Birth control but no sex?

  • Thread starter Thread starter littleflower1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MCL said:
Thank you for the correction on the use of my terminology. I checked the reference you suggested and was stunned because it is in contradiction to what I understand as Catholic intellectual thought with regards to intent and consequences. As far as what he says about intent, then drunk drivers would have no responsibility for their actions because they did not intend to kill anyone - it is just an unintended consequence. I would argue that the drunk driver is responsible because they are aware that it is a potential consequence. Likewise, in taking the pill for medical reasons and not abstaining from sexual relations, the person knows that an abortion is highly likely even if it is not the primary intent but a potential consequence. I will continue to search this site and others for specific references.
Click to expand...
Not all types of medicines, grouped together under the label “pill”, cause an abortion. Again, the OP should discuss the specific type of medication recommended to her with her doctor, and a priest or spiritual adviser. Not strangers on a forum. We go to specialists and do not help anyone when giving incorrect medical information.

It has been posted in the Apologetics Forum that it is okay to take the pill for medical reasons.

Sincerely,

Maria1212
 
I guess I find that troubling then.

Does that mean the Church allows abortions for health reasons? Certainly not. But in the case of something which could lead to an abortion, they let it slide?

It seems like they are saying:

Church: “Certain types of birth control can cause abortions. Abortion is murder. Abortion in the case of grave health concerns is never allowed.”

Us: “But what about the pill in the case of health concerns???”

Church: “Oh that’s fine, we’ll roll the dice.”

If the requirement is continence, then this makes complete sense, since the onus is then on the couple to maintain their chastity while using the BC.

But to allow it due to a mother’s health flies in the faces of disallowing abortions that threaten the mother’s health. What am I missing?
 
MCL said:
Thank you for the correction on the use of my terminology. I checked the reference you suggested and was stunned because it is in contradiction to what I understand as Catholic intellectual thought with regards to intent and consequences. As far as what he says about intent, then drunk drivers would have no responsibility for their actions because they did not intend to kill anyone - it is just an unintended consequence. I would argue that the drunk driver is responsible because they are aware that it is a potential consequence. Likewise, in taking the pill for medical reasons and not abstaining from sexual relations, the person knows that an abortion is highly likely even if it is not the primary intent but a potential consequence. I will continue to search this site and others for specific references.
Click to expand...
driving under the influence
Does being drunk reduce culpability?
He_Man said:
I guess I find that troubling then.

Does that mean the Church allows abortions for health reasons? Certainly not. But in the case of something which could lead to an abortion, they let it slide?

It seems like they are saying:

Church: “Certain types of birth control can cause abortions. Abortion is murder. Abortion in the case of grave health concerns is never allowed.”

Us: “But what about the pill in the case of health concerns???”

Church: “Oh that’s fine, we’ll roll the dice.”

If the requirement is continence, then this makes complete sense, since the onus is then on the couple to maintain their chastity while using the BC.

But to allow it due to a mother’s health flies in the faces of disallowing abortions that threaten the mother’s health. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
You are missing that an abortion directly attempts to kill a child while medicines for the mother directly intend to bring her health. It is the same circumstance as a mother with cancer who decides with her doctor that the treatment plan needs to include radiation therapy, which will likely kill the unborn baby as an unintended result of bringing the mother back to health. The Church allows such a treatment.

Let’s bring this into another more tangible example. A family goes on a much-needed winter vacation to a remote area and while hiking a mother and child slip on some rock. The mom is precariously hanging onto a tree limb while the child is hanging on to mom. Both are losing strength when another hiker miraculously arrives. The closest help is an hour away, which the woman and child do not have to wait. The hiker starts pulling up on mom, but it doesn’t matter what he does, the child is wedged beneath the tree and when he pulls, the child doesn’t come through the tree but instead loses more grip. He keeps hollering to the child to hold on tightly as he tries everything he can.

What is the mother’s and the hiker’s responsibility here? Is the hiker to say, “I’m sorry. If I can’t save you both then I can’t help you.”? Is the mother to say, “I am going to wait on the Lord to send help and if it is His will that I lose strength and we both die, then so be it. But I know you are not from the Lord because you desire to kill my child.”? Can you imagine the news reports after? “The Catholic Church made a statement that the hiker who refused to help the mother and child did the morally correct thing because there was a chance that his attempt to save them could result in the death of the child. The mother and child both died 20 minutes later when they plummeted to the canyon floor. The Church said, ‘in this day and age where life is continuously attacked, it is heart-warming to see the actions of this mother and passer-by who were willing to err on the side of life in all things! Glory to God forever!’” :eek:

Now imagine if the man decided the problem was the additional weight of the child, so he pulled out a gun and shot the child to death to get her to let go of mom. That’s heinous. And that’s what’s wrong. Attempting to save them both and unintentionally losing the child is far different from killing the child intentionally.
 
