What is your opinion on the use of birth control in ANTICIPATION of being raped?

[samiam1611]

A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.

~Part 3, directive 36 of the USCCB’s Ethical and religious directives for Catholic Health Care services

In short, rape victims can use emergency contraception.
Ideally, rape would be prevented. If/since, this is not possible, the next ideal would be to prevent rape victims from becoming pregnant and from getting STD’s, agreed? The best way to prevent STD’s in cases of rape is the use of male condoms. Condoms are also a decent way to prevent pregnancy. But, rapists aren’t exactly known for their consideration of their victim’s wellbeing, so often, condoms are not used, I presume. Therefore, rape victims are more at risk for STD’s and unwanted pregnancy than say, a married couple (duh). In some parts of the world, rape is a much more common occurence than in Western society where most CAF members live. For example, there is a significantly higher chance of being raped in a country such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. Besides the trauma of being raped, getting an STD, and raising a child whose father is your rapist, women in these countries don’t have an exactly easy life anyway (poverty, already have large families, etc.)
In accordance with Catholic teaching, these women can licitly use emergency contraception (aka Plan B/morning after pill or copper IUD) (provided that ovulation has not yet occured.) Here’s the problem: in poverty stricken areas, determining if ovulation has occured is not possible in a timely matter (and time is of the essense), plus it may be prohibitavely costly. If you were a Catholic medical provider in an area of the world like this, would you be willing to provide EC to a rape victim even if you couldn’t determine if ovulation had occured? (Give it the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.)
Whether your answer is yes or no, another thing to consider, though it may not be in accordance with Catholic teaching, is would you consider prescribing birth control (aka the Pill, patch, implant etc) as a preventative measure to women at such a high risk of being raped? Or if you were in the situation of being at high risk, would you consider using it? Would being married or single have an impact on your decision?
Another situation to consider: what if you were in a situation of being frequently raped by someone, say a family member. You could licitly take the morning after pill every single time you were raped (if you practiced some sort of fertility awareness so would know when you ovulated). But the morning after pill is not meant to be used as a regular method of birth control. So would you be willing to take the Pill/patch/implant etc as a method of birth control then? Keep in mind that this is not the marital act. This is rape. Also, I am asking for your personal opinions here, not the official Church teachings - you have free will to ignore the teachings.
I mentioned before that the copper IUD can be used for emergency contraception (up to 5 days, as opposed to 3 days for the morning after pill.) The copper IUD is not abortifacient TECHNICALLY. (They would never give an IUD to a pregnant woman.) Yes I know, a newly conceived human being could fail to implant blah blah blah and some call that abortion. For the sake of argument, let’s go with the accepted understanding of how the IUD works which is to “hinder ascent of sperm to the fallopian tubes (where fertilization occurs) or reduce the ability of sperm to fertilize an egg. IUDs influence the number of sperm reaching the uterine cavity and the fallopian tubes. The sterile foreign-body reaction in the uterine cavity causes both cellular and biochemical changes that may be toxic to sperm. The copper released from the IUDs may have a toxic effect on the sperm.”
(fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/methodaction.htm)
So if you were expecting to get raped again in the near future, would you be more likely to consider the copper IUD over the morning after pill? (Because the IUD can be left in and in fact prevent conception for 10 years if you choose to keep it that long.) Again, just asking for opinions here people. Let’s not get into a discussion of if these things are abortifacient. The medical community agrees they are not, by definition, abortifacient and although you may disagree, it is not the issue at hand. I am just asking if you think circumstances lessen the intrinsic evil of contraception, and what you would do in if you were in such a circumstance.

 

[Rascalking]

1-I love your signature and picture of a pug.

2-this is the weirdest question I’ve ever heard. My heart breaks for women who get raped, I think the rapist should be executed. However, no women in the world would start using birth control because there is a chance she would get attacked. If the chance was that high, a woman wouldn’t put herself in the situation.

 

[RosaryFan]

Using birth control in case you get raped would be like using wart medicine everyday in case you’re going to get a wart.

 

[paperwight66]

As a matter of fact, during the civil war in the formerly Belgian Congo during the 1960s, nuns were prescribed the Pill for that very reason - they were in danger of being raped.

 

[pnewton]

They are the bishops. There is nothing in the moral law that would prevent such an application. For women who are are celibate, contraception really does not contracept anything.

