Questions about sterilization

[nodito]

No she is not. That is self defense from an attacker. Totally different from contraception.

I agree! But she is trying to prevent conception also, so… why doesn’t that make it contraception?

 

[Rau]

You are wrong. They are going against the Church’s teaching. The morning after pill DOES constitute contraception. ANY artificial means to prevent contraception is a grave sin. The Church does not teach exceptions. Exceptions put forward by a few Bishops are not the Church’s teachings. If it were a Church teaching then the Vatican would put it out to the entire world. It has not.

So, should a villain insert semen into a woman with an eye-dropper, would she be wrong to take steps to prevent conception? Does forced penile penetration (rape) constitute a different moral case? What about a woman heaving the rapist from her body prior to Ejaculation?

 

[Rau]

No she is not. That is self defense from an attacker. Totally different from contraception.

Correct. And the right to stop the violation does not end with the arrival of semen. The Bishops who have approved treatment post rape acknowledge this. They acknowledge that such treatment is not the moral act of contraception.

 

[thistle]

Correct. And the right to stop the violation does not end with the arrival of semen. The Bishops who have approved treatment post rape acknowledge this. They acknowledge that such treatment is not the moral act of contraception.

But that is not the teaching of the Church!

 

[nodito]

But that is not the teaching of the Church!

Thistle, You keep insisting this, and yet you have not provided anything that shows that the Church treats cases of rape the same way it treats consensual marital intercourse.

The sin of contraception is in separating the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace. But with rape there is no unitive or marital meaning of the sexual encounter, so it makes sense that there be no sin in refusing the procreative aspect.

If a woman is being raped, you agree that she ought to have the right to push off her offender, even if her primary motivation for doing so is that she will not become pregnant, correct? You agree that this is self-defense. Why does her right to stop her offender cease when his body leaves and it is only his sperm that he leaves behind?

Show me whether the Church teaches otherwise and you’ll convince me. But you’ll need to offer something more solid than just your repeated assertions that it is so.

 

[thistle]

Thistle, You keep insisting this, and yet you have not provided anything that shows that the Church treats cases of rape the same way it treats consensual marital intercourse.

The sin of contraception is in separating the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace. But with rape there is no unitive or marital meaning of the sexual encounter, so it makes sense that there be no sin in refusing the procreative aspect.

If a woman is being raped, you agree that she ought to have the right to push off her offender, even if her primary motivation for doing so is that she will not become pregnant, correct? You agree that this is self-defense. Why does her right to stop her offender cease when his body leaves and it is only his sperm that he leaves behind?

Show me whether the Church teaches otherwise and you’ll convince me. But you’ll need to offer something more solid than just your repeated assertions that it is so.

Why don’t you get? I can’t show you something that does not exist!!!
The Church teaching is clear that no artificial means of contraception is permitted. It does NOT say that rape is an exception. Please show me a Church document that teaches universally (not locally by some Bishops) that rape is an exception.

 

[nodito]

Why don’t you get? I can’t show you something that does not exist!!!
The Church teaching is clear that no artificial means of contraception is permitted. It does NOT say that rape is an exception. Please show me a Church document that teaches universally (not locally by some Bishops) that rape is an exception.

I think this conversation has probably reached the end of its usefulness. You believe me to be wrong, I believe you’re wrong.

I agree that contraception is wrong; I believe that self-defense is not contraception, just as lawful therapeutic means of treating illnesses that use ovulation-preventing medications are not contraception. You haven’t shown me anything to convince me otherwise.

God bless, and peace to you.

 

[Rau]

Why don’t you get? I can’t show you something that does not exist!!!
The Church teaching is clear that no artificial means of contraception is permitted. It does NOT say that rape is an exception. Please show me a Church document that teaches universally (not locally by some Bishops) that rape is an exception.

What is your response to post #62?

 

[Cloud789]

Hi OP, I just want you to know you’re not alone in your fear. I have the exact same phobia and would love nothing more than permanent sterilization to make me feel a little safer. I also never plan on getting married or having children so see no problem with it. True that if someone gets raped the damage is already done but getting pregnant as a result would make the situation so much worse. I would honestly rather get raped and murdered than raped and pregnant. I told my mother (she’s Catholic) I want to get sterilized and why but she won’t support me because for some stupid reason she thinks I will meet a man I want to marry someday, lol. Puke. I will be single forever. I just want to get my tubes cut and burned asap. I would feel a little safer and more in control. Just wanted to share my thoughts.