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

[Lady_Marchmain]

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.

No, Copperblade, your original thinking was correct. Samiam1166 is promoting a fairly new viewpoint that the so-called “Medical Establishment” (who are becoming laughingstocks in their desperate attempts to keep creating new definitions to justify thinks like abortion and homosexual behavior) concocted out of what he admittedly himself calls “semantics.” His statement “A woman is not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants” is false and has NEVER been part of medical standard belief until recent years, because if he says it that way he can justify the IUD and other contraceptive methods that do in fact kill an embryo. CONCEPTION is the Catholic believe, not IMPLANTATION. Life begins at conception, and sorry, “emergency contraception” is designed for the entire purpose of destroying that new life. That’s why even in the Catholic medical ethics code, it’s really theory, because you just don’t know when conception has taken place. This is the same reason now some people are saying the “PiLL” is really an abortifacent. The use of the Pill changes the thickness and quality of the wall of the uterus, so that a fertilized egg, that is an embryo that was conceived naturally via sperm and egg in the womb, cannot implant and that HUMAN BEING is flushed out unbeknowns to the woman. I could go on and on but let me say your LOGIC is right and this other Samiam mumbo-jumbo is being now becomeing the politically correct way to have yet another pro-death view of what should happen in the womb. This view is new to medicine, politically motivated, and being pushed on nurses and such by organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc.

 

[samiam1611]

No, Copperblade, your original thinking was correct. Samiam1166 is promoting a fairly new viewpoint that the so-called “Medical Establishment” (who are becoming laughingstocks in their desperate attempts to keep creating new definitions to justify thinks like abortion and homosexual behavior) concocted out of what he admittedly himself calls “semantics.”

Well I didn’t concoct it. That’s the accepted terminology for medical professionals.

His statement “A woman is not pregnant until the fertilized egg implants” is false

it is not false if using the current definitions

and has NEVER been part of medical standard belief until recent years

yeah…in other words, not never.

because if he says it that way he can justify the IUD and other contraceptive methods that do in fact kill an embryo.

Methods that that interfere with implantation are called contragestives, not abortifacients. Tomato tamato to you perhaps?

CONCEPTION is the Catholic believe, not IMPLANTATION. Life begins at conception,

no objections here

and sorry, “emergency contraception” is designed for the entire purpose of destroying that new life

Emergency contraception is designed to prevent fertilization (aka conception) in other words, prevent a new life from beginning. A secondary, debatable, incidental (not designed) way they work is as a contragestive.

That’s why even in the Catholic medical ethics code, it’s really theory, because you just don’t know when conception has taken place. This is the same reason now some people are saying the “PiLL” is really an abortifacent.

Contragestive. tomato. abortifactient. tamato

The use of the Pill changes the thickness and quality of the wall of the uterus, so that a fertilized egg, that is an embryo that was conceived naturally via sperm and egg in the womb, cannot implant and that HUMAN BEING is flushed out unbeknowns to the woman.

FYI, fertilization (conception) occurs in the fallopian tube, not the womb.

I could go on and on but let me say your LOGIC is right

it is not illogical by any means, but it is incorrect if using the accepted definitions of pregnancy and abortion (and distinguishing between contragestive and abortive). Since it’s not illogical, I will “allow” it but I think a person should be up to date on the terminology and biology of this subject in order to make an informed decision.

and this other Samiam mumbo-jumbo is being now becomeing the politically correct way to have yet another pro-death view of what should happen in the womb. This view is new to medicine, politically motivated, and being pushed on nurses and such by organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc.

Well at least you admitted I was being politically correct. In other words, correct?
Seeing as how I am pro-choice anyway, the semantics don’t matter that much to me. If one is ok with contraception but not with abortion, the semantics matter more.

We could argue over that till we’re blue in the face; I won’t bother though, I am fine with just agreeing to disagree.

Any more thoughts on the OP? Random musings welcome.

 

[Betterave]

Methods that that interfere with implantation are called contragestives, not abortifacients. Tomato tamato to you perhaps?

More like tomato/cherry tomato. Contragestives are a form of abortifacient. They induce abortions, therefore by definition they are abortifacient.

 

[copperblade]

A condom itself is not “evil”. The use of a condom in marriage is intrinsically wrong because the intention is to thwart the procreative end of the marital act in marriage. From this, a condom in rape is “morally irrelevant.”

