Contrary to popular belief, contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

Rebekka said:
Yes, it does contradict what was written in the catechism. The same goes for marrying inlaws by the way. The levirate marriage was custom in the OT but nowadays we're not allowed to marry our brothers-in-law (or sisters-in-law, and some other degrees of affinity). So despite it happening in the OT, it doesn't automatically mean that the catholic church allows this now.

This is taking the thread off topic, but please show me in the catechism where it is absolutely forbidden.

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

Rebekka said:
Yes, it does contradict what was written in the catechism. The same goes for marrying inlaws by the way. The levirate marriage was custom in the OT but nowadays we're not allowed to marry our brothers-in-law (or sisters-in-law, and some other degrees of affinity). So despite it happening in the OT, it doesn't automatically mean that the catholic church allows this now.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

An Impediment of Crime nullifies marriage according to ecclesiastical law, and arises from adultery and homicide separately or together. The Roman civil law prohibited the marriage of a man with a widow with whom he had committed adultery during the lifetime of her husband. There is serious doubt (Decretum, Gratiani, Pt. II, c. xxxi, q. 41) whether the Church ever accepted this law. Ecclesiastical law since the twelfth century certainly supposes other circumstances in such adultery in order that it may effect a nullification of the marriage.

According to the actual law (Decretal. Greg. IX, Lib. 4 X tit. 7: De eo qui duxit. Cap. i, Propositum — Cap. vi, Significasti) there are two cases in which an adulterer may not marry one with whom the crime was committed:

(1) When the adulterer promises to the partner in guilt marriage after the death of the other's legitimate spouse;
(2) When the two attempted marriage and this was consummated during the lifetime of a legitimate spouse.

Hence neither adultery alone without promise of marriage nor the promise of marriage without adultery forms a diriment, or nullifying, impediment. The promise must be accepted, and if it precede the adultery, must not have been recalled before the sin. Silence alone is not sufficient evidence of the acceptance of the promise. The adultery to which the promise is attached must be formal and known by both. If Titus should corrupt a woman who believed him to be free, he could marry her after his wife's death, even if he attempted marriage with her during his wife's life, provided she were unaware of his marriage.

....

One murdering a spouse to marry another cannot contract marriage with this other;

(1) when there was co-operation in the murder for the purpose of this marriage,
(2) when, without co-operation in the murder, adultery was committed by them, and the murder committed for the sole purpose of their contracting marriage.

Thus, if the homicide is apart from adultery, both must concur in this murder. If the adultery occurs with the homicide, it suffices that one of the guilty should take part in the murder. In both cases one at least must intend to marry the other. That the adultery and homicide, apart or joined, form a diriment impediment certain conditions are necessary:

(1) the homicide must take place; an attempt to kill or the infliction of a wound not mortal would not entail it;
(2) the homicide must be of the spouse of one of those who wish to be married; so, when the homicide is apart from the adultery, both must be accomplices by a physical or moral action which influences the murder, either by a command or previous approval.

Approval of the event after its occurrence does not suffice, as also if the former command or approval had been recalled. The intention of marriage need not have been mentioned, where there was cooperation in the homicide. In the public ecclesiastical court credence is not given to the murderer of a spouse, who may deny the intention of marrying one with whom adulterous intercourse was held. This impediment holds if only one of the parties is a Christian. The Church claims the right to legislate for her children in their relations with infidels. The impediment is incurred even if not known. The Church may dispense from it, as the impediment is established by her authority. In the case of public homicide, however, whether due to only one or both of the parties, the pope never dispenses (Laurentius, no. 659).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Impediment of Crime

So there is not a blanket forbidding, but only in certain circumstances.

Rebekka · Jun 6, 2011

EDIT: While I was busy looking this up in my old catechism apparently you found it too. Anyway, didn't see your post before posting mine.

thereselittleflower said:
This is taking the thread off topic, but please show me in the catechism where it is absolutely forbidden.

I don't mind off-topicness, perhaps the OP won't mind either.

As I said, I have an old catechism that forbids this. The new catechism is not specific enough to mention this. I'll look it up for you.

