ABC is not intrinsically evil when medical reason_1

  • Thread starter Thread starter josea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The “possibility” of a medical problem in the future is not the same as an existing condition now. Removal of a perfectly normal, functioning body part is considered mutilation, not amputation, and years ago, no respetcable doctor would consider it. In modern times however, our morals and ethics have become more and more confused and today we have doctors voluntarily killing patients, rather than fighting to the last breath to save them. During pregnancy, we now have the capabilities to do tests to determine a likelihood, or “possibility” that a baby may have down’s syndrome, or some other birth defect. If these tests come out positive, then many doctors will advise you to have an abortion. However, I can show you countless cases where the baby turned out just fine, despite the doctor’s advice. Catholic teaching says it is wrong to murder a baby, despite medical advice to the contrary. It is also wrong to undergo voluntary sterilization or to use ABC to prevent the possibilty of pregnancy, despite medical advice to the contrary. The Catholic church is not wrong, and this situation is not special or different, and it has been addressed. You just don’t like the answer. Aside from the Pope himself spelling it out for you specifically, I don’t think you are going to agree. ABC to prevent pregnancy is wrong. Period. No special case. The only way ABC is acceptable is if preventing pregnancy is not the intended effect, and in this case, it IS the intended effect. You can use all the medical terms you want, but that is what you are really saying. If your wife gets pregnant, there could be a problem. Or things could be just fine. You need to trust in God, and know that his ways are not the ways of this world. And it will be awfully tempting to follow the advice of this world and give in to ABC, but eventually, you will have to answer to God for whatever you decide. He has given us his instructions. It is up to you whether to listen to him, or the doctor who is advising you to sin.
 
*TAS2000 wrote: The “possibility” of a medical problem in the future is not the same as an existing condition now. Removal of a perfectly normal, functioning body part is considered mutilation, not amputation, and years ago, no respetcable doctor would consider it. In modern times however, our morals and ethics have become more and more confused and today we have doctors voluntarily killing patients, rather than fighting to the last breath to save them.

*It seems to me that the removal of a breast is not the same situation as voluntarily killing patients.

In the case of someone with a genetic marker for breast cancer, along with a strong family history of breast cancer, the term ‘perfectly normal, functioning body part’ does not apply because of the gene marker. By carrying the gene, she (or he; men get it too) already has a physical abnormality (as opposed to your tern normal) and in consequence not removing the breast could be seen as a sin in that the failure to act is being detrimental to the preservation of the person’s life.
 
All through this thread I’ve read claims that prophylactic surgery is acceptable from the perspective of Catholic morality. But so far no arguments have been given to prove this assertion.

How about some Magisterial rulings, or if that’s not available, how about arguments from moral theologians? We’re not making progress by just stating and restating the assertion.
 
40.png
TAS2000:
The “possibility” of a medical problem in the future is not the same as an existing condition now. Removal of a perfectly normal, functioning body part is considered mutilation, not amputation, and years ago, no respetcable doctor would consider it. In modern times however, our morals and ethics have become more and more confused and today we have doctors voluntarily killing patients, rather than fighting to the last breath to save them. During pregnancy, we now have the capabilities to do tests to determine a likelihood, or “possibility” that a baby may have down’s syndrome, or some other birth defect. If these tests come out positive, then many doctors will advise you to have an abortion. However, I can show you countless cases where the baby turned out just fine, despite the doctor’s advice. Catholic teaching says it is wrong to murder a baby, despite medical advice to the contrary. It is also wrong to undergo voluntary sterilization or to use ABC to prevent the possibilty of pregnancy, despite medical advice to the contrary. The Catholic church is not wrong, and this situation is not special or different, and it has been addressed. You just don’t like the answer. Aside from the Pope himself spelling it out for you specifically, I don’t think you are going to agree. ABC to prevent pregnancy is wrong. Period. No special case. The only way ABC is acceptable is if preventing pregnancy is not the intended effect, and in this case, it IS the intended effect. You can use all the medical terms you want, but that is what you are really saying. If your wife gets pregnant, there could be a problem. Or things could be just fine. You need to trust in God, and know that his ways are not the ways of this world. And it will be awfully tempting to follow the advice of this world and give in to ABC, but eventually, you will have to answer to God for whatever you decide. He has given us his instructions. It is up to you whether to listen to him, or the doctor who is advising you to sin.
Dear Tas2000,

The “possibility” of a medical problem in the future IS A CONSEQUENCE of a existing condition now in the case of a woman that would die if she becomes pregnant. This is an actual problem now… yet the woman will die in the future.