 

[larsenl1]

As a matter of fact, during the civil war in the formerly Belgian Congo during the 1960s, nuns were prescribed the Pill for that very reason - they were in danger of being raped.

I was thinking of this too, in Central America, sometimes nuns would be allowed to use prophylactic contraception. This is a rare occasion though. The average women is not continuously in IMMEDIATE and EMINENT danger of rape.

So it has to be more than the idea that it is possible that one would be raped at some point in time therefore one can use artificial birth control with a clear conscience.

I actually had this discussion with a ethics rep at Pope Pius Institute in the case of a mentally incompetent female child who could potentially be coerced into sex without the ability to give consent. Even though I was told it would be licit my husband and I decided against it and we simply supervise my daughter literally 24/7.

 

[copperblade]

Using birth control in case you get raped would be like using wart medicine everyday in case you’re going to get a wart.

Or it can be like taking malaria prophylactic medication when going into an area known to have outbreaks of malaria.

Someone mentioned in another thread that birth control were given to nuns who were at a high risk of rape in some cases.

 

[copperblade]

So then the evil of contraception is contingent on your willingness to have sex, and not only the fact that it stops procreation? We know that we can’t commit an evil act to attain a good outcome. Which part of contraception is intrinsically evil?

I think for me it’s harder to understand how hospitals are allowed to give contraception to rape victims based on Church teaching, than it is to understand how taking contraception before you know there’s been a rape is ok. Like pnewton said, “For women who are are celibate, contraception really does not contracept anything.” So the subsequent act of sex would make the contraception sinful, and therefore not be the woman’s fault (because she is not at fault for the act of sex).

But in the case of retroactively using contraception at the hospital it is the act of using contraception that would be sinful since you already have the intent to contracept.

Sounds to me like contraception has two parts: the sexual act, and the intention to stop it from producing life.

 

[Betterave]

If you were a Catholic medical provider in an area of the world like this, would you be willing to provide EC to a rape victim even if you couldn’t determine if ovulation had occured? (Give it the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.)

Very clearly: no.

I mentioned before that the copper IUD can be used for emergency contraception (up to 5 days, as opposed to 3 days for the morning after pill.) The copper IUD is not abortifacient TECHNICALLY.

Are you sure about that? That’s not my understanding…

(They would never give an IUD to a pregnant woman.) Yes I know, a newly conceived human being could fail to implant blah blah blah and some call that abortion.

…er, yes: that is abortion, so the IUD is abortifacient.

The medical community agrees they are not, by definition, abortifacient…

That is false. They are not primarily abortifacient; that doesn’t mean not abortifacient.

I am just asking if you think circumstances lessen the intrinsic evil of contraception, and what you would do in if you were in such a circumstance.

Circumstances never lessen the intrinsic evil of an evil act. They may lessen the actual evil.

 

[pnewton]

But in the case of retroactively using contraception at the hospital it is the act of using contraception that would be sinful since you already have the intent to contracept.

Sounds to me like contraception has two parts: the sexual act, and the intention to stop it from producing life.

That’s kind of how I see it. Bioethics is a tough field. We know many things that are intrinsically sinful, but balancing these things in a change world is tough. It is surely beyond me in these more unusual situations. That is why I prefer to bow to the wisdom of my betters.

 

[samiam1611]

Very clearly: no.

Are you sure about that? That’s not my understanding…

…er, yes: that is abortion, so the IUD is abortifacient.

That is false. They are not primarily abortifacient; that doesn’t mean not abortifacient.

Circumstances never lessen the intrinsic evil of an evil act. They may lessen the actual evil.

If you click on the link I provided, it explains why it is not abortifacient. (Scroll most of the way down the page.) To many Catholics (and others I’m sure), since a new life is conceived (but then “dies”), it is abortion, which is an understandable mistake; and it really all comes down to semantics, not so much who is right or wrong. The fact is an abortifacient terminates a pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants. Perfectly fine for you to be against that, and consider it as “evil” as abortion, but I just wanted to point out the distinction that the medical community makes when labeling something abortifacient. The article explains it well.

 

[samiam1611]

I was thinking of this too, in Central America, sometimes nuns would be allowed to use prophylactic contraception. This is a rare occasion though. The average women is not continuously in IMMEDIATE and EMINENT danger of rape.

Prophylactic contraception - good phrase. I should’ve put that in the title of this thread.

