birth control......

[aaronlgates]

Contraception is intrinsically evil and never licit. A couple may use abstinence (periodic or permanent).

I couldn’t agree with you more… and yet this whole thread is focused on legitimizing the use of abortifacient contraceptives which is what I am opposed to altogether. Killing is wrong, especially when the ‘treatment’ causing the ‘inadvertent killing’ is out of proportion to the end as Aquinas observes in the principle of double effect.

 

[aaronlgates]

No, as Lady D I says, barrier methods can not be interpreted with HV 15 to be legit.

But ‘inadvertent’ killing of the unborn is?

Please answer my repeated question: have you looked into the principle of double effect

So let’s kill two birds with one stone. I’ve twice asked you to answer the question of whether the woman taking thalidomide for sleep, pregnant or not, is in sin if she is aware of the teratogenicity of the drug and ends up having a baby with no limbs. Let’s apply the principle of double effect to this scenario:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

Allowing the woman sleep is certainly a morally good aim.

1. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

Ahhhhhh… here is where this scenario sheds light on our situation… there are alternative therapies that could be used to help the mother sleep. So, lock the mother up and throw away the keys because it seems that the bad effect of the teratogen ‘is said to be indirectly voluntary.’

1. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

We’re ok with this scenario on this one.

1. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).

Ahhhhh… again we see the light! Killing or maiming the child so that the mother can have more sleep at night(or lessen cramps, etc)?

Thank you for your reference to this principle. I think it illustrates the Church’s position on contraceptives and abortifacients nicely.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Mind, you there are times that a hysterectomy has to be performed for medical reasons that cannot be avoided, but if you are told that you are at high risk if you are to get pregnant, then you use NFP to AVOID a pregnancy.

And if a couple is “unsuccessful” in the use NFP as in example above, then abstinence until the hysterectomy is done is the only option.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Mind, you there are times that a hysterectomy has to be performed for medical reasons that cannot be avoided, but if you are told that you are at high risk if you are to get pregnant, then you use NFP to AVOID a pregnancy. It can be done as has been noted by several posters on this forum.

This is my humble understanding.

If a couple is “unsuccessful” in the use NFP as in the example above, then abstinence until the hysterectomy is completed is the only option.

 

[Aleii]

Aaron
Your posting style has me confused. You state things like “If you are using barrier methods or spermicidal methods to avoid pregnancy for legitimate medical needs, then you are not doing anything to kill off that which the Lord is creating… barrier methods can be legitimately used until a surgical sterilization or hysterectomy can be performed” but then when countered on that you state to me “But ‘inadvertent’ killing of the unborn is [moral]?” When further countered on it from others, you state “I couldn’t agree with you more…” This seems in direct opposition to what you were posting earlier.

aaronlgates:

Killing is wrong, especially when the ‘treatment’ causing the ‘inadvertent killing’ is out of proportion to the end as Aquinas observes in the principle of double effect.

Very, very open to interpretation. Keep in mind that it is not considered abortion to use medical BCP, as abortion is defined as “willed”. I’m surprised to see you accept your interpretation of Aquinas’ statement, but not accept the blunt statements of priests and apologists that I have given. But again, I am heartened that you are in conversation with those apologists.

So let’s kill two birds with one stone. I’ve twice asked you to answer the question of whether the woman taking thalidomide for sleep, pregnant or not, is in sin if she is aware of the teratogenicity of the drug and ends up having a baby with no limbs.

And how many times did I have to ask you to look into double effect before you finally responded? Your question, at minimum, should IMHO only be looked into after baselines have already been established, such as talking more about double effect. Besides, you are asking me a very subjective question here. The OP asked for the Catholic stance on using BCP for a medical condition.

Here is another thread which discusses that couples may have sex while on BCP for medical reasons. Matt makes a fantastic post there. Perhaps his post is the best answer to your thalidomide question.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=157407

I have offered the evidence I have of the Church’s teachings. You have not responded to a large portion of my posts and you desire to look into the more off topic analogy Thalidomide. Therefore, I think it best to move this post to the Moral Theology section, where it will get far more views from parties looking specifically for this type of post, and with more responses will likely garner a more understandable finale.

Here is the link, please make all future posts in the new thread. I will not respond further in this thread so that the new thread can get the posts and attention it needs. The more heads, the better!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=215358