You say:

“Removal of a perfectly normal, functioning body part is considered mutilation, not amputation, and years ago, no respetcable doctor would consider it.”

That is the problem here I do not think that a body part that when functioning could kill a person is healthy.
But we can go in circles and circles…
And please do not mix things here, I am not talkin about killing innocent people but about doing medical amputation of a organ that is not working properly.

But that is difficult to understand I see.

Best wishes,
Jose
 
40.png
Vincent:
All through this thread I’ve read claims that prophylactic surgery is acceptable from the perspective of Catholic morality. But so far no arguments have been given to prove this assertion.

How about some Magisterial rulings, or if that’s not available, how about arguments from moral theologians? We’re not making progress by just stating and restating the assertion.
Here is the logical argument: “the principle of totality.” You make the decision to amputate part of your body aiming to safe the rest. EVEN IF THE SITUATION IS NOT PRESENT YET BUT IT COULD BE PRESENT IN THE FUTURE.
As already posted here: Is the Church saying that we SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE WOMAN GETS THE BREAST CANCER TO ACT???
Is it that logical?:hmmm:

Regards,
Jose
 
I insist:

The Church says that the potential death danger of a pregnancy can not be considered a case for INDIRECT STERILIZATION because the reproductive organs are healthy. And here is where the problem lies. I seriously think that if the complete reproductive function of the woman would be healthy a pregnancy should not create a putative danger to her. This is nothing to do with religion, moral or theology, this should be considered as a medical statement where the Church has little to say.

I therefore think that a reproductive function able to kill a woman should be considered NON-HEALTHY and therefore its removal named INDIRECT STERILIZATION.

On the other side, and I do not want to use it as an argument, it is hilarious to pretend that the sexual acts of that woman in danger should be “open to life” when a sexual act that is really “open to life” would definitively kill her! Absurd! The Church should recommend total sexual abstention in that case and no, as Pius XII said, the use of the rhythm method. This for me, kind of proves that he was wrong in this particular case. Just look at the number of Ogino’s children around. Our woman would have been already dead by following the advice. But as I said: I do not want to use this as an argument.
 
40.png
josea:
I insist:

The Church says that the potential death danger of a pregnancy can not be considered a case for INDIRECT STERILIZATION because the reproductive organs are healthy. And here is where the problem lies. I seriously think that if the complete reproductive function of the woman would be healthy a pregnancy should not create a putative danger to her. This is nothing to do with religion, moral or theology, this should be considered as a medical statement where the Church has little to say.

I therefore think that a reproductive function able to kill a woman should be considered NON-HEALTHY and therefore its removal named INDIRECT STERILIZATION.

On the other side, and I do not want to use it as an argument, it is hilarious to pretend that the sexual acts of that woman in danger should be “open to life” when a sexual act that is really “open to life” would definitively kill her! Absurd! The Church should recommend total sexual abstention in that case and no, as Pius XII said, the use of the rhythm method. This for me, kind of proves that he was wrong in this particular case. Just look at the number of Ogino’s children around. Our woman would have been already dead by following the advice. But as I said: I do not want to use this as an argument.
This whole thread it appears that you are dancing around acknowledging/accepting the elephant in the room —> marital abstinence <— as the reason why all your arguments for introducing ABC/sterilization in your situation (as presented) are deficient. There is no documented case of anyone dying from abstinence from marital intercourse. If your wife is truly at life risk of future pregnancy, then marital abstinence (until menopause) may truly be your generous “open to life” response to God (have you considered this appropriate perspective?). This differs from the example of a genetic marker for cancer in making the case for the preventative removal of the at risk organ–there is no behavioral abstinence that will keep this cancer 100% from being triggered (excuse my lack of medical terminology).

