an STD on top of the trauma she already knew she was about to suffer.

There is nothing inherently evil about condoms (ask any soldier who has placed them over the muzzle of his weapon to keep it dry in the rain). The evil comes from the interference with the marital act. Well, it seems to me that rape is not a marital act. Ergo, the evil of condom use (or spermicide or whatever) doesn’t attach.

I believe this is correct. In the case of rape, it is allowable to take action to prevent sperm from reaching the egg. Once sperm reaches egg you have a life though and any action to dispose of it would be immoral.

 

[Mudgely]

I think it might be helpful to review the Catechism here. Contraception is an offense against marriage. How is the marriage harmed by the use of contraception during a rape?

I also see nothing in *Humanae Vitae *that suggests a duty on the part of rape victims to risk STDs and pregnancy. Again, they’re victims. They have almost no duty toward their attacker, and certainly not a duty to have his child or take on his diseases.

And this scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it might sound. There have been several instances of rape victims saying something to the effect of “Please, at least use a condom.” I for one would find it very difficult to tell a rape victim that she sinned by trying to avoid an STD on top of the trauma she already knew she was about to suffer.

There is nothing inherently evil about condoms (ask any soldier who has placed them over the muzzle of his weapon to keep it dry in the rain). The evil comes from the interference with the marital act. Well, it seems to me that rape is not a marital act. Ergo, the evil of condom use (or spermicide or whatever) doesn’t attach.

Good points. Thanks. Of course everyone’s sympathy is with the woman in this scenario. I would not fault her for ANY action that she took under the circumstances. I take exception to the consideration of obligation to the rapist. If there is an obligation, it is to herself, and possibly to an unborn life, and to God. Her obligation with God is between her and God, and not to be second guessed by me.

I have raised this point in other contexts though. In the case of a man who commits adultery, does he commit a further sin by wearing a condom, in order to prevent STD’s and pregnancy. Everyone got so hung up on the issue of adultery, that nobody seemed to interested in the other moral issue. I wonder if contraception compounds the sin of adultery, or is it a neutral act in that context? With contraception, does it make a difference morally whether the sexual act is coerced or whether it is voluntary?

 

[underacloud]

I’ll have to find the sources, but it is documented that nuns have used birth control pills in war-torn countries were the risk of rape is high.

The argument is that the rape is a violent and illicit attack and that the victim has no moral obligation to allow it to proceed to its natural consequences; instead, they have every right to defend themselves from the attack, including defending themselves from the sperm. It is not a frustration of the marital act, since it is not a marital act anyway.

Further, I believe there are guidelines published by the Bishops in US for the treatment of women following rape which includes the posibility of preventative contraception. They are not allowed to use abortative methods, but if they can determine that ovulation has not yet occured, they are allowed to use hormonal means to prevent it. Again, I’d need to find the source.

 

[Corki]

I made a honest effort to understand, I read 3 times. Sorry, I could not understand.
Is it immoral for a prostitute to use condoms and pills?

Yes

Is it immoral for a 60 year old woman which has passed menopause to use condoms and pills?

Yes

Is it immoral to use condoms as ballons in a Birthday Party?

No

Is it immoral for a man to eat pills?

If they are male contraceptive pills, yes. If they are female contraceptive pills that have no effect on a man, no.

 

[Castello]

This.

AND if I have the mobility and access to stuff in the back of the van, the last thing on my mind is contraception. I’m looking for some kind of instrument to defend myself and plan my escape.

AMEN

 

[mark_a]

But it would depend on the situation.

It seems to me that folks will come up with the wildest “situations” to prove the Church teaching wrong, and since the Church is wrong about that situation, the Church is obviously wrong about other exceptions to the rule. Everyone I know who contracepts thinks they are an exception.

 

[carn]

If they are female contraceptive pills that have no effect on a man, no.

Isn’t damaging his own body - at least in serious ways - immorally?

I do not know for the moment, what damage pill would do for male, but pill is designed to women and even with them there are harmful side effects in some cases.

 

[carn]

It seems to me that folks will come up with the wildest “situations” to prove the Church teaching wrong, and since the Church is wrong about that situation, the Church is obviously wrong about other exceptions to the rule. Everyone I know who contracepts thinks they are an exception.

It is wrong to argue that way, because when rules are written down one first cannot always imagine every situation, where the rules are relevant, second one is limited in words and to words and third even an error regarding one situation does not show that the rules are wrong in other situations.

The only thing is that finding one situation would prove that - if point 2 is not the cause of the error in the rules - infallible. But since the “Non-abortive contraception is always wrong” is either not a teaching of the church (see posts of underacloud, Godfollower) or not an infallible one, this thread only shows that the threadstarter was/is uncertain or in error about the churchs teachings.

@Costello, PatriceA

I said that the women is searching for means to defend herself. And even if she finds some, this does not mean she would be certain that they are sufficient to prevent the rape (A criminal who would leave his victim alone with a nice selection of automatic weapons is realy unlikely, a criminal who leaves his victims with items that are of no help to keep the criminal from carrying out his plans is not unlikely in itself). So it is not that relevant for the question.

 

[Godfollower]

Pfaffenhoffen;8458532:

I made a honest effort to understand, I read 3 times. Sorry, I could not understand.
Is it immoral for a prostitute to use condoms and pills?

Yes

But see HH Benedict XVI, as quoted in Peter Seewald, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

(NB: His Holiness did not say condoms are good in general; he merely commented that perhaps a male prostitute who decides to start using condoms to protect his customers might be considered to have turned a corner toward morality).

It’s the same sort of thinking I was using in suggesting that a rape victim’s use of contraception (to prevent disease and pregnancy from the rape) can be understood as moral.