Rape or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TC2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TC2

Guest
Friends and I are discussing this, with various viewpoints.

A woman is attacked, in her own home or elsewhere.
No one to help.
The man may or may not have a weapon.
He is going to rape her, no question about it.
She asks him to use a condom, he does.
Is it still rape? Or did she consent?
What do you think? What would you do, if you were her?
 
Wow, I never thought of this situation before, that’s a tough one. I really don’t know. I have to think about it! :confused:
 
Still rape. Definitely. She is not giving free consent, but simply begging the attacker to do something she feels is merciful to her.
 
Of course it is still rape, and no she did not consent.

From a legal standpoint I believe case law affirms this also.
 
Part of the reasoning behind the Bishops approval of the morning after pill in certain rape cases is that it is not contraception because the rapist has no right to force sexual activity on the victim. There is nothing mutual about it as one would have in the marital act. No problem here for the girl to request the use of a condom.
 
Still rape!

Suppose someone had me prisoner and was about to kill me, and I said, “Make it quick.” Would that mean I was agreeing to be killed? Preposterous. Trying to minimize damages from an attack is nothing even remotely similar to consenting to the attack.
 
I agree with the others… still rape. Trying to place myself in that situation, if it looked like there was no way out for me, the best way I could protect myself from a potential disease like AIDs or other VD would be to ask for that.

Has a scenario like this actually ever occurred. My father has had patients who were raped and I knew of people who were raped, but none of them had the choice to even ask if the perpertrator would use a condom. I think most purpertrators wouldn’t do that. Also, either the woman/child or the rapist would need to carry a condom with them.

I guess the only way I could see something like this happening is if a woman is in a physically abusive marriage and is being forced to have sex with her husband against her will.
 
Sara,
Yes, this did happen several years ago,not sure of where, but I’m sure any lawyers here may know of such a case. Caused a big fuss, I don’t remember how it turned out, but it caused much discussion for a long time afterward.
Anyone know of the case I’m talking about, or maybe another?
 
rwoehmke said:
Part of the reasoning behind the Bishops approval of the morning after pill in certain rape cases is that it is not contraception because the rapist has no right to force sexual activity on the victim. There is nothing mutual about it as one would have in the marital act. No problem here for the girl to request the use of a condom.
Click to expand...
While some bishops may mistakenly approve of the morning after pill I believe that the Church is against it.

The morning after pill is not contraception. It is an abortifacient.
 
TC2 said:
Friends and I are discussing this, with various viewpoints.

A woman is attacked, in her own home or elsewhere.
No one to help.
The man may or may not have a weapon.
He is going to rape her, no question about it.
She asks him to use a condom, he does.
Is it still rape? Or did she consent?
What do you think? What would you do, if you were her?
Click to expand...
RAPE, no question in my mind.

What would I do? Kick him, scratch him, punch him, scream like hell and hopefully get away.
 
TC2 said:
Sara,
Yes, this did happen several years ago,not sure of where, but I’m sure any lawyers here may know of such a case. Caused a big fuss, I don’t remember how it turned out, but it caused much discussion for a long time afterward.
Anyone know of the case I’m talking about, or maybe another?
Click to expand...
Wow… yes, that must have caused a huge fuss. I wonder what the final verdict was.
 
Ofcourse it’s rape, she didn’t consent to sex, she asked him to use a condom because she wouldn’t get pregnant.

It’s rape, and horrid.
 
Absolutely this is rape. The woman’s plea would be similar to a man who is about to be murdered asking his murderer to “make it quick”.
ByzCath said:
While some bishops may mistakenly approve of the morning after pill I believe that the Church is against it.

** The morning after pill is not contraception. It is an abortifacient.**
Click to expand...
While I completely agree with this statement, even if it were contraception, that is also against Church teachings and should not be approved.

But on further reflection, is the request by the woman to use artificial birth control wrong? Is the woman’s desire to use contraception in this very narrow circumstance, rape, wrong?

We all know that suicide is wrong, but in my example at the top, can we say the man is committing suicide?
 
I remember a case like this too, and I thought the guy was not found guilty because of it. I hope I’m remembering it incorrectly.

Of course it’s rape!
 
ByzCath said:
While some bishops may mistakenly approve of the morning after pill I believe that the Church is against it.
The morning after pill is not contraception. It is an abortifacient.
Click to expand...
Ii is allowed only after a test shows that fertilization has not occurred. A case in point is here in the state of Wisconsin. It is similar to allowing nuns working in areas where there is a danger of rape to take oral contraceptives as a preventitive measure.
 
What kind of medical test can tell if a woman is pregnant the same day/night that she has sex?
 
Benedictus said:
To clarify, it is a contraceptive. The question is whether or not it is also an abortifacient.
Click to expand...
From this website: morningafterpill.org/mapinfo1.htm

How do emergency contraception/morning-after pills work?

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):

Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the living human embryo, and the child will die. This result is a chemical abortion. (Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a living preborn human being—a life that begins at fertilization.)
 
Gamera said:
Still rape!

Suppose someone had me prisoner and was about to kill me, and I said, “Make it quick.” Would that mean I was agreeing to be killed? Preposterous. Trying to minimize damages from an attack is nothing even remotely similar to consenting to the attack.
Click to expand...
Another example is the holy martyr Perpetua, who actually guided the gladiator’s hand to her throat when he was having trouble killing her. (Admittedly one could make the case that perhaps Perpetua was a Montanist and had an unorthodox zeal for martyrdom, but I’m reluctant to judge her in that way.)

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top