As Dr Jeff Mirus explains:
“The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179

Thanks Abu, that is very interesting.

 

[Newbie2]

Which part of contraception is intrinsically evil?

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

It’s both parts together; the intent and the act.

Take for example the couple that uses a condom instead of using NFP. They truly believe in their hearts that if God intends them to have a baby, their condom will fail, and they will willingly accept the child as a gift from God.

Their intention is still to contracept, ***by use ***of the condom.

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

Your basis for this conclusion?

Would you be so kind to give a more detailed explanation of your thinking. I am not disagreeing with you, I just value your opinion and am trying to think more about this very specific scenario.

Dittos.

Here you go.

france24.com/en/20101121-pope-benedict-condom-comment-does-not-change-contraception-ban-catholic-church#

Contraception is immoral for a specific reasons, not just because it is. Again, taking a pill that can contraception is not contraception if one is celibate.

Correctomundo.

 

[Cristiano]

A condom itself is not “evil”. The use of a condom in marriage is intrinsically wrong because the intention is to thwart the procreative end of the marital act in marriage. From this, a condom in rape is “morally irrelevant.”

As Dr Jeff Mirus explains:
“The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179

I beg to differ from Dr. Mirus, I think that he is deadly wrong. He is giving a free pass on morality to someone just because the individual is doing evil. Considering that outside the bond of marriage people are still interacting more uxorio then the still have the same moral obligation even if they commit evil and so the intrinsic grounds still apply to them.

 

[Me1234]

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.

Remember the CHURCH says life starts at conception. It is murder after conception [union of sperm and egg] unless it is not purposeful so then it would just be death but still death. You’ve got it right. Don’t believe people who are trying to rationalize sin to get themselves off the hook.

 

[Me1234]

The situation does not matter using birth control, condoms, and all types of abortion to prevent birth are sin.

This is a closed issue.


OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI
TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS
THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE,
TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL,
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTHENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE

 

[samiam1611]

The situation does not matter using birth control, condoms, and all types of abortion to prevent birth are sin.

HV is about marriage, the marital act, married couples. We are talking about nuns or young girls in high risk areas. Does every word in HV still apply to them?

 

[Cristiano]

There’s no such thing as 'fertilized egg" despite it falling into common usage. Once an egg is fertilised it is then called a zygote.

Yes, the IUD, pill et al are not abortifacient, because abortion is what ends a pregnancy and pregnancy starts at implantion. What those things DO this is end the life of a human being - you know, MURDER.

Besides, the medical community doesn’t even know how the IUD works, despite what some flashy pamplets say - I talked to a rep who sold the things once and he admitted this, in fact, most docs acknowledge it. Its like paracetamol, they have some ideas how it works, they knwo it works, but they’re not 100% sure how.

Abortion is any artificial interference that stops human life from developing up to birth. Human life starts at conception.

 

[samiam1611]

Remember my OP. I would like this thread to be about contraception. not abortion or murder or beginning of life or any of that stuff.

This thread is about prophylactic contraception vs emergency contraception vs doing nothing. Your opinions on if there are circumstances that might justify using contraception. If the ends would ever justify the means. That sort of thing.

That is what this thread is about. Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss the controversy of whether contragestion is abortion. Thank you.

p.s. the thing with the nuns was very interesting as well as relevent so any discussion of that is more than welcome.

 

[Abu]

Cristiano
I beg to differ from Dr. Mirus, I think that he is deadly wrong. He is giving a free pass on morality to someone just because the individual is doing evil. Considering that outside the bond of marriage people are still interacting more uxorio then the still have the same moral obligation even if they commit evil and so the intrinsic grounds still apply to them.

There is no “free pass”. There is “grave evil” in fornication and adultery.
The evils in using contraception in such a case are extrinsic but that does not remove the evils.

Dr Mirus explains that the evil consequences of contraception outside of marriage are:
“First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.

“Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the “contraceptive mentality”. Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup procedure based on the expectation that contraception should render sex child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.

“Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning). But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception itself becomes intrinsically disordered.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179

 

[pnewton]

The situation does not matter using birth control, condoms, and all types of abortion to prevent birth are sin.

This is a closed issue.