My source is Mgr. P. Potters Verklaring van den katechismus der Nederlandsche bisdommen, zevende deel, derde herziene en bijgewerkte druk, 's-Hertogenbosch 1931, p.105
On the impediments of marriage it states:
"Het beletsel van de misdaad. Hieronder verstaat men:
a. echtbreuk met wederzijdsche belofte van elkander te huwen na den dood der wederhelft; alsmede echtbreuk met poging tot een huwelijk (b.v. het burgerlijk huwelijk).
b. echtbreuk met moord op de wederhelft door een der medeplichtigen gepleegd.
c. moord ook zonder echtbreuk met gemeenschappelijk overleg op de wederhelft gepleegd.

De Kerk heeft dit beletsel ingevoerd om de huwelijkstrouw te beschermen en het leven van onschuldige echtgenooten te beveiligen."

Footnote: "Ons B.W. [burgerlijk wetboek] art. 89 bepaalt, dat personen, wier overspel bij rechterlijk vonnis is bewezen, nimmer met hun medeplichtige in het huwelijk mogen treden."

Translation:
"Impediment of crime. This means:
a. adultery with mutual promise to marry each other after the death of the spouse; also adultery with attempt to marriage (e.g. civil marriage).
b. adultery with murder of the spouse by either accomplice.
c. murder without adultery, committed in mutual agreement.

The Church has put this impediment in to protect marital fidelity and to protect the life of innocent spouses."

Translation of the footnote: "Our [= Dutch] book of civil law, article 89 states that persons whose adultery is proven in a court of law can never marry their accomplice."

So even (at least in the 1930's) civil marriage was not possible for people who broke up another marriage, the likes of David and Bathsheba, or Charles and Camilla.

I looked it up in the current canon law (of 1983) at the Vatican website and the impediment of crime (Can. 1090) now only mentions murder as an impediment, whereas my catechism clearly also states that adultery is also an impediment to marry your accomplice.
"Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.
§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together."
Code of Canon Law - IntraText

Apparently adultery was in the past an impediment to marriage, as can be found here:
"An Impediment of Crime nullifies marriage according to ecclesiastical law, and arises from adultery and homicide separately or together."
"According to the actual law (Decretal. Greg. IX, Lib. 4 X tit. 7: De eo qui duxit. Cap. i, Propositum — Cap. vi, Significasti) there are two cases in which an adulterer may not marry one with whom the crime was committed:

(1) When the adulterer promises to the partner in guilt marriage after the death of the other's legitimate spouse;
(2) When the two attempted marriage and this was consummated during the lifetime of a legitimate spouse."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Impediment of Crime

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

Rebekka said:
EDIT: While I was busy looking this up in my old catechism apparently you found it too. Anyway, didn't see your post before posting mine.

I don't mind off-topicness, perhaps the OP won't mind either.

As I said, I have an old catechism that forbids this. The new catechism is not specific enough to mention this. I'll look it up for you.

My source is Mgr. P. Potters Verklaring van den katechismus der Nederlandsche bisdommen, zevende deel, derde herziene en bijgewerkte druk, 's-Hertogenbosch 1931, p.105
On the impediments of marriage it states:
"Het beletsel van de misdaad. Hieronder verstaat men:
a. echtbreuk met wederzijdsche belofte van elkander te huwen na den dood der wederhelft; alsmede echtbreuk met poging tot een huwelijk (b.v. het burgerlijk huwelijk).
b. echtbreuk met moord op de wederhelft door een der medeplichtigen gepleegd.
c. moord ook zonder echtbreuk met gemeenschappelijk overleg op de wederhelft gepleegd.

De Kerk heeft dit beletsel ingevoerd om de huwelijkstrouw te beschermen en het leven van onschuldige echtgenooten te beveiligen."

Footnote: "Ons B.W. [burgerlijk wetboek] art. 89 bepaalt, dat personen, wier overspel bij rechterlijk vonnis is bewezen, nimmer met hun medeplichtige in het huwelijk mogen treden."

Translation:
"Impediment of crime. This means:
a. adultery with mutual promise to marry each other after the death of the spouse; also adultery with attempt to marriage (e.g. civil marriage).
b. adultery with murder of the spouse by either accomplice.
c. murder without adultery, committed in mutual agreement.

The Church has put this impediment in to protect marital fidelity and to protect the life of innocent spouses."

Translation of the footnote: "Our [= Dutch] book of civil law, article 89 states that persons whose adultery is proven in a court of law can never marry their accomplice."

So even (at least in the 1930's) civil marriage was not possible for people who broke up another marriage, the likes of David and Bathsheba, or Charles and Camilla.

