Regarding Rape

[c659smith]

I think the poster was using terms in a loose way. No one is condoning chemical abortion. What some are saying is that it is licit to use drugs to expel the sperm which as no righ to be in the woman.

The problem is she needs to be tested to be sure no conception has happend and that is another moral issue for a new thread as it is complicated.

no complication here it is abortion no need for new thread.

someone posted RU486 IS ok and it is not at all an alternative in Catholic or Christian teaching.

 

[fix]

no complication here it is abortion no need for new thread.

someone posted RU486 IS ok and it is not at all an alternative in Catholic or Christian teaching.

I agree with you. The problem seems to be determining if conception has happend.

 

[jmcrae]

Oh yes someone is stating the morning after pill is ok.

It is okay, only IF there is no chance that she has already ovulated (but is likely to ovulate in the next few days). It’s not a blanket “okay” - there are conditions attached.

 

[c659smith]

I agree. The problem seems to be determining if conception has happend.

If you determine no conception happened which would be weeks later to be sure than it is either too late or makes no sense in taking such a pill.

What was being said is a cop out for one to say that I did not think I was pregnant but wanted to avoid ovalation.

Rediculous.

By the time you get to the hospital, have the exams done for criminal persecution, get a prescription, and figure out if one is pregnant, the sperm has already done it’s deed or they are sleeping.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Suppose a woman is being raped and as ejaculation nears, the rapist out of his last remaining drop of compassion decides not to run the risk of impregnanting his already terrified victim so he withdraws and ejaculates elsewhere. Did he compound his sin? According to church authorities, God killed Onan for ejaculating on the ground.

The Summa Theologica (see here) says that the sin is compounded. The completed rape is disordered as an act of violence, but is properly ordered as regards sexuality, as the semen ends up in the right place. The interrupted rape is disordered as to its sexual nature, which was worse in the eyes of the medieval Church.

 

[jmcrae]

If you determine no conception happened which would be weeks later to be sure than it is either too late or makes no sense in taking such a pill.

Actually, if she is charting, she knows on the same day, whether she is likely to have become pregnant, or not - or whether she is due to ovulate in the near future.

I am under the impression that the medication is easy to get - she would have to go to the hospital anyway to repair the damage to her reproductive organs; she could ask for it then.

 

[c659smith]

Actually, if she is charting, she knows on the same day, whether she is likely to have become pregnant, or not - or whether she is due to ovulate in the near future.

I am under the impression that the medication is easy to get - she would have to go to the hospital anyway to repair the damage to her reproductive organs; she could ask for it then.

First please understand when and how this drug is used

The drug ends a pregnancy by blocking the hormone progesterone. Women take the pill in the doctor’s office and then go home, where they take another drug, misoprostol, to trigger contractions, essentially causing a miscarriage. Women then return to the doctor within about two weeks to make sure the process worked.

This is not a pill to block pregnancy from happening it is a pill the kill the baby.

It is not taken the morning after and a doctor does not prescribe it as a contraception type drug.

However because of the uncleanliness and chance of desease a D&C can be completed immediately afterwards which would in effect due to scraping of the uterus stop any pregnancy

 

[EvelynEVF]

When I call it the morning after pill, I am not referring to RU486. I am referring to “Plan B,” (I think this is the name) which is equivalent to swallowing a whole pack of birth control pills–ie an estrogen overdose, which will prevent ovulation.

This is completely different from the abortion pill RU486. Plan B, if taken prior to ovulation, simply holds back ovulation until the sperm have a chance to die. Conception does not happen on the way to the hospital. When a woman is ripening an egg, she may have fertile mucus for several days which can hold the sperm in a happy sort of suspended animation until the egg is released. Plan B will change this mucus and let the sperm die before they can ever unite with the egg and result in conception.

That’s why it’s moral–it doesn’t abort, if used correctly (and that’s the hardest part)

 

[Sair]

The Summa Theologica (see here) says that the sin is compounded. The completed rape is disordered as an act of violence, but is properly ordered as regards sexuality, as the semen ends up in the right place. The interrupted rape is disordered as to its sexual nature, which was worse in the eyes of the medieval Church.

The medieval Church was, of course, operating in a social environment in which women were considered primarily as incubators for the male seed, rather than thinking, feeling beings in their own right.

Regarding marital rape - I’m not sure that under the circumstances, “denying the woman a chance for a baby” is something that makes the act worse. If the relationship has decayed to the point where rape has happened within marriage, what kind of parents are the couple going to be anyway?

 

[EvelynEVF]

Well, the mom is a good mom but you’re right, it isn’t a good place to bring a baby. Although it does make me wonder about what might have been going on in the old days, when you had political marriages, and the women were really just valued for producing sons. If a husband forced himself on his wife and somehow contracepted, he was doing his wife a grave disservice. And if she did have a baby as a result, I suppose they had more extended family connections and a larger household to raise children in, instead of just a dysfunctional nuclear family.

 

[Doople]

Think man! Use your head. Church authorities take the issue of ejaculation very seriously. Scripture’s interesting passage on rape is also quite puzzling.

“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Also…Your reply has nothing to do with the question which is legitimate. Did God kill Onan for not ejaculating into his sister-in-law? I am not making a judgement call, I am only asking a question. Do you have anything to contribute?

God did not kill Onan simply for that single act. There was more to the story.

I do not believe “pulling out” compounds or reduces the sin. Rape is rape.

 

[Sair]

I do not believe “pulling out” compounds or reduces the sin. Rape is rape.