So there, you can keep dancing around the elephant in the room, or you can seriously, prayerfully embrace the Cross that God has apparently given you (and your wife) and live each day by His grace. If you do not like what I am saying, then reread the excellent previous posts by **TAS2000. **
 
Ella, I did not mean to imply that removal of a breast was in the same line as Euthanasia, I just meant to use that as an example of things that many medical professionals consider up for debate now a days, that years ago we knew were wrong. I personnally tend to agree that a genetic marker could count as a reason to declare the organ a danger and remove it, but I also feel that medical science hasn’t progresssed to the point yet to make that a certainty. We can continue to hope for further advancement in the future. What I was originally refering to though was removal of normal reproductive organs to prevent pregnancy because of the possibilty of danger during pregnancy.
Breast cancer is not the same as voluntary sterilization, which is what Josea seems to want to claim. He still has yet to say that the woman is in any danger if she doesn’t do anything. This is the crux of the argument. If the woman will suffer no ill affects so long as she doesn’t get pregnant, then there is no medical issue. (Unlike breast cancer, where doing nothing would be fatal.) She has the choice of risking pregnancy if she wishes to use NFP and continue to have sex, or she can choose to live chastely to prevent pregnancy. The only way ABC is allowed in this case is if she is living chastely. She has the choice. If there is a medical condition that will cause the woman harm if nothing is done, regardless of whether she gets pregnant, then there is a medical condition to be addressed.
 
40.png
TAS2000:
Ella, I did not mean to imply that removal of a breast was in the same line as Euthanasia, I just meant to use that as an example of things that many medical professionals consider up for debate now a days, that years ago we knew were wrong. I personnally tend to agree that a genetic marker could count as a reason to declare the organ a danger and remove it, but I also feel that medical science hasn’t progresssed to the point yet to make that a certainty. We can continue to hope for further advancement in the future. What I was originally refering to though was removal of normal reproductive organs to prevent pregnancy because of the possibilty of danger during pregnancy.
Breast cancer is not the same as voluntary sterilization, which is what Josea seems to want to claim. He still has yet to say that the woman is in any danger if she doesn’t do anything. This is the crux of the argument. If the woman will suffer no ill affects so long as she doesn’t get pregnant, then there is no medical issue. (Unlike breast cancer, where doing nothing would be fatal.) She has the choice of risking pregnancy if she wishes to use NFP and continue to have sex, or she can choose to live chastely to prevent pregnancy. The only way ABC is allowed in this case is if she is living chastely. She has the choice. If there is a medical condition that will cause the woman harm if nothing is done, regardless of whether she gets pregnant, then there is a medical condition to be addressed.
Very good points. I think this is the heart of the issue. The Church has said many times to abstain, or use NFP. Altering healthy reproductive organs to render them sterile is immoral. It seems the Church has answered this several times.
 
*“Altering healthy reproductive organs to render them sterile is immoral. It seems the Church has answered this several times.”

*I guess the question I have then is, are they 'healthy reproductive organs’? Part of the problem lies in the murky description of the ‘disease’. A specific condition would help. Any number of things could make one have a life-threatening pregnancy. I think which specific condition we are speaking of would have an affect on the issue.

For instance, (I’m making this up - perhaps this is a medical condition and perhaps it isn’t) let’s say a woman has a very small uterus, too small to hold a baby to term. Technically, she can still produce a fertilized ovum, and the egg can attach to the uterine wall, but there is no way for the baby to grow to viable size in her uterus. Then I suppose the answer would be that she could never have sex. But on the other hand, her uterus is not a 'healthy reproductive organ’ since** by its nature it cannot funtion as a healthy reproductive organ**. In that sense, can she get a hysterectomy? Or must her situation require some other medical complication before a hysterectomy is licit?
 
