Birth control ... Maybe

  • Thread starter Thread starter mom2em
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mom2em

Guest
Medical side effects aside (know about them) if a person is NOT sexually active, is it immoral for the to use birth control? Be it pill, IUD or whatever.

By the Church, not opinion if possible. (Sorry I that sounds curt.)
 
The medications or devices can be wrong either by the intention of the use or by reason of incurring an unnecessary danger without suitably necessary intended gain. In the second case, whether the offense would be grave depends on the gap in gravity between the risk and the intended benefit. For instance, it isn’t moral to do something dangerous to your health for pleasure or vanity, but how bad the offense is depends on how trivial your reason and how serious your risk. Finally, you must also avoid being complicit in the use of contraceptives by others, as well.

I don’t see how it is even possible to intend contraceptive effect when you’re doing something with the full knowledge that you will not be having sexual relations. If the intention is not contraceptive, then the medications are contraceptives.

Still, contraceptives are not entirely benign, IUDs are not without risk, so you’d need some positive reason to use them. What might that reason be?

If it were a treatment for a disease that you have, you may use these things as treatments. Actually, you may use them and still have marital relations, provided that the contraceptive effect in not why you’re taking/using them and there is not a good alternative treatment that does not have the contraceptive effect. It doesn’t matter whether you want or don’t want the contraceptive effect; what matters is that you aren’t taking the meds or using the device in order to achieve that end. In medical treatment, you take the side effects you get, like them or not.

If your reason were in order to help with research for treatment for a disease (agreeing to be a control, for instance), that would be OK, provided that the risk was in ethical ranges.

If it were to help with research into the contraceptive use of the medication or device by being a control subject then you still have to examine whether you would be complicit in advancing an unacceptable use of the medication or device. It could be that this would not be OK. That kind of depends on the research.
 
EasterJoy,

You posed a question why someone would use an IUD. Well, the Mirena IUD is actually really great if you have endometriosis. The hormones mitigate the symptoms, and because it’s an IUD rather than a pill, the hormones are localized and don’t screw up your entire system (i.e. make you feel not yourself). I used one for a few years and I LOVED it. When I had it taken out so my husband and I could be open to life … well, things were VERY painful for about a year, same as before I had the IUD in. Over time it either: 1) Got better, or 2) I got better at working around it. Not sure which one.

Anyway, that is one real-life scenario to answer your question.
 
I haven’t spoken with my doctor yet, but I wanted to know ahead of time as I think birth control might be his suggestion. It would be for periods – month long or longer, and quite heavy. To the point where normally I am afraid to leave the house ecsuse of “accidents.”

I don’t have any insurance. Maybe next year. So the pill is an affordable option. My husband and I are not sexually active, goodness we aren’t even living in te same house. I can’t explain that situation any further because I don’t know myself. I just know there are no relations at all so it would be for contraceptive purposes.

I appreciate both answers and yes Michelle’s answer was helpful and I had read something similar before posting.

Thanks! I’ve an appointment next week and I’ll speak with the doctor an see what he says and go from there but I just feel like I have to do something. Not a ton of fun worrying about hehe embarrassing accidents 😛
 
Sorry for the terrible spelling there. Using my phone to post. I meant it wouldn’t be used for contraceptive purposes. If anything I would love to have more children but… Some other things in my life new to be figured out first for that to happen.

I’d never been the fan of the poll. Before returning to the church it was prescribed after I had my daughter. I used it three months and haven’t looked back since. But this situation is terrible. I do try to just live with it, to even be thankful I have any period at all, but something has to change. So yes, I’ll bring it up with my doctor. I’ll ask him perhaps about other methods that might also be helpful. I just wanted to know if it was an ok option … Morally speaking.

Sorry not sure if what I am postin is making sense
 
AthenaC said:
EasterJoy,

You posed a question why someone would use an IUD. Well, the Mirena IUD is actually really great if you have endometriosis. The hormones mitigate the symptoms, and because it’s an IUD rather than a pill, the hormones are localized and don’t screw up your entire system (i.e. make you feel not yourself). I used one for a few years and I LOVED it. When I had it taken out so my husband and I could be open to life … well, things were VERY painful for about a year, same as before I had the IUD in. Over time it either: 1) Got better, or 2) I got better at working around it. Not sure which one.

