Zika virus and contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rico_S said:
Is it gravely immoral for the emergency contraceptive pill to be taken after a rape if conception has not yet occurred?

Is it gravely immoral for victims of rape to attempt coitus interruptus?
Click to expand...
Yes for the first one, no for the second. The second is just attempting to avoid being raped.

Why would you ask this quesiton? You know full well that Abortion is evil even in the cases of rape and incest. As a Catholic you should know that.
 
(Sigh…) even so, do you believe you get a response here affirming that point of view?
 
Rico_S said:
Is it gravely immoral for the emergency contraceptive pill to be taken after a rape if conception has not yet occurred?

Is it gravely immoral for victims of rape to attempt coitus interruptus?
Click to expand...
Yes, use of mere contraception is moral in both cases. The condition “if conception has not yet occurred” indicates that the pill would not have an abortive effect.

Use of the emergency contraceptive pill – if the physician can determine that it will only act as a contraceptive in the particular case – would be indirect contraception (analogous to indirect abortion). And indirect contraception in cases of rape is moral.

In such cases, the moral object is the same as in your second example, an interruption of the rape. Direct contraception is intrinsically evil because sex is inherently directed toward conception (procreation). For the same reason, a contraceptive in the case of rape is morally an interruption of the rape. So the moral object in both examples above is to interrupt the rape (good object), not to thwart the procreative meaning of sex (evil object).
 
Rico_S said:
Is it gravely immoral for the emergency contraceptive pill to be taken after a rape if conception has not yet occurred?

Is it gravely immoral for victims of rape to attempt coitus interruptus?
Click to expand...
We don’t evaluate good and evil by judging people. A person might get a gun and kill someone who has horrifically abused him for years. The courts and most likely God will deal mercifully with him… but murder is still intrinsically evil. What you can’t do is change something that is intrinsically evil into something good based on the appeal of an individual case.
 
Deacon,
Thank you for your response. I will read it again more slowly. But I wanted to respond quickly when I realized that you had accidentally quoted another CAF member’s post and mistakenly attributed to my own. And furthermore, when answering her question, you suggested I was being snarky. I am sure this was an accidental error, but as it has to do with my tone when addressing you and my adherence to the Church’s teachings even in difficult cases, I felt the need to clarify. I was not the poster asking about blessings and practical assistance.
 
Thank you Deacon. I actually agreed with the substance of your post, other than the mistaken quoting of the other poster. Your response to all of the questions was very helpful.
 
How is the intent in the first situation not to prevent pregnancy?
(I would just like a clearification, I agree with what you have said about contraception)
 
Thanks…I see.
Ron_Conte said:
Direct contraception is intrinsically evil because sex is inherently directed toward conception (procreation). .
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to be obuse here, I understand that rape evil, twisted, and abomination and all; but it seems that it is still sex and then as such, inherently directed toward procreation.
 
HabemusFrancis said:
God does not no. Present and future lives are all Im thinking about in regards to this.

It is what it is I suppose.
Click to expand...
Habemus,

You are trying to be compassionate, but what you don’t understand is that your view is the short-sighted one. You say that present and future lives are all you are thinking about. Well, the Church, founded by Christ, is thinking about eternal life and souls. Your attempts at compassion are commendable, but will become virtuous once you begin to see that the spiritual reality and eternity are truly the greater and truer, more real, reality. What we do in this life echoes in eternity. What we do with our bodies has spiritual meaning.

God bless you in your discernment, and lead you to understanding, Habemus.
 
Rico_S said:
Thanks…I see.

I’m not trying to be obuse here, I understand that rape evil, twisted, and abomination and all; but it seems that it is still sex and then as such, inherently directed toward procreation.
Click to expand...
I am no expert, but from what I have read, the use of emergency contraception when no conception has yet occurred (and when ovulation has not yet occurred) is intended to protect the victim of rape from the ongoing attack. The sperm are placed in the womb by the rapist, and their attack on her flesh continues until every sperm dies. Protecting her ova from the attack by preventing the release of the ova is not destroying the nuptial meaning of consensual intercourse. We are permitted to protect and defend ourselves from unjust aggressors, before, during and after attack, especially if an attack continues after the first assault.
 