40.png
josea:
Here is the logical argument: “the principle of totality.” You make the decision to amputate part of your body aiming to safe the rest. EVEN IF THE SITUATION IS NOT PRESENT YET BUT IT COULD BE PRESENT IN THE FUTURE.
As already posted here: Is the Church saying that we SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE WOMAN GETS THE BREAST CANCER TO ACT???
Is it that logical?:hmmm:
This is exactly what we need here:

Statements from the Church ( a bishop’s conference, Holy See, whatever) that say either,

  1. *]Amputation is permitted even if the situation is not present yet but it could be present in the future.

    *]We should wait until disease sets in before we can amputate.
    Can you provide them?
 
Ella said:
“Altering healthy reproductive organs to render them sterile is immoral. It seems the Church has answered this several times.”

I guess the question I have then is, are they 'healthy reproductive organs’? Part of the problem lies in the murky description of the ‘disease’. A specific condition would help. Any number of things could make one have a life-threatening pregnancy. I think which specific condition we are speaking of would have an affect on the issue.

For instance, (I’m making this up - perhaps this is a medical condition and perhaps it isn’t) let’s say a woman has a very small uterus, too small to hold a baby to term. Technically, she can still produce a fertilized ovum, and the egg can attach to the uterine wall, but there is no way for the baby to grow to viable size in her uterus. Then I suppose the answer would be that she could never have sex. But on the other hand, her uterus is not a 'healthy reproductive organ’ since** by its nature it cannot funtion as a healthy reproductive organ**. In that sense, can she get a hysterectomy? Or must her situation require some other medical complication before a hysterectomy is licit?

Are you distiguising between *unhealthy *versus defective? Can someone function in a fully healthy manner with a *defective *reproductive organ that does not necessitate removal? A good litmus question of what is morally acceptable is: *A simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not is to consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman. If the answer is **no, *then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral. (Though this may seem too simplistic, it is wholly consonant with Catholic moral theology instruction found in Humanae Vitae).
 
2 points I thought of this weekend
  1. What is this supposed disease that we are talking about?
  2. If you knew about this disease prior to marriage and did not want to have kids…then your marriage isn’t even valid, so you shouldn’t be having sex anyway.
 
40.png
josea:
When a pregnancy would kill a woman is because the reproductive function of that woman is diseased but we could only realize it when a pregnancy is taking place. I think it is reasonable to consider, and medically so it is done, that reproductive apparatus or function as ill and, therefore, could be treated in a preventive manner, but the only preventive way to treat this situation is by temporal or definitive sterilization.
You are incorrect and you fail to make point to point logical statements here.
  1. What reproductive disease would cause a pregnancy to be fatal. Reproductive diseases are normally dealing with a malfunction of the reproductive organs. If a woman is pregnant then they worked correctly.
  2. You place the fallacy of false options in front of us. If the organ is working in an incorrect fashion and the removal of the diseased organ would remove a ‘harmfully functioning’ organ then you would be correct. However, if it only came to fruition under the activity of a pregnancy then other options than temporary or direct sterilization of the reproductive system could and should be undertaken. (It is called marital continence). We are not animals ruled by a need for sex but thinking beings with free will.
40.png
josea:
This sterilization should not be considered a “direct sterilization”, it should be considered as a “preventive indirect sterilization”. “Indirect sterilization” because the woman does not want to get her reproductive organs removed to stop having children, this woman would like to have more children and her primary intention is not contraception. This woman does not have a contraceptive mentality. Here the intention it is not the same of that of the woman who does not have any more children and goes through surgery. Here we are not talking about contraception.
  1. If the action is to prevent ovulation then it is directly contraceptive.
  2. If pregnancy would kill her then why is she wanting to have kids again later?
  3. If her intention is to not get pregnant and uses a pill or device to prevent it instead of self-control than she is contracepting directly. That is what she is trying to accomplish. If a woman has cancer and has the removal of the uterus due to said cancer the contraceptive side effect can be unintended. However, it is illicit to remove the uterus/ovaries if they are functioning normally.
40.png
josea:
The idea that “no bad can be done that good might come from it” does not applied here neither because this “preventive sterilization” can not be “intrinsically evil” according to the principle of totality.
you are going to have to explain this. If you are doing something evil directly so that you may achieve a good then you are simply utilizing the ends justifying the means or the disproven principle of proportionalism. Please lay out the principle of totality and how you believe it applies.
40.png
josea:
As an end note. Did you realize that in times of Pius XII the only natural method was the Ogino’s or the rythms method? You know very well how reliable was this method. And this was the advice of the Church for our woman to follow. Incredible!
Sounds like you do not understand the beauty of TRUE marital love. Regardless of what is morally available truth is truth. A book by Cardinal Suenens written in 1960 Love and Control talks about the promising research and usage of the methods that are modern NFP. Yes, they were under development but truth is truth and total gift of self is always the same truth and contraception always was and is wrong regardless of what medical technology and knowledge is available.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew
 