I guess so, but I think it is a slippery slope when we start making allowances. We don’t allow abortions EVEN IF the mother’s life is on the line, but BC is okay for medical reasons even though it can kill the baby?

Practically speaking as well, this occurs A LOT more than the hiker analogy too.

And what determines “medical reasons?” I just find this a confusing and dangerous line to walk for the Church. Either is is an abortifacient, or it isn’t. Still doesn’t really make sense to me, but if that’s the rule, so be it.
 
Great. That doesn’t contribute much to the discussion itself, but thanks for adding that.

Anyway, my point it is that logically, it makes no sense to me.

Either they can abort, or they can’t. Health reasons aside don’t change this fact.

To be clear, essentially what is being said is “you can take a chance on killing you baby only if it is medically important.”

I can live with either one, since I tend to simply get in line with whatever the Church says, but that doesn’t mean it makes any logical sense (to me, in fairness; I could be the dense one).
 
I have a few more comments, especially in response to Woodstock’s analogy.
  1. the mother in the story of falling with her child did not knowingly put her child in jeopardy. It was an accident and therefore not analagous to the ABC abortifacient debate. Someone who takes an ABC that is also an abortifacient and continues to have sexual relations knows the outcome is an abortion.
  2. saving a life and improving health are two different things. The women who takes an ABC to improve her health is not in jeopardy of losing her life.
  3. alternatives. Choose saving both when possible. The mother in the story has few if no other alternatives. The women taking an ABC with abortifacient effects has an alternative that would improve her health andprevent an abortion-it is called abstinence. By choosing otherwise, yes, she would intend the abortion.
We are called to do the most we can do. In the situation where a women is taking an ABC with abortifacient effects, she can improve both her health and save a life by not engaging in sexual intercourse. This would be the only moral thing to do.
 
Woodstock said:
driving under the influence
.

Did you intend for this reference to support my position? Because in my mind it does. It says that if any action causes a danger to others, then intentionally choosing that action is a sin and we are advised to not engage in that sinful behavior. This is exactly the logic I was using to explain that using ABC with abortifacient effects and engaging in sexual intercourse that would result in an abortion is morally unacceptable. A person may not know the exact moment of conception or abortion, but the effect is the same.
Click to expand...
 
MCL said:
I have a few more comments, especially in response to Woodstock’s analogy.
  1. the mother in the story of falling with her child did not knowingly put her child in jeopardy. It was an accident and therefore not analagous to the ABC abortifacient debate. Someone who takes an ABC that is also an abortifacient and continues to have sexual relations knows the outcome is an abortion.
  2. saving a life and improving health are two different things. The women who takes an ABC to improve her health is not in jeopardy of losing her life.
  3. alternatives. Choose saving both when possible. The mother in the story has few if no other alternatives. The women taking an ABC with abortifacient effects has an alternative that would improve her health andprevent an abortion-it is called abstinence. By choosing otherwise, yes, she would intend the abortion.
We are called to do the most we can do. In the situation where a women is taking an ABC with abortifacient effects, she can improve both her health and save a life by not engaging in sexual intercourse. This would be the only moral thing to do.
Click to expand...
You hit my point in the last paragraph. Otherwise, condoms would fall into the same category. How often have we heard “a pregnancy could be deadly for me” used as an argument for the use of birth control? I have seen it on here in more than one occasion, and it is always shot down for theological reasons (which I agree with). Using that train of though, a condom would thererore fall into this category as well; it would favor the woman’s life, and in fact, would never cause an abortion. But I never hear that argument made for condoms. Hence my confusion on why BC would be acceptable for a sexually active married couple.
 
MCL said:
Did you intend for this reference to support my position?
Click to expand...
I don’t have time to answer all of these, so I’ll answer this as I’m the only one who can say what my intent was.

A person who knowingly drinks and becomes drunk is more culpable for his actions than an average person. A person does not intentionally become ill and may not intentionally kill her child. The difference is in primary intent. In taking hormone therapy for a debilitating illness, the person’s intent is to restore her health, not kill a baby.
 
Yes you can take birth control for medical reasons. My youngest daughter started birth control 2 years ago for a medical condition.

I went to my priest to discuss this… Because of the situation it was needed… I was concerned about what that message would be… The priest assured me that because it was a medical condition, then the rules are different…

She will have to be on it for many y ears…So I keep teaching abstinence to her… and what we believe in…

Caeryl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top