I looked it up in the current canon law (of 1983) at the Vatican website and the impediment of crime (Can. 1090) now only mentions murder as an impediment, whereas my catechism clearly also states that adultery is also an impediment to marry your accomplice.
"Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that persons spouse or of ones own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.
§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together."
Code of Canon Law - IntraText

Apparently adultery was in the past an impediment to marriage, as can be found here:
"An Impediment of Crime nullifies marriage according to ecclesiastical law, and arises from adultery and homicide separately or together."

"According to the actual law (Decretal. Greg. IX, Lib. 4 X tit. 7: De eo qui duxit. Cap. i, Propositum Cap. vi, Significasti) there are two cases in which an adulterer may not marry one with whom the crime was committed:

(1) When the adulterer promises to the partner in guilt marriage after the death of the other's legitimate spouse;

(2) When the two attempted marriage and this was consummated during the lifetime of a legitimate spouse."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Impediment of Crime

None of those treat adultery, by itself as something that wuold prohibit marriage between the partners.

The last part you quoted was what I quoted. .. it is not adultery by itself .. . it is either when the adulterer makes a promise to marry the other once the spouse is dead OR they try to marry and consumate that marriage while the spouse is still alive.

Adultery by itself was never an impediment.

Rebekka · Jun 6, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
None of those treat adultery, by itself as something that wuold prohibit marriage between the partners.

The last part you quoted was what I quoted. .. it is not adultery by itself .. . it is either when the adulterer makes a promise to marry the other once the spouse is dead OR they try to marry and consumate that marriage while the spouse is still alive.

Adultery by itself was never an impediment.

It was an important part of the impediment.

MikeK · Jun 6, 2011

Rebekka said:
I don't mind off-topicness, perhaps the OP won't mind either.

I know the OP, he's awesome, he won't mind a bit! Besides, the topic went as far as it could.

TLF, I mistook your earlier statement that your specialty was Obstentrics to indicate that you are an Obstetrician. Now it sounds like your job is more akin to that of a Nurse. Do you have any experience in the immediate treatment of sexual assault victims (not the next week, but an acute case, where a patient comes in seeking care immediately following the attack)?
When you speak of spermicides as if the only options available to a practitioner are those sold OTC at the drugstore, and that the only application methods available to a hospital would be those listed on the outside of the tube, it makes me suspect...well, it makes me suspect uncharitable things that I won't go into here.

Spermicides, dousches, swabbings, these are all potentially contraceptive acts post intercourse. The USCCB is (of course) right on. Here's hoping that as medical technology improves, Doctors will have even better treatments to use to prevent pregnancy, defending the victims of violent asaults.

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

Rebekka said:
It was an important part of the impediment.

You can't take something that is part of something else, and make it stand on its own like that as if it is the totality of the condition creating the impediment.

Adultery BY ITSELF is not an impendiment to future marriage of the two so engaged. There must be OTHER conditions.

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

MikeK said:
I know the OP, he's awesome, he won't mind a bit! Besides, the topic went as far as it could.

TLF, I mistook your earlier statement that your specialty was Obstentrics to indicate that you are an Obstetrician. Now it sounds like your job is more akin to that of a Nurse. Do you have any experience in the immediate treatment of sexual assault victims (not the next week, but an acute case, where a patient comes in seeking care immediately following the attack)?
When you speak of spermicides as if the only options available to a practitioner are those sold OTC at the drugstore, and that the only application methods available to a hospital would be those listed on the outside of the tube, it makes me suspect...well, it makes me suspect uncharitable things that I won't go into here.

Spermicides, dousches, swabbings, these are all potentially contraceptive acts post intercourse. The USCCB is (of course) right on. Here's hoping that as medical technology improves, Doctors will have even better treatments to use to prevent pregnancy, defending the victims of violent asaults.

oh for goodness sakes mike. Nurses who apply themselves are just as knowledgeable as doctors. Don't try to poison the well. It's not a very effective tool to dissuade the thinking mind.

And you are wrong.

You have been sold a bill of goods.

Those may be measures applied to rape victims, that doesn't mean they are effective. There is absolutely no proof whatsover that such measure have any effect on pregnancy rate of rape victims.

It is all wishiful thinking, and nothing more than locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

It would only be in the rarest of circumstances that anything other than the morning after pill would be effective at anything to prevent a child being born. On would have had to have been raped on the premises in which such measures were available and immediately have applied the meausre, and even then it is doubtful.