40.png
Vincent:
This is exactly what we need here:

Statements from the Church ( a bishop’s conference, Holy See, whatever) that say either,

  1. *]Amputation is permitted even if the situation is not present yet but it could be present in the future.
    *]We should wait until disease sets in before we can amputate.
    If this is so I guess i could get all of my organs removed because I have a medical risk of getting the disease. Logic would dictate that probability of something occuring would not dictate objective licitness of an act due to inability to set a definitive threshold or bright line test. It would never stand in a vacumn. However, presence or lack of presence would be a clear bright line. If you are at a high risk you can take proactive measures to detect or lower risks. Also, remember we aren’t here to live as long as we can. We are going to die someday and our goal is heaven. Not to say we should be foolish and play in the road but ‘living forever’ is not our God-given end.

    Under the Mercy,

    Matthew
 
Forgive me if I am repeating someone, but I did not notice anywhere in this thread mention of the Anglicans Lambert Conference in the 1930’s that opened the “Pandora’s box” of birth control into the culture. They argued that birth control should be allowed for extreme cases, and thirty years later almost everyone wanted to use it. Prior to that time, all major Protestant denominations taught that birth control for any reason was wrong.

As you prayfully consider all that you’ve been reading, please consider that.
 
40.png
josea:
This sterilization should not be considered a “direct sterilization”, it should be considered as a “preventive indirect sterilization”. “Indirect sterilization” because the woman does not want to get her reproductive organs removed to stop having children, this woman would like to have more children and her primary intention is not contraception.
Has your doctor told your wife she needs a hysterectomy? If so, I don’t think anyone here would say that’s wrong. Personally, I’d get 2 opinions because I’m cautious. If both said I needed one, I’d do it. I’m not sure the Church has spoken to the issue of removing organs in case they might become diseased in the future. Wouldn’t that be playing God?
—KCT
 