My question is more about the unusual, extreme circumstances, not the average woman. Someone facing certain or near-certain rape, like some countries in Africa. In South Africa, 1 in 3 women has been raped! (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/258446.stm)

I had never heard of these nuns in Central America taking prophylactic contraception. Was that allowed, or were they breaking the rules?

 

[silentstar]

I was thinking of this too, in Central America, sometimes nuns would be allowed to use prophylactic contraception. This is a rare occasion though. The average women is not continuously in IMMEDIATE and EMINENT danger of rape.

So it has to be more than the idea that it is possible that one would be raped at some point in time therefore one can use artificial birth control with a clear conscience.

I actually had this discussion with a ethics rep at Pope Pius Institute in the case of a mentally incompetent female child who could potentially be coerced into sex without the ability to give consent. Even though I was told it would be licit my husband and I decided against it and we simply supervise my daughter literally 24/7.

That’s the issue. I have mild cerebral palsy and bipolar disorder and this issue comes up far more frequently with people with disabilities than it does for able-bodied women of average intellectual capacity. Additionally too many people with disabilities are in institutions where they have few or no relatives to advocate for them, and there are more abusive staff members than people like to think.

Personally, I think repeated rape is most likely to happen with child abuse where even if it is clearly rape the victim will probably not think about birth control - that conscious level of awareness about abuse tends to be unbearable and if the girl does disclose, I hope she would get help. However rape in relationships and marriages is more common than it should be and in that case I think it’s up to the woman to protect herself and any children she might have. However that is often better accomplished by leaving but the support system for women and children isn’t there, so too many times leaving means ending up in poverty.

As far as rape by a stranger, no I would not want to be on long-term contraception out of fear of that. It would make going outside feel too dangerous. What I would want to do is try to stay safe but knowing that is not always possible, try to arrange for any care I might need. If I were abused at this point it would mean a psychiatric hospitalization and I’d just want to do it. Probably a short one of a couple weeks but definitely something. At this point I’m doing much better than I used to be and don’t intend to need the hospital, but for me with bipolar emergency care is probably more about psychiatric care unless I had serious physical injuries.

 

[thistle]

ABC for the purpose of preventing a pregnancy is NEVER acceptable and there are no exceptions to that (including the possibilty of rape).

 

[copperblade]

If you click on the link I provided, it explains why it is not abortifacient. (Scroll most of the way down the page.) To many Catholics (and others I’m sure), since a new life is conceived (but then “dies”), it is abortion, which is an understandable mistake; and it really all comes down to semantics, not so much who is right or wrong. The fact is an abortifacient terminates a pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants. Perfectly fine for you to be against that, and consider it as “evil” as abortion, but I just wanted to point out the distinction that the medical community makes when labeling something abortifacient. The article explains it well.

I guess I have to re-evaluate what I’ve thought up until now. I always just counted impaired implantation as equivalent to direct abortion. But now I’m not sure that is correct in moral philosophical terms. Not only is it possibly not a direct act of abortion, it may be considered an unintended consequence.

Nevertheless, if you were Catholic and really believed there was a person, you would have to take even an “accidental” killing extremely seriously.

 

[Rence]

Well, I said this on another thread, so I’ll say it here too:

First of all, the reason why the Church forbids the use of artificial contraception for married couples is because their teaching states that any use of artificial contraception erases the “unitive property” of the marital embrace. In order to be not sinful, the marital embrace has to have the “unitive property” as well as the procreative property (that is, being open to life).

What you’re talking about is an unmarried woman, who is at risk of being raped, in a part of the world where there is significant threat of rape. With rape, there is no unitive property to speak of in this instance (for the Church to protect), and according to the US Bishops, there doesn’t have to be a procreative property in a rape situation. That’s why the US Bishops have said that the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape is licit as long as the woman isn’t already pregnant from before the incident, and as long as she has not/is not ovulating. The US Bishops directives state that a rape victim has the right to protect herself from a forced pregnancy as long as conception hasn’t already occured.

Ok, so there’s that. So given all that above, I would have to check with my priest, but I don’t see anything illicit about taking prophylactic ABCs if a woman is chaste and truly lives in an environment in which she is at significant risk of being raped. 1) she is not sexual active to begin with 2) she is not married 3) there is no Church-required unitive property between a rape victim and the rapist and 4) she has the right to protect herself from a forced pregnancy due to a rape.