Anyway, that is one real-life scenario to answer your question.
Click to expand...
That is a medical use. As you obviously know, unless you were choosing that treatment over a similarly-suitable alternative that didn’t have those side-effects, it is morally acceptable for a couple to continue sexual relations while the wife is using that treatment. I mean, I suppose some woman could figure out she had a condition that is sometimes treated with a contraceptive and go to her doctor with the primary intention of getting herself a contraceptive that comes with an excuse that will keep her mother off of her back: that would be wrong because her primary intention was to contracept. But you weren’t doing that.

OTOH, if doing nothing for one’s condition is not an undue burden, then that is preferable to what is then an unneeded treatment with undesirable contraceptive effects.

If someone didn’t like the risk that IUDs sometimes pose, they might choose the treatment that will almost certainly make them feel worse, but that is getting into personal discernment. The risks in an IUD aren’t so great that there is any clear-cut one-size-fits-all answers to that one.
 
mom2em said:
Sorry for the terrible spelling there. Using my phone to post. I meant it wouldn’t be used for contraceptive purposes. If anything I would love to have more children but… Some other things in my life new to be figured out first for that to happen.

I’d never been the fan of the poll. Before returning to the church it was prescribed after I had my daughter. I used it three months and haven’t looked back since. But this situation is terrible. I do try to just live with it, to even be thankful I have any period at all, but something has to change. So yes, I’ll bring it up with my doctor. I’ll ask him perhaps about other methods that might also be helpful. I just wanted to know if it was an ok option … Morally speaking.

Sorry not sure if what I am postin is making sense
Click to expand...
If your doctor can’t treat your suffering in a satisfactory manner by means that don’t have the contraceptive effect, it is morally OK to treat the symptoms that afflict you with a method that has an unintended contraceptive side-effect. You could resume relations with your husband, too, if your personal circumstances were to allow that again. There wouldn’t be a moral issue with that. Under the conditions you’re describing right now, there wouldn’t be a morally-compelling reason to prefer to avoid the contraceptive effect. If you and your husband got back together into the same household, though, you’d want to see if a non-contraceptive treatment would work satisfactorily.

I hope that makes sense. For instance, women in a convent and other chaste unmarried women don’t need to concern themselves with whether their medical treatments have contraceptive effects. I mean, they couldn’t look at two equal alternatives and think, “Gee, what if?” and choose the contraceptive “just in case”, but if that is not their intention, they don’t need to concern themselves with it at all. Married women whose husbands have become permanently impotent wouldn’t have to concern themselves with it. Married women who need to be available for marital relations can accept treatments with contraceptive effects if no good alternative exists, but they have some responsibility to look for treatments that don’t have those side-effects.
 
You can only use birth control when you are trying to prevent conception. If it is not meant to prevent conception then it isn’t birth control.
 
I was told by my priest that if a single woman, not having any type of sex, was using the birth control pill, then it is not a sin. The pill is a sin against the sacrament of marriage when used to prevent a child. Taking the pill in itself is not a sin. Taking the pill, having sex, and preventing pregnancy is. :twocents:
 
EasterJoy said:
If your doctor can’t treat your suffering in a satisfactory manner by means that don’t have the contraceptive effect, it is morally OK to treat the symptoms that afflict you with a method that has an unintended contraceptive side-effect. You could resume relations with your husband, too, if your personal circumstances were to allow that again. There wouldn’t be a moral issue with that. Under the conditions you’re describing right now, there wouldn’t be a morally-compelling reason to prefer to avoid the contraceptive effect. If you and your husband got back together into the same household, though, you’d want to see if a non-contraceptive treatment would work satisfactorily.

I hope that makes sense. For instance, women in a convent and other chaste unmarried women don’t need to concern themselves with whether their medical treatments have contraceptive effects. I mean, they couldn’t look at two equal alternatives and think, “Gee, what if?” and choose the contraceptive “just in case”, but if that is not their intention, they don’t need to concern themselves with it at all. Married women whose husbands have become permanently impotent wouldn’t have to concern themselves with it. Married women who need to be available for marital relations can accept treatments with contraceptive effects if no good alternative exists, but they have some responsibility to look for treatments that don’t have those side-effects.
Click to expand...
Got it! Thanks for the very in-depth explanation. I appreciate it. It’s something I had been avoiding and dealing with the best I could since returning to the church because I wasn’t sure. So now that I have gotten to the point where … it’s just THAT BAD … I had to ask.