40.png
CatholicMatthew:
You are incorrect and you fail to make point to point logical statements here.
  1. What reproductive disease would cause a pregnancy to be fatal. Reproductive diseases are normally dealing with a malfunction of the reproductive organs. If a woman is pregnant then they worked correctly.
We will see if I am correct or not. If a pregnancy can not be happily ended because it would kill the woman and the baby (for sure) I would not say the “reproductive function” is alright! Sorry but it is not. It would be alright if the whole process would take place without danger until the end. You are looking only to the ovaries, fallopian tubes and uterus as a reproductive organs. I am talking about the whole reproductive function that starts with the possibility of fecundation until the delivery of a kind. This is the reproductive function. If one of the steps fails the whole process fails. If one of the steps is disturbed by a disease the whole process is affected by the disease. In the case I know the blood supplied to the baby through the placenta is defective and the woman might died (the baby surely) due to coagulation of blood in different organs after intense bleeding (I omitted the medical terms to make it clear to anybody)
40.png
CatholicMatthew:
  1. You place the fallacy of false options in front of us. If the organ is working in an incorrect fashion and the removal of the diseased organ would remove a ‘harmfully functioning’ organ then you would be correct. However, if it only came to fruition under the activity of a pregnancy then other options than temporary or direct sterilization of the reproductive system could and should be undertaken. (It is called marital continence). We are not animals ruled by a need for sex but thinking beings with free will.
I am not placing any fallacy in front of you. I am giving a point of view that many people among Church authority has and that can be so interpreted. The removing of the organs would remove a “harmfully functioning” organ because if they would function normally they would lead to the death of the woman. The problem here is that some people see the organ diseased only when activated by sex and other see that the problem is there always. That the woman is in danger only when the reproductive function is activated by sex does not mean that the organ is not ill. The reproductive function is not functioning as it should do, therefore is ill and could be morally licit to remove it. It depends of how you see the problem. If you want to link it to free will OK, but you can not say that the woman does not have a medical problem with his reproductive capability.
40.png
CatholicMatthew:
  1. If the action is to prevent ovulation then it is directly contraceptive.
  1. If pregnancy would kill her then why is she wanting to have kids again later?
  2. If her intention is to not get pregnant and uses a pill or device to prevent it instead of self-control than she is contracepting directly. That is what she is trying to accomplish. If a woman has cancer and has the removal of the uterus due to said cancer the contraceptive side effect can be unintended. However, it is illicit to remove the uterus/ovaries if they are functioning normally.
To your points:
  1. It is not directly contraceptive. It is a “preventive sterilization” and I and others consider it indirect.
  2. She is open to life, she would like to have kids later if the medicine advance enough to allow so.
  3. She is having sterilization. You say: “However, it is illicit to remove the uterus/ovaries if they are functioning normally.” The reproductive function of this woman is not functioning normally, I insist, if it would, then she would not have any problems to have children.
40.png
CatholicMatthew:
you are going to have to explain this. If you are doing something evil directly so that you may achieve a good then you are simply utilizing the ends justifying the means or the disproven principle of proportionalism. Please lay out the principle of totality and how you believe it applies.
Amputation for medical reasons is not evil. I do not have to apply the sentence “the end does not justify the means.”

Regards,

Jose
 
The Church does not allow preventive sterilization even if the reproductive function of a woman would not function correctly. This is not considered as a licit medical treatment even if it would directly produce a higher quality of life or makes free of risk the normal sexual life because the mean is considered intrinsically evil. That is the point. But I do not think in this case the medical intervention is evil.

This woman would like but can not be open to life anymore. The Church advises her to make use of NFP to be “open to life” (amazing!) or to abstain form sex.

I understand the Church teachings so: **if a woman has a serious medical problem with her reproductive function she has to give up her normal sexual relations (I do not consider NFP here), even if medicine would help her to achieve a normal sexual life preventing the risk for ever. **

****This is what I think is totally illogical. It is illogical that the Church does not take this medical intervention as licit (indirect sterilization) because the woman still has the free will to get or not involved in sexual relations and therefore to control her own health.

As I said before the Church neither approves in this case the “principle of less of two evils” or the “conflict of values” because the second “evil” or “value” lies in the future and can not be taken for the actual decision. But it neither accepts this preventive sterilization as licit because the woman can exercise her free will IN THE FUTURE to abstain from sex! or because the Church does not consider the reproductive function in this case as ill but that the woman put herself at risk by exercising her free will.

To me this is also illogical. I think the whole issue is very complicated and depends on the point of view: Depends on what is considered as a healthy organ or function and therefore whether or not the “principle of totality” can be used here. That is why there are so many people among many Church authorities thinking that this principle can be apply here without any problems.

I think that, while the teachings about contraception are irreformable and definitive, the teachings about this particular case are far from definitive because a big misunderstanding is taking place here: This is not about contraception.

I have learn this from an authority (not suspicious at all) of the Church .

I pray to God that He might bring the whole thing clear to all of us

Jose
 
This is nothing to do with our discussion because I am not talking about contraception but there is an example of a theological problematic about the use of condoms in case of Aids that is changing within the Church. In this case the theologian of the Pope does not consider it as “intrinsically evil” because it is not aimed as a contraceptive method. He is the most senior figure so far to argue that condoms should be admissible in exceptional circumstances.

Look at the following article:

** “Cardinal says condoms could help to stop Aids****” at**

guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1403083,00.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top