I heard that once upon a time Paul VI recommended “defensive contraception” to a group of sisters somewhere because they were in a rough neighborhood where rape was a serious possibility. The same Paul VI who wrote Humanae Vitae.

This is a very classic case that demonstrates the widespread misunderstanding of the “moral object” in general. In this case, is it, “taking a pill,” “contracepting,” or something else?

In the normal case of oral contraception, one takes a contraceptive pill in order to change the outcome of her own act. She then chooses to engage in the “marital act” as such.

In the defensive case, one takes a contraceptive pill in order to change the outcome of another’s act. She does not choose to engage in the marital act.

The object in the first is to sterilize the marital act. It is the means to the end of avoiding pregnancy despite presuming to use one’s sexual capacity anyway, thus reordering it away from what it is naturally ordered toward.

The object in the second is to repel the unwanted effects of an aggressor’s assault. It is the means to the end of avoiding pregnancy from an unwanted sexual encounter. Since one can only reorder his or her own capacities or powers by changing how he or she uses them, there is no reordering of nature here.

Does this help?
 
I see what the difference is in indirect vs direct intent. And that difference comes into play b/c we have excluded rape from “sex”, which Ron described as “inherently directed toward procreation”. I maintained, that while not trying to seem obtuse, I think its clear that rape is “inherently directed toward procreation”…at least biologically.

You have added that the difference is that “rape is not primarily intended to create life” (which I obviously agree with)–bringing intent to draw the difference. But sex only on infertile days to avoid pregnancy, or a one night stands, or prostitution is no more intended to create life than rape. Yet the contraception ban applies to those, no? So intent can’t be the discerning factor.
 
Rico_S said:
I see what the difference is in indirect vs direct intent. And that difference comes into play b/c we have excluded rape from “sex”, which Ron described as “inherently directed toward procreation”. I maintained, that while not trying to seem obtuse, I think its clear that rape is “inherently directed toward procreation”…at least biologically.

You have added that the difference is that “rape is not primarily intended to create life” (which I obviously agree with)–bringing intent to draw the difference. But sex only on infertile days to avoid pregnancy, or a one night stands, or prostitution is no more intended to create life than rape. Yet the contraception ban applies to those, no? So intent can’t be the discerning factor.
Click to expand...
Consent if fundamental to intercourse. One gives and the other receives freely. Without consent the interaction is a war. Conditions for war apply.
 
The statement that ABC for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is never allowed by the Catholic Church is incorrect. The Church in her wisdom and mercy allows rape victims to take a contraceptive within the first few hours after the event (so that the effect would be contraceptive and not abortive). Is there any reason why this provision in the Church law would not apply to women, who for very serious reasons wish to abstain, but are not allowed to?
 
FrancescaMaria said:
The statement that ABC for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is never allowed by the Catholic Church is incorrect. The Church in her wisdom and mercy allows rape victims to take a contraceptive within the first few hours after the event (so that the effect would be contraceptive and not abortive). Is there any reason why this provision in the Church law would not apply to women, who for very serious reasons wish to abstain, but are not allowed to?
Click to expand...
Where is the provision to contracept in rape written so that we may reference it.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Where is the provision to contracept in rape written so that we may reference it.
Click to expand...
I am having trouble finding the link to the original document, but you can look up

Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic Hospitals with respect to emergency contraception after rape

I read about this a few years ago but I cannot find the links to the original document at the moment.
 
FrancescaMaria said:
The statement that ABC for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is never allowed by the Catholic Church is incorrect. The Church in her wisdom and mercy allows rape victims to take a contraceptive within the first few hours after the event (so that the effect would be contraceptive and not abortive). Is there any reason why this provision in the Church law would not apply to women, who for very serious reasons wish to abstain, but are not allowed to?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by ‘women, who for very serious reasons wish to abstain, but are not allowed to’?
 
jmjZelie said:
I am having trouble finding the link to the original document, but you can look up

Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic Hospitals with respect to emergency contraception after rape

I read about this a few years ago but I cannot find the links to the original document at the moment.
Click to expand...
Well we can’t really look at the issue and compare it to all the other church teaching in light of tob if we can’t actually look at it can we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top