In the vast majority of rape cases, too much time passes between incident and treatment for anything other than the morning after pill to be effective; and since the occurance of pregnancy is so extremely rare in rape, it is wishful thinking that such measures could ever do anything to prevent such rare occurances.

Dr. David Shin, the Chief at the Center for Sexual Health & Fertility in the Department of Urology at the Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, offers up 13 facts about the little swimmers that may surprise you.

The average sperm travels about 1-4 millimeters per minute, which would make the 175mm trip to the egg in the fallopian tube take between 45 minutes to almost 3 hours.

The Secret Life of Sperm

!

That's ALL THE WAY to the fallopian tube - it can take only 45 minutes!

If sperm capable of fertilizing an egg can make it all the way to the fallopian tubes so far away from the vagina in just 45 minutes, those sperm are out of the vagina and into the cervix in a matter of minutes and completely out of the reach of all spermicides, absorbant guaze, or any chemical or mechanical means of removing sperm from the vagina.

Treatment from rape victims does not happen within minutes mike.

Again, it is merely fanciful thinking that such measures can have an impact whatsoever.

.

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

Addtionally, to drive home the fact that way too much time transpires before any chemical or physical spermicidal treatment could be rendered, rendering that treatment ineffectual for keeping sperm from the egg - here is the typical process a rape victim goes through:

The process -- which can last more than four hours -- begins in a private interview room, separate from the hospital emergency room, where a counselor asks in detail what happened during the rape. The counselor is there throughout the subsequent examination.

If I were a rape victim, I would next be led into the exam room and asked to undress while standing on a large sheet of butcher paper so that anything that falls from my clothing or body that may provide links to a perpetrator or a crime scene (hairs and carpet or clothing fibers) can be carefully collected and placed in the rape kit.

I would be examined on a gynecological table with stirrups. My body would be scanned with an ultraviolet light to find otherwise undetectable sperm or saliva that might contain the assailant's DNA.

(The nurse walking me through these steps tells me about a woman awakened in the middle of the night by an intruder. He sexually assaulted her for hours and licked and kissed her neck. Then he shoved her in the bathroom and told her to take a shower and douche. While she stood in the shower, she protected her neck so that evidence wasn't washed away.)

The nurse would check my entire body, swabbing every part the assailant touched. Then she would photograph physical injuries, which might include bruises, bite marks or burst blood vessels in the whites of my eyes from strangulation. A magnifying camera -- designed to be as noninvasive as possible -- would then record tears or other injuries to my mouth, vagina or anus.

Rape and reality - Los Angeles Times

And the above was at the Rape Treatment Center at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and not your standard ER. Even in such a specialized center the process can take HOURS.

So .. . you have the rape. . . First the woman has to decided what to do . .she has been severely traumatized. People who are so severely traumatized do not typically think clearly or make sound decisioins quickly.

So there is time lost to make the decision weighing here.

Then, once the decision to seek help has been made, the police are called or the person goes to an ER, etc. . . .

So there is time lost in taking action.

Then there is time lost due to travel time. A good half hour can transpire at the least before a woman is inside a medical care facility. . . most likely much longer if police are called.

Then, once inside, there is time lost to proceedural delay - she is not immediately rushed to have sperm removed. IN FACT that would be counterproductive as her body is a CRIME SCENE and care must first be made to PRESERVE EVIDENCE. That takes time and so we have more time lost.

She is likely to have to wait in line to be triaged - time lost in waiting - her complaint made known and placed in a queue.

Then more time lost asshe is given a detailed interview. That can take quite some time in and of itself.

Then she is taken to an exam room. . . she must be prepared for the exam, etc -

time lost waiting in the room,
time lost in the exam itself collecting evidence,

till any measures are applied.

All in all, hours can go by before anything could be administered that would affect sperm only in the vagina. . .

But as we saw above, the sperm that could fertilize the egg would already be long, long gone and completely out of reach of such measures.

MikeK · Jun 6, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
oh for goodness sakes mike. Nurses who apply themselves are just as knowledgeable as doctors.

...which must be why they're paid the same and trusted with the same responsibilities. You gave my wife (an RN) a good chuckle. I'll talk to some of the Obstetritians (Obstetricians are specialists in Obstetrics) over the course of the next few days and get their take on the possibilities of post-rape emergency contraception.