The quote I gave was from HH, Pope Benedict XVI. Bioethics is not, nor will ever be, a close issue. As much as we may like simple answers, there will always be extremes that require a better understanding of the moral principles that do not change, to cope with a world that does. Here is another case:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43491&highlight=contraceptive

 

[Newbie2]

The situation does not matter using birth control, condoms, and all types of abortion to prevent birth are sin.

This is a closed issue.

Let’s be precise; condoms are not permissible when used for contraception. If one of the partners was sterile, i.e. had a hysterectomy, the couple could use condoms in a morally acceptable manner.

…although, one might question why they might do so. I dunno, maybe they like the pretty colors. Be that as it may, it’s contraception that is objectionable, not necessarily the condom use itself.

 

[samiam1611]

Let’s be precise; condoms are not permissible when used for contraception. If one of the partners was sterile, i.e. had a hysterectomy, the couple could use condoms in a morally acceptable manner.

…although, one might question why they might do so. I dunno, maybe they like the pretty colors. Be that as it may, it’s contraception that is objectionable, not necessarily the condom use itself.

Hey good point. One reason to do that is to lessen the stimulation for the man so he can last longer/have more control.

 

[Big_Dummy]

If one is in high likelyhood of being raped, why not carry guns, walking in threes and blow the rapist away?

 

[samiam1611]

Let’s be precise; condoms are not permissible when used for contraception. If one of the partners was sterile, i.e. had a hysterectomy, the couple could use condoms in a morally acceptable manner.

…although, one might question why they might do so.

To diminish the sensation for the guy so he can last longer!

If one is in high likelyhood of being raped, why not carry guns, walking in threes and blow the rapist away?

maybe a tazer would be more appropriate!

 

[centurionguard]

If one is in high likelihood of being raped, why not carry guns, walking in threes and blow the rapist away?

Any person who psychologically puts themselves in the situation believing there is a high likely-hood of becoming raped is sorely born out of fear itself.

There are ways to help prevent oneself from being raped.

However; there’s a higher chance that Anybody can and definitively will be raped.
And Not Just Exclusively Women

Your ridiculous statement of **Carry guns, walking in threes and blowing the rapist away ** won’t guarantee stopping the outrageously high statistical occurrence of rape.

No where in the world has there been a sustainable claim that says Guns can Stop Rape.

One Rape Every Three Seconds in the United States.
Seven People are Raped Every Second On The Continent of Africa

No human system of Justice is capable of stopping Rape or Incest anymore than human justice is capable of stopping Murder.

Personally; in this evil world of selfish greed and pride, there is no cure to stopping global rape in the same way there is no human cure to stopping global poverty.

Christian Morality offers a cure but only to few who accept it.

(Many are called; Few are chosen).

 

[JaneGrey]

Any person who psychologically puts themselves in the situation believing there is a high likely-hood of becoming raped is sorely born out of fear itself.

There are ways to help prevent oneself from being raped.

However; there’s a higher chance that Anybody

Thanks for this post, people tend to forget that rape is society’s problem, not just a ‘women’s issue.’

 

[TimothyH]

There is no “free pass”. There is “grave evil” in fornication and adultery.
The evils in using contraception in such a case are extrinsic but that does not remove the evils.

Dr Mirus explains that the evil consequences of contraception outside of marriage are:
“First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.

“Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the “contraceptive mentality”. Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup procedure based on the expectation that contraception should render sex child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.

“**Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its consequences **(consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning). But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception itself becomes intrinsically disordered.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179

This is an extremely important post Abu, and I would go further.

The culture of recreational sex made possible by the widespread acceptance and use of contraception is what creates the demand for abortion.

I know the OP has requested to refrain from discussions of abortion per se, but it is relevant to the original question posed. From a pragmatic point of view, who gets to say when the risk for rape is high enough to take contraceptives or low enough that it should stop. Anyone can say that they are at risk for anything. People carry mace to the Church for crying out loud. Everyone will just say, “Well, I’m afraid of being raped” and life goes on, contraceptives are sold under the false pretense of risk of rape, recreational sex continues and abortions are demanded.

All the nuanced justifications for allowing contraception in this or that circumstance seem to so much dancing on a pin. This nonsense about when contraception is permissible needs to stop. My question is, nuns in the jungle or otherwise, what ever happened to relying on God’s providence?

-Tim-