I realize the women you’re talking about can’t eliminate the risk of rape from their environment, like you and I can. But of course, that would be the first step. If this step can’t be taken, and the woman is unable to protect herself further, then emergency contraception should be made available to help her. But I don’t really see a good reason to tear up her body with taking prophylactic ABCs. However, I have to admit, if I lived in such an environment, I would take them prophylactically too rather than risk a forced pregnancy by a rape. But I don’t live in such an environment. In addition, emergency contraception is dispensed here where I live to rape victims, so there is no need to beat up one’s body with unnecessary hormone therapy. If I were, God forbid, ever raped, I wouldn’t think twice about taking emergency contraception and I would do it straight away. And I thank God every day that I live in a place where the area surrounding hospitals dispense it to rape victims at their request. My heart goes out to rape victims who don’t.

What an awful world these women live in! We are so blessed to live as we live!!! It breaks my heart that there are women in the world who are in constant threat of rape.

 

[Rence]

1-I love your signature and picture of a pug.

2-this is the weirdest question I’ve ever heard. My heart breaks for women who get raped, I think the rapist should be executed. However, no women in the world would start using birth control because there is a chance she would get attacked. If the chance was that high, a woman wouldn’t put herself in the situation.

Actually, yeah they would. Samiam is not talking about women living in the US, though I’m sure there are women in the US who are victims of abuse who don’t think they can get out of their situation. But what Samiam is talking about are women who live in third world countries in environments where rape is very common and the probability of being raped is very high. She wouldn’t have any way of keeping herself out of that situation due to circumstances she can’t control. It’s not like she can up and move to another country. If it were that easy, the occurences and threat of rape in these places wouldn’t be so high.

 

[Rence]

ABC for the purpose of preventing a pregnancy is NEVER acceptable and there are no exceptions to that (including the possibilty of rape).

The US Bishops allow the use of emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy for rape victims. The US Bishops require 1) a pregnancy test to make sure the woman wasn’t already pregnant before the crime and 2) an LH test to make sure she isn’t/hasn’t ovulated already. In this manner, the emergency contraception prevents conception from ever happening in the first place by preventing ovulation from occuring. See the below quote from the USCCB’s website:

Quote:
A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.

~Part 3, directive 36 of the USCCB’s Ethical and religious directives for Catholic Health Care services

 

[thistle]

The US Bishops allow the use of emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy for rape victims. The US Bishops require 1) a pregnancy test to make sure the woman wasn’t already pregnant before the crime and 2) an LH test to make sure she isn’t/hasn’t ovulated already. In this manner, the emergency contraception prevents conception from ever happening in the first place by preventing ovulation from occuring. See the below quote from the USCCB’s website:

A local US exception ( I believe it contradicts Church teaching) which is not universal in the Church. I have not heard the Pope say that is okay.

 

[Betterave]

If you click on the link I provided, it explains why it is not abortifacient. (Scroll most of the way down the page.) To many Catholics (and others I’m sure), since a new life is conceived (but then “dies”), it is abortion, which is an understandable mistake; and it really all comes down to semantics, not so much who is right or wrong. The fact is an abortifacient terminates a pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants. Perfectly fine for you to be against that, and consider it as “evil” as abortion, but I just wanted to point out the distinction that the medical community makes when labeling something abortifacient. The article explains it well.

I’m afraid you’re mistaken. An abortifacient induces abortion (your semantics are simply wrong on this point) - it need not terminate a pregnancy, as pregnancy is defined in your article. Catholics don’t have a problem (morally) with abortion, but only with induced abortion. (And we don’t care about aborting ‘pregnancies,’ as such, but about aborting human beings.) Morally, it is not about the fact that a nascent human being dies, but about the fact that intentional actions are taken that directly contribute to that death, or, more precisely perhaps, that intentional actions are taken that are known to be hostile to living human beings. As for IUDs:
As noted by the World Health Organization Scientific Group:17 “It is unlikely that the contraceptive efficacy of IUDs results, mainly or exclusively, from their capacity to interfere with implantation; it is more probable that they exert their antifertility effects beyond the uterus and interfere with steps in the reproductive process that take place before the ova reach the uterine cavity.” Similarly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists18 reviewed the evidence and concluded that, “As such, the IUD is not an abortifacient”.
It seems clear that the authors of your article are confused. That IUDs are not *mainly or exclusively *abortifacient implies that they are secondarily abortifacient. Thus the ACOG claim seems false, or at least must be understood as referring only to the IUD’s primary mode of operation.