Until then I maintain that in a hospital setting, there are methods that can destroy sperm at and beyond the cervix, but even if there weren't, the USCCB statement it what it is. If such methods exist or ever might exist, they are licit. Moral theology is not dependant on medical technology.

Have you considered writing the USCCB's writers and the Bishops whop approved them a letter to explain how all this *really* works?

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

MikeK said:
...which must be why they're paid the same and trusted with the same responsibilities. You gave my wife (an RN) a good chuckle. I'll talk to some of the Obstetritians (Obstetricians are specialists in Obstetrics) over the course of the next few days and get their take on the possibilities of post-rape emergency contraception.

That's fine. . I've known nurses much more knowledgeable than some doctors and much more capable.

Just continuing to poison the well here.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand issues of fertility Mike. We are not talking about open heart surgery.

Until then I maintain that in a hospital setting, there are methods that can destroy sperm at and beyond the cervix, but even if there weren't, the USCCB statement it what it is. If such methods exist or ever might exist, they are licit. Moral theology is not dependant on medical technology.

Have you considered writing the USCCB's writers and the Bishops whop approved them a letter to explain how all this *really* works?

The measure used to remove sperm from the uterus, a D & C, also results in making the womb hostile to new life that may be created due to sperm no longer being in the uterus, but already in the fallopian tubes and fertilizing an egg . . .

And then such action would be no different than using an abortificant which renders the womb hostile to new life and would result in an abortion.

The theologians who formerly allowed D & C realized that the scraping of the womb made it impossible for an already implatnted zygote to survive or for a fertilized ovum to be implanted. They argued, however, that the prinicipal purpose of this action was to eliminate the sperm, and if this was done soon enough after the attack, the principle of double effect could be used. (Healy 1956). Given the new evidence of the motilty of the sperm, it is no longer reasonable to say that D & C is a specific remedy to remove the sperm when the effective sperm is probably already out of the uterus.

Health care ethics: a Catholic theological analysis
By Benedict M. Ashley, Jean DeBlois, Kevin D. O'Rourke
copyright 2006, pg 85

I have already presented such facts as to the motlity of the sperm and why sperm that would be capable of fertilizing an egg would be out of reach above; and so the use of the D & C to remove sperm from the uterus is moot also as by the time any such proceedure could be utilized effectively, sperm would be out if its reach too.

Emergency Birth Control

What is emergency birth control?
Emergency birth control is used to prevent pregnancy soon after you have had sex without birth control or have been sexually assaulted (raped). It may also be used when another method of birth control has failed (for example, if a condom breaks). If you are already pregnant, emergency birth control will NOT work.

The 2 main forms of emergency birth control are emergency birth control pills and the copper IUD (intrauterine device).

The emergency birth control pill (ECP), also called the morning-after pill, is a birth control pill that can prevent pregnancy after you have had unprotected sex.

There are 2 types of ECP: one contains the female hormones estrogen and progestin, and the other contains progestin only. The pills may work in several ways to prevent pregnancy, such as:

stop the release of an egg from the ovary
stop fertilization (the uniting of the sperm and the egg)
keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb
thicken the mucus of the cervix, making it hard for sperm to reach the egg

A copper intrauterine device (IUD) may be inserted after unprotected sex. It may prevent pregnancy by stopping fertilization or keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb.

Some women will try to use douches using plain water, vinegar, and a number of feminine hygiene products to try to remove sperm from the vagina after sex. The douche is supposed to flush the sperm out of the vagina and kill the sperm. Since sperm can reach the uterus within 90 seconds after sex, douching is not effective or reliable as a method of birth control. Douching may force bacteria up into the uterus and cause an infection. If you are trying to prevent pregnancy, using douches is not effective and other methods should be used.

Summit Medical Group - Emergency Birth Control

If the sperm have reached the uterus in 90 sec, then by the time and D & C can be performed, the sperm which would fertilize an ovum are already in the fallopian tubes, making the only erffect of the D & C to be an abortion inducing act by creating an hostile womb to any new life that may be created.

Additionally, using measures that invade the womb are additionally traumatizing to one who has already been terribly traumatized.

.

Going after the sperm in any way is really ineffectual and only a psychological bandaid, and going after sperm using a D & C to remove them from the uterus is an abortion inducing act.

.

