You seem not to understand that abortion is wrong not because the baby dies bu because someone is killing the baby. A woman who miscarries and a woman who procures and abortion each have the same result, but in one case, a baby has been deliberately targeted for death and in the other, a natural process occurred.
NFP teaches a woman to chart her fertility and is rooted in science. If you are in an infertile phase of your cycle, there isn’t an egg to be fertilized. Pregnancy is avoided.
Yes, it is more effective. I couldn’t imagine, if I really wanted to avoid pregnancy and if I had no problem with ABC, relying on condoms.
I wasn’t sure either. But here she states that she is. And indicates that the patient would return to her.
RA isn’t a life threatening or fatal illness. And condoms don’t prevent RA.
for your situation. It must be incredibly difficult.It is more effective if used correctly. See symptom based fertility awareness in the table in this article:
I am sure your medical knowledge is sound, but I am perplexed that you say Catholic hospitals would use an abortive procedure to end an ectopic pregnancy. It is well established Catholic teaching that “attacking” the child is not ever permitted. The mother can receive treatment (eg. remove tube) even in the knowledge that said treatment will end the child’s life, but the child cannot be attacked.
You have no idea. :bighanky:
Please talk to your husband about this.
My husband is on board with NFP. I’ve been doing the Creighton Model since March. I’m just really scared of getting pregnant with a baby that will suffer. I have an appointment with my GYN and a call into my priest. I’ll try to find an answer somewhere in there.
I first stress here that I’m 100% anti-abortion/prolife and was even a paid up member of ‘right to life’ for many years in my 20’s. I would defer to the official Catholic bio-ethics stance of course, but is the procedure that Starrsmother has described here,technically ‘killing the baby’ or is it ‘clearing the fallopian tube of a fatal blockage’ even though the foreseen outcome is the death of the person. I say this as in palliative care, a foreseen fatal dose of morphine is delivered directly into the body of a patient but even that direct action is not called euthanasia/killing the person. It is called pain relief. Could that be equated with this circumstance?
The Church has given guidance here, and it is a direct abortion.
No, it is not pain relief. It is a chemical that actually kills the baby.
I can suggest Marquette Model which combines Creighton with a fertility monitor. That may give you more peace of mind.
You already have your answer.
Hi LongingSoul, the procedure is technically killing the baby first, then clearing the Fallopian tube of a fatal blockade after. On the morphine dosage, It can become euthanasia if the dose is known to be lethal or will shorten someone’s life. It can get away from the definition of euthanasia by using the pain relief aspect, but it is just the dictionary definition. Fr pain relief, the dosage should be kept low enough not to shorten someone’s life. How this will help the faith of the persons involved must be considered. We have a blessed who chose not to receive morphine while she had cancer of the bones. It is one of the reasons why she was beatified. Her name is Blessed Chiara Luce.
Thanks TxDeeDee, Remember that God loves you. He loves you very much, and He wants you t be with Him in every step of the way. The choices we make in being with Him are often more difficult and scary than other choices. It isn’t about which is more effective, or which one is simply allowed or not allowed by someone’s rules. It is about being with Jesus in every step of the way. I pray that you find peace of mind.
Not at all. We must relieve pain of the dying as needed, lest the person who is dying fall into despair at the last moments of life. So it is all right to give someone pain relief, even knowing that the dose may also, as an unintended side effect, hasten death.