Indeed. A pregnancy resulting from rape would make the woman’s burden harder to bear, whether or not she aborts the child; however, I doubt most men who commit rape would be motivated by any compassion for the woman. If they intentionally pull out to avoid pregnancy, it is only to save their own necks.

However, the issue is compounded if the woman has the presence of mind, when faced with the immediate threat of rape, to request that the rapist use a condom - not only to prevent pregnancy, but to prevent transmission of disease, possibly AIDS. Such a request has in the past been interpreted as consent, even if the woman has a knife held to her throat… What does the church make of the request for a condom under these circumstances?

 

[Doople]

Indeed. A pregnancy resulting from rape would make the woman’s burden harder to bear, whether or not she aborts the child; however, I doubt most men who commit rape would be motivated by any compassion for the woman. If they intentionally pull out to avoid pregnancy, it is only to save their own necks.

However, the issue is compounded if the woman has the presence of mind, when faced with the immediate threat of rape, to request that the rapist use a condom - not only to prevent pregnancy, but to prevent transmission of disease, possibly AIDS. Such a request has in the past been interpreted as consent, even if the woman has a knife held to her throat… What does the church make of the request for a condom under these circumstances?

Having been in a situation where I was coerced and sexually assaulted, I do not think that counts as consent. It is instinctual and intended towards survival (ie, I’ll do this if you let me go, or, please let me go I’ll do whatever you want.) The woman would not do this in a situation where she would be free to choose so I do NOT think this constitues as consent.

 

[Sair]

Having been in a situation where I was coerced and sexually assaulted, I do not think that counts as consent. It is instinctual and intended towards survival (ie, I’ll do this if you let me go, or, please let me go I’ll do whatever you want.) The woman would not do this in a situation where she would be free to choose so I do NOT think this constitues as consent.

I absolutely agree. Whatever can be done to ensure your survival of a traumatic experience such as rape - especially one committed with the threat (or execution) of violence - is completely legitimate, in my opinion at least. In the time of AIDS - a life-threatening condition - requesting that a rapist use a condom is a potentially life-saving action, especially if trying to prevent them from carrying out the rape might result in them getting angry and beating you with their fists or stabbing you with a knife instead.

However, I guess lawyers are in the business of exploiting whatever information they can use to get their client out of a conviction…I merely wondered what the church would make of the situation, from the point of view of the woman.

 

[TLM08]

The Summa Theologica (see here) says that the sin is compounded. The completed rape is disordered as an act of violence, but is properly ordered as regards sexuality, as the semen ends up in the right place. The interrupted rape is disordered as to its sexual nature, which was worse in the eyes of the medieval Church.

THANK YOU!

I feel vindicated!

 

[EvelynEVF]

regarding the church’s stance on asking for a condom:

Marital sex needs to be unitive and procreative. A woman has no obligation whatsoever to permit any man besides her husband the privilege of bringing forth life with her. She can’t abort if a baby has been conceived, but she isn’t required to let his sperm get where they want to go.

Oh, and submission does not equal consent, legally. Complicates things sometimes, though.

 

[fix]

THANK YOU!

I feel vindicated!

The citation is not a magisterial teaching.

 

[fix]

If you determine no conception happened which would be weeks later to be sure than it is either too late or makes no sense in taking such a pill.

What was being said is a cop out for one to say that I did not think I was pregnant but wanted to avoid ovalation.

Rediculous.

By the time you get to the hospital, have the exams done for criminal persecution, get a prescription, and figure out if one is pregnant, the sperm has already done it’s deed or they are sleeping.

I hope the Vatican offers clear guidelines.

 

[jmcrae]

I merely wondered what the church would make of the situation, from the point of view of the woman.

The Church would tell the woman that she has the right to do everything in her power to defend her own life and liberty. She can even kill him, if she wants to, and if she has the ability.

 

[chevalier]

You know what? I’d like to give you a “Richard Dawkins” answer: Yes. Technically, it’s even a sin to resist rape, unless you want to die instead. My saint name is Maria Goretti; she was almost raped, yet she resisted and instead was stabbed to death… she became a saint for that.

And therefore it was a meritorious act to resist rape and it was not a sin. It is not a sin to resist being forced into what is grave matter. It’s foolish and may be sinful to get killed over a stupidity, but it is not sin to resist rape. It is not a sin to fight back in a normal fight and get killed, either.

My answer: I would most certainly hope not, but I can’t confirm anything because that sounds like an “Old Testament” concept, where the rapist would have to take his victim as his wife, now that he’s “deflowered” her.

And provide for her. And often “rape” was construed as any form of unlawful intercourse with a woman not your wife. Meaning, “rape of a virgin” in mediaeval terms might well have been consensual. It doesn’t seem to be the case in the Bible, however. No matter how much I stretch my imagination, I can’t see God wanting to force a raped woman to marry her rapist. There must be some explanation to that.

I absolutely agree. Whatever can be done to ensure your survival of a traumatic experience such as rape - especially one committed with the threat (or execution) of violence - is completely legitimate, in my opinion at least. In the time of AIDS - a life-threatening condition - requesting that a rapist use a condom is a potentially life-saving action, especially if trying to prevent them from carrying out the rape might result in them getting angry and beating you with their fists or stabbing you with a knife instead.

However, I guess lawyers are in the business of exploiting whatever information they can use to get their client out of a conviction…I merely wondered what the church would make of the situation, from the point of view of the woman.

I’m a lawyer by education, I’m doing a Ph.D. in criminal proceedings, I wrote my Master’s on the benefit of doubt for the accused. That is not consent in my book.