MikeK · Jun 6, 2011

Okay. You can be right. I'm done. Although you are not recognized as an expert by any licencing body, you know better than the medical professionals who couceled the Bishops on medicine. Although you are not a recognized theologian and to my knowledge your oppinion has never been sought by one, you understand Church teachings better than the Bishops who approved this instruction. You are right and they are wrong.

Apologies to those who told me what I was up against. I should have known better.

...and just to make heads spin, I had a thought on the way home...abortifacients *could* be allowed in these cases, so long as their primary means of working involved suppressing ovulation under the principal of double effect. The primary effect being good (the defence of the innocent woman against pregnancy as a result of a violent attack) would counteract the (unlikely) evil of destrying an embryo. I suspect that's what the good Bishops who approved emergency chemical contraception in these cases (again, so long as ovulation had not happened) had in mind. It's no different than any other medication which does a good thing but carries with it a low miscariage risk. The back and forth between Bishops in the article (not the instruction) I posted makes more sense to me in that light.

StThomasMore · Jun 6, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
oh for goodness sakes mike. Nurses who apply themselves are just as knowledgeable as doctors. Don't try to poison the well. It's not a very effective tool to dissuade the thinking mind.

And you are wrong.

You have been sold a bill of goods.

Those may be measures applied to rape victims, that doesn't mean they are effective. There is absolutely no proof whatsover that such measure have any effect on pregnancy rate of rape victims.

It is all wishiful thinking, and nothing more than locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

It would only be in the rarest of circumstances that anything other than the morning after pill would be effective at anything to prevent a child being born. On would have had to have been raped on the premises in which such measures were available and immediately have applied the meausre, and even then it is doubtful.

In the vast majority of rape cases, too much time passes between incident and treatment for anything other than the morning after pill to be effective; and since the occurance of pregnancy is so extremely rare in rape, it is wishful thinking that such measures could ever do anything to prevent such rare occurances.
Dr. David Shin, the Chief at the Center for Sexual Health & Fertility in the Department of Urology at the Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, offers up 13 facts about the little swimmers that may surprise you.

The average sperm travels about 1-4 millimeters per minute, which would make the 175mm trip to the egg in the fallopian tube take between 45 minutes to almost 3 hours.

The Secret Life of Sperm

!

That's ALL THE WAY to the fallopian tube - it can take only 45 minutes!

If sperm capable of fertilizing an egg can make it all the way to the fallopian tubes so far away from the vagina in just 45 minutes, those sperm are out of the vagina and into the cervix in a matter of minutes and completely out of the reach of all spermicides, absorbant guaze, or any chemical or mechanical means of removing sperm from the vagina.

Treatment from rape victims does not happen within minutes mike.

Again, it is merely fanciful thinking that such measures can have an impact whatsoever.

.

there are much more powerful spermicides than the cheap ones on the counter. There is one sponge spermicide that is is a very thin square of material that dissolves inside the vagina, releasing nonoxylnol-9, an extremely powerful spermicide.Another one which is even stronger than nonoxylnol is called Benzalkonium chloride. A doctor could easily insert or inject it into the cervix and flush out the sperm.

In cases of rape a doctor could use Benzalkonium chloride and drastically lower the chance of the woman conceiving a child.

Michelle Arnold

Catholic Answers Apologist
Join Date: May 3, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,422
Religion: Catholic

Re: Is a woman allowed to use spermicide following a rape?
Moral theologians generally agree that a woman who is raped can be given medicines and therapies that prevent fertilization. However, treatments that would kill an embryo or prevent an embryo's implantation cannot be used because such treatments would abort an existing child.

Recommended reading:

Emergency Contraception and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Assault
by the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities (USCCB)

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services by the USCCB
__________________

Catholic teaching when it comes to questions such as spermicide as a treatment after rape. Here is Professor Germain Grisez on the question:

"Theologian Germain Grisez, Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount St. Mary's Seminary, Emmitsburg, Maryland, states that douching with spermicide as immediate post-rape intervention would be morally licit, since such means are not abortifacient in nature."