Thank you!!
 
EasterJoy said:
NaPro may be worth looking into, I can’t say, but we are not allowed to give medical advice here.
Click to expand...
This wasn’t medical advice. All I did was repeat what was written in the articles by the docs. and it wasn’t about a specific ailment. Many times over people state facts here about the pill being a carcinogen and napro actually working to solve problems.
 
AthenaC said:
EasterJoy,

You posed a question why someone would use an IUD. Well, the Mirena IUD is actually really great if you have endometriosis. The hormones mitigate the symptoms, and because it’s an IUD rather than a pill, the hormones are localized and don’t screw up your entire system (i.e. make you feel not yourself). I used one for a few years and I LOVED it. When I had it taken out so my husband and I could be open to life … well, things were VERY painful for about a year, same as before I had the IUD in. Over time it either: 1) Got better, or 2) I got better at working around it. Not sure which one.

Anyway, that is one real-life scenario to answer your question.
Click to expand...
IUDs carry some health risks though.

They can become embedded in the uterine lining, lead to infection causing infertility etc. or slip out of place and cause other problems.

If a woman is using it and having sexual intercourse the risks can be even greater. When they fail and a pregnancy occurs it can be life threatening for the baby and/or mother.

Things to definitely discus with a Catholic NFP doctor.
 
I’m not even sure where I might find one here. A Catholic doctor that is. So I have been trying to get information where I can so that when I do speak with him, I can weigh the options. I promise it’s not a lightly made decision or one of convience. Even if I don’t get a “normal” period it would be nice to have something that isn’t so … I don’t want to say unbearable because in terms of pain, it’s not half as bad as I know some women to be but it does limit me a lot of the time and cause other issues.

I’m glad to have the information that has been shared and I will speak with me doctor and see what happens from there. If I am not comfortable with his suggestions or the way he handles the matter in terms of my faith, I will most likely continue on as I have been, though I kind of dread the thought of that.

Once/if other personal situations get figured out, everything will be reevaluated as needed. But for now a little “help” would be nice.

Thanks again!
 
NaPro is a good resource. You can probably find a doctor in your state that uses it.
naprotechnology.com/

That being said, if you aren’t using it for contraceptive purposes than it is not a sin. I have always been told that the church is fine with the use of medications that could be contraceptive as long as that is not the intended result. For instance, if you are a cancer patient and you take certain drugs to treat your cancer that’s fine-even if an unintended miscarriage results. Some of these same drugs are also used in some abortion procedures-it is wrong when used for that particular effect. It’s really all about your intent.

All this being said, I’m going to get on my soapbox regarding chemo during pregnancy because it is a hot topic. DO NOT take this as medical advice…I’m just reporting on some interesting and pertinent data because I work in cancer research. Recent early data from EHA has suggested that it may be safe to undergo chemo while in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. The children studied did not have any significant injuries or mental delays unless they were born prematurely. We can assume that the premature birth has more to do with the health problems than the chemo. A lot of doctors have told people for years that they need to abort if they need chemo but that seems to be changing. The data is still very early and it needs to be replicated-but it’s a good sign! I have heard of women that avoid chemo alltogether because they have been told it will kill their baby. It looks like it may be possible to treat the mother’s cancer without harming her child.
 
Hi again,

As far as finding a Catholic doctor, I don’t know if I can help you there. You may need to settle for one that is unfailingly honest and non-judgmental (which I found in an OBGYN … and then he retired … Grrrr) about your medical options and the known intended / unintended consequences. That will basically give you the raw materials to parse out your ethical issues.

P.S. Easterjoy, I think your perspective has been invaluable to this thread.
 
Also, again from my personal perspective, I was willing to endure pain for the purpose of being open to life. Also, I have a Mormon friend that was willing to endure life-threatening pregnancies for the purpose of being open to life (and she has 3 beautiful girls - in my opinion, she is a hero).

I don’t know that this trade-off is discussed in detail anywhere. All I can suggest is to pray, open your heart to God, and be open to changing your mind if at any point you think you were mistaken in choosing one path over the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top