Perhaps you are confusing the evil act of contraception with the clinical treatment which can ethically be provided to someone who has been criminally assaulted. For as moral theologian Father Anthomy Zimmerman wrote:

"We believe that God allows a woman to defend herself against being impregnated by a rapist attacker who is not her husband. In this I concur with the writing of Fr. Michele Simone, S.J. (in La Civilta Cattolica; cf. Catholic World Report, August/September 1993, p. 7). But she is not permitted to kill a child already conceived, and that is why use of the sometimes abortifacient Pill is not permitted. We are learning to refine this teaching with experience, much as the Jews learned God's ways only gradually in the above scriptural episode.
"A douche or spermicide is licitly used by a woman violated by one other than her husband; a female condom is licit, if such be available. But the use of an abortifacient IUD or a sometimes abortifacient Pill attacks the life-or deliberately risks attacking the life-of another person. And that is an offense against God's commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Once a child is conceived, the mother must say yes to God and allow the child, who is innocent, to live. Love covers a multitude of sins, we know; love can cover over even the sins of rapists, and make life tolerable for the violated woman and for the new baby."

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=517652&Pg=Forum10&Pgnu=2&recnu=48

WarriorAngel · Jun 6, 2011

MikeK said:
Okay. You can be right. I'm done. Although you are not recognized as an expert by any licencing body, you know better than the medical professionals who couceled the Bishops on medicine. Although you are not a recognized theologian and to my knowledge your oppinion has never been sought by one, you understand Church teachings better than the Bishops who approved this instruction. You are right and they are wrong.

Apologies to those who told me what I was up against. I should have known better.

...and just to make heads spin, I had a thought on the way home...abortifacients *could* be allowed in these cases, so long as their primary means of working involved suppressing ovulation under the principal of double effect. The primary effect being good (the defence of the innocent woman against pregnancy as a result of a violent attack) would counteract the (unlikely) evil of destrying an embryo. I suspect that's what the good Bishops who approved emergency chemical contraception in these cases (again, so long as ovulation had not happened) had in mind. It's no different than any other medication which does a good thing but carries with it a low miscariage risk. The back and forth between Bishops in the article (not the instruction) I posted makes more sense to me in that light.

I quoted the three types of BC, and the last one - most likely used to explain to the Bishops - has not been tested - and so it is a general idea that it is safe and non abortive.

So, i dont think anyone counseled the Bishops with any actual data or proof.

So imho, this is all loosely based on a hypothetical that it may be safe to use as a barrier with the utmost hope it is non abortive.
BUT - it is a bit presumptuous considering the delay in getting care and the high possibility of potential pregnancy already.
Not withstanding the percentage of conception in case of rape. Usually pretty low.

BUT I cannot recall one time the Church saying rape necessitated BC ever before.

The argument was always [according to Catholic apologists] - one violent crime does not beget the next.
~~~~~~~~~~
Out of the mouths of rape victims:

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.
So assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare. If we use the figure of 200, it is 4 per state per year. Even if we use a figure of 500, we're talking about only ten per state, per year. In the United States in one year, there are more than 6 million pregnancies. Roughly 3 million eventuate in live birth, 1.5 million are aborted and 500,000 miscarry. And so while each assault rape pregnancy is a tragedy for the mother (not for the baby, though), we can with confidence say that such pregnancies amount to a minuscule fraction of the total annual pregnancies in the United States. Further, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted, even though that course of action tends to be vigorously pushed by those around the woman. 2,3
One final thought, Sandra Mahkorn, in two excellent studies, has asked such women what was their chief complaint? One might fully assume it was the fact that she was pregnant, but that is incorrect. Her chief complaint was how other people treated her. Such treatment ranged from negative, to simply getting little support from those around her. Even in a culture that offers little support and aggressively pushes abortion as a solution, fewer that half of such babies are killed by abortion. Think of how many fewer yet there would be if each pregnant victim of a rape were given the support, aid and tender loving care that she and her baby deserve.

Rape Pregnancies Are Rare

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

StThomasMore said:
there are much more powerful spermicides than the cheap ones on the counter. There is one sponge spermicide that is is a very thin square of material that dissolves inside the vagina, releasing nonoxylnol-9, an extremely powerful spermicide.Another one which is even stronger than nonoxylnol is called Benzalkonium chloride. A doctor could easily insert or inject it into the cervix and flush out the sperm.

Thomas. .. it could be the most potent spermicide in the world.

So what?

For a spermicide to work it has to REACH THE SPERM.

Given spermi motility, given that the sperm can enter the uterus within 90 SEC of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], given that they can reach the fallopian tubes within 45 MINUTES . .

Given how much time is LOST because of how long it takes to get to the point that any treatment may be given - HOURS,

THE SPERM THAT NEED TO BE AFFECTED ARE OUT OF THE SPERMICIDE'S REACH!

It does nothing for the sprm that can cause pregnancy because those sperm are NO LONGER IN THE VAGINA!

Do you see?

Any sperm left in the vagina at that point, hours after [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], are not going to cause pregnancy to begin with . . the sperm that CAN cause pregnancy left long before and are in the fallopian tubes already.

Can you get a spermicide into the uterus or fallopian tubses?

No .. .

So how in the world can a spermicide affect anything materially?

The claims that they can are nonsense given the motlity of the sperm that can cause pregnancy and where they would be when a woman is given spermicide in a hospital or rape clinic.

The claims make no sense Thomas. . .think about it.

MikeK · Jun 6, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
Can you get a spermicide into the uterus or fallopian tubses?

I'm going to guess that it would be easier than splitting an atom or putting a man on the moon, so I'd guess that given the right motivation, yes. Yes we could.

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

For those who don't know, Benzalkonium chloride is Lysol and Lysol was used as a contracptive in the early 1900's claimed to be very effective by European doctors. It was used as spermicidal douche.

Here is some information:

In the late 1920s Lysol disinfectant began being marketed by maker Lysol, Incorporated and distributor Lehn & Fink, Inc. as a feminine hygiene product. They intimated that vaginal douching with a Lysol solution prevented infections and vaginal odor, and thereby preserved marital bliss[7]. This Lysol solution was also used as a birth control agent, as post-coital douching was a popular method of preventing pregnancy at that time. The use of Lysol was later discouraged by the medical community as it tended to eliminate the bacteria normal to the healthy vagina, thus allowing more robust, health-threatening bacteria to thrive, and may have masked more serious problems that certain odors indicated in the first place.[8] All the same, Joseph De Lee, a prominent American obstetrician who held great sway over American obstetric practice through his writings, encouraged the use of Lysol during labor. "...[J]ust before introducing the hand, the vagina is liberally flushed with 1 per cent lysol solution squeezed from pledgets of cotton, the idea being to reduce the amount of infections matter unavoidably carried into the puerperal wounds and up into the uterus by the manipulations." [9]

In the US, from around 1930 to 1960, vaginal douching with a Lysol disinfectant solution was the most popular form of birth control.[10] US marketing ads printed testimonials from European "doctors" touting its safety and effectiveness. The American Medical Association later investigated these claims. They were unable to locate the cited "experts" and found that Lysol was not effective as a contraceptive.[10]

([10] DeNoon, Daniel. "Birth Control Timeline". Web MD. 4 May 2004. (Accessed 22 March 2007) )

Lysol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MikeK · Jun 6, 2011

thereselittleflower said:
For those who don't know, Benzalkonium chloride is Lysol

No it isn't. I'm not certain at this point if you're intentionally misleading people or not, but Lysol is less than 1 tenth of 1% Benzalkonium Chloride. Lysol is not reccomended as a contraceptive. Stronger concentrations of Benzalkonium Chloride are in common use as a spermicide and is effective.

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

MikeK said:
No it isn't. I'm not certain at this point if you're intentionally misleading people or not, but Lysol is less than 1 tenth of 1% Benzalkonium Chloride. Lysol is not reccomended as a contraceptive. Stronger concentrations of Benzalkonium Chloride are in common use as a spermicide and is effective.

It is the active ingredient in Lysol and how it first began to be used as a spermicide. I suggest you look up its history before you falsely accuse someone of intentionally misleading people. It appears you have an axe to grind.

thereselittleflower · Jun 6, 2011

MikeK said:
I'm going to guess that it would be easier than splitting an atom or putting a man on the moon, so I'd guess that given the right motivation, yes. Yes we could.

I thought you had left the thread?

I have a feeling that the chemical would be highly detrimental to the tissues of the uterus and fallopain tube.

And in fact, that is not even the issue.

It is not used in such a manner. By the time it is used as a spermicide in the vagina or cervix, too much time has passed for it to be effective agaisnt the sperm that would fertilize an egg as they are already long gone form those areas.

Contrary to popular belief, contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Well-Known Member

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Traditionalist Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditionalist Catholic

Well-Known Member

Traditionalist Catholic

Christian Democrat

I close my eyes and see you smile

Well-Known Member

Traditionalist Catholic

Well-Known Member

Traditionalist Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency