Challenge: birth control vs immunosuppressants

[fix]

A
But this brings me to another question on natural law…if it’s wrong to deliberately frustrate the design God builty into the human race, why is it not wrong to shave? (This question was brought forth by a dear Philosophy professor). He commented that the natural design of the beard is to grow. Why then is it not immoral to frustrate this design and shave?

The gift of fertility is a personal good, not an instrumental good. Destroying it would be like destroying friendship. Would it be licit to destroy a freindship because one desired some other end?

 

[KathleenElsie]

So, it’s ok to suppress a body system that God designed for a higher purpose. It’s ok to suppress the immune system when life becomes threatened.

Why isn’t it ok to suppress one’s fertility for a higher purpose? Such higher purposes could be any of the reasons that NFP is allowed–the health and wellness of the mother, socio-economic reasons, the health and well-being of the existing family, etc etc

There is no higher purpose then life. Please read my signature.

 

[jman507]

So are you saying that children are a pathology?

 

[PRmerger]

There is no higher purpose then life. Please read my signature.

Fertility is not the moral equivalent to life! If that were so, then suppressing one’s fertility would be akin to murder.

 

[PRmerger]

So are you saying that children are a pathology?

No…

 

[jman507]

One important thing to do is to define what the natural law is. If it was easy to come up with a system that is easily applied and matches situations, then we’d all probably accept it. In the end no matter what system you choose, you’ll have to accept some givens, or else you won’t be able to accept any idea. In that case any person or any society that won’t accept any givens will just self-destruct.

Now I can say, I don’t really know right now the exact details of natural law – especially as proposed by St. Thomas and those following his ideas. One thing it seems is that the bigger difference it seems from what I quickly looked at is that birth control is attacted more for social problems – matters of love and responsiblity with regards to sex-- than it is physicial – which is more the concern of immunosuppressants.

If your looking at it from a strictly physical standpoint, then there isn’t much reason that birth control shouldn’t be used so long as it doesn’t cause physical harm to the person, and you could make the point that it shouldn’t harm the child. I suppose there is some chance for it to be attacked on that standpoint, but really the main reasons would be social. In that case, I think that is the place to explore the subject more. I don’t know how much that will satisfy your medical collegue to switch from physiological reasons to social reasons. For that matter social reason are less cut and dry, but thats also why you really have to look at more of the details of the proposed system.

 

[PRmerger]

One important thing to do is to define what the natural law is. If it was easy to come up with a system that is easily applied and matches situations, then we’d all probably accept it. In the end no matter what system you choose, you’ll have to accept some givens, or else you won’t be able to accept any idea. In that case any person or any society that won’t accept any givens will just self-destruct.

Now I can say, I don’t really know right now the exact details of natural law – especially as proposed by St. Thomas and those following his ideas. One thing it seems is that the bigger difference it seems from what I quickly looked at is that birth control is attacted more for social problems – matters of love and responsiblity with regards to sex-- than it is physicial – which is more the concern of immunosuppressants.

If your looking at it from a strictly physical standpoint, then there isn’t much reason that birth control shouldn’t be used so long as it doesn’t cause physical harm to the person, and you could make the point that it shouldn’t harm the child. I suppose there is some chance for it to be attacked on that standpoint, but really the main reasons would be social. In that case, I think that is the place to explore the subject more. I don’t know how much that will satisfy your medical collegue to switch from physiological reasons to social reasons. For that matter social reason are less cut and dry, but thats also why you really have to look at more of the details of the proposed system.

Thank you for presenting another well-reasoned argument that I will present to my colleague! :clapping:

 

[azsuntea]

One important thing to do is to define what the natural law is. If it was easy to come up with a system that is easily applied and matches situations, then we’d all probably accept it. In the end no matter what system you choose, you’ll have to accept some givens, or else you won’t be able to accept any idea. In that case any person or any society that won’t accept any givens will just self-destruct.

Now I can say, I don’t really know right now the exact details of natural law – especially as proposed by St. Thomas and those following his ideas. One thing it seems is that the bigger difference it seems from what I quickly looked at is that birth control is attacted more for social problems – matters of love and responsiblity with regards to sex-- than it is physicial – which is more the concern of immunosuppressants.

If your looking at it from a strictly physical standpoint, then there isn’t much reason that birth control shouldn’t be used so long as it doesn’t cause physical harm to the person, and you could make the point that it shouldn’t harm the child. I suppose there is some chance for it to be attacked on that standpoint, but really the main reasons would be social. In that case, I think that is the place to explore the subject more. I don’t know how much that will satisfy your medical collegue to switch from physiological reasons to social reasons. For that matter social reason are less cut and dry, but thats also why you really have to look at more of the details of the proposed system.

I have a question?

Years ago a one of my sisters with cysts developing on her ovaries. the prescribed treatments were to get pregnant, which had not yet been successful, use birth control to stop ovulation or to have a hysterectomy. Was the advice (by a religious) received to use the birth control wrong?

The treatment worked and after a few years she was able to come off the birth control and now has two teenage sons. As well as the daughter they adopted while they were waiting.

 

[PRmerger]

I have a question?

Years ago a one of my sisters with cysts developing on her ovaries. the prescribed treatments were to get pregnant, which had not yet been successful, use birth control to stop ovulation or to have a hysterectomy. Was the advice (by a religious) received to use the birth control wrong?

The treatment worked and after a few years she was able to come off the birth control and now has two teenage sons. As well as the daughter they adopted while they were waiting.

It is not immoral to use the Pill for a medical reason such as what you describe above. Infertility is not the intended consequence.

 

[jman507]

I have a question?

Years ago a one of my sisters with cysts developing on her ovaries. the prescribed treatments were to get pregnant, which had not yet been successful, use birth control to stop ovulation or to have a hysterectomy. Was the advice (by a religious) received to use the birth control wrong?

The treatment worked and after a few years she was able to come off the birth control and now has two teenage sons. As well as the daughter they adopted while they were waiting.

I am not an expert on a matter of this sort, who’s opinion I would yield to, but my opinion is that if the cysts where harmful to her health, then it would be ok to use a medical intervention that might prevent conception. Also what needs to be taken into consideration is the openness to life to the person. Even a good thing, can turn bad, if it is done with the wrong intention. Typically though we don’t really know what in the hearts of people, so on that case unless you have good reason to think someone has the wrong intention, it’s better to leave it up to God concerning the intention of another person.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes, but isn’t immunity good? What would happen if God hadn’t designed our bodies to be able to fight off foreign “invaders”?

So why is it not wrong to deny (i.e. suppress) one’s immunity on purpose? Would this not be also blasphemy towards God by interfering with a system that He designed?

I am comparing fertility and immunity, not fertility and inflammation.

Isn’t immunity and intrinsic good of our human body that God made, so using immunosuppressants for the purpose of rejecting that good is contrary to the beings that God made us?

All these questions hint toward “Is it right to mess with the bodies that God gave us?” The argument boils down to "is it OK to use medication or surgery to treat our God-designed and maintained bodies.

The assumption is that immunity is good for the body, and it is when it’s functioning correctly. When it malfunctions, we can and should use what our God-given reason has been able to come up with in terms of medical and surgical treatments.

The immune system is like any other body system; it’s good when it works but will kill you when it doesn’t.

Perhaps a similar argument goes along the lines of illicitly using anabolic steroids. THERE, one is messing with the bodies that God gave us, not treating pathology. And yes, there are cases where anabolic steroids have legitimate medical usages, but I’m talking about body builders, athletes and such.

 

[PRmerger]

All these questions hint toward “Is it right to mess with the bodies that God gave us?” The argument boils down to "is it OK to use medication or surgery to treat our God-designed and maintained bodies.

The assumption is that immunity is good for the body, and it is when it’s functioning correctly. When it malfunctions, we can and should use what our God-given reason has been able to come up with in terms of medical and surgical treatments.

The immune system is like any other body system; it’s good when it works but will kill you when it doesn’t.

Perhaps a similar argument goes along the lines of illicitly using anabolic steroids. THERE, one is messing with the bodies that God gave us, not treating pathology. And yes, there are cases where anabolic steroids have legitimate medical usages, but I’m talking about body builders, athletes and such.

This brings to mind an interesting question: is fertility always good?

If there are times when fertility is not good (and I’m proposing that there are), then it should be licit to suppress fertility, in the same way that one can morally suppress the immune system.

 

[jman507]

This brings to mind an interesting question: is fertility always good?

If there are times when fertility is not good (and I’m proposing that there are), then it should be licit to suppress fertility, in the same way that one can morally suppress the immune system.

What are the nature of these reasons? Are they physical, mental, social, spitual, or characterized some different ways?

 

[PRmerger]

What are the nature of these reasons? Are they physical, mental, social, spitual, or characterized some different ways?

All of the above, plus economic. Indeed, any of the serious reasons the Church allows couples to practice NFP would be included in the list.

 

[fix]

This brings to mind an interesting question: is fertility always good?

Yes.

What makes the contraceptive act to be “contraceptive” or “antiprocreative”
is the choice, freely made, to get rid of, here and now, the procreativity
of a freely chosen act of coition. The contraceptive act is not simply
nonprocreative (i.e., one that does not in fact result in pregnancy) but
antiprocreative, i.e., an attack on the goodness of the procreativity of
marriage and of human sexuality. It is an act in and through which one says
that it is not good here and now to be fertile. It is an act in and through
which one says that it is “not” good that coition is open to the
transmission of life.

It is for this reason that Paul VI and the Church teach firmly that the
contraceptive choice is intrinsically disordered. To choose to act in this
way is to choose to act against something really good, and good not merely
in an instrumental way but personally and humanly good. The procreative
meaning of our sexuality and of the marital act is not a good of the
biological order, subhuman and subpersonal in character, but is rather a
good of the human person, a good participating in the goodness of the human
person and of God, the author of our procreativity. The contraceptive
choice is a choice to reject this good of the human person, of human
sexuality, and of marriage.

CHURCH TEACHING AND THE MORALITY OF CONTRACEPTION

 

[Newbie2]

This brings to mind an interesting question: is fertility always good?

If there are times when fertility is not good (and I’m proposing that there are), then it should be licit to suppress fertility, in the same way that one can morally suppress the immune system.

Depends on what you mean by fertility…meaning making babies or the potential for making babies? I’ll assume the former, correct me if I’m wrong.

Fertility in the making babies sense is always good, although there is the matter of degree. There are licit reasons for couples to decide when and how many children they have (although this can be morally very complicated). Limiting children to a certain number in order to maintain a certain lifestyle or other selfish reasons might be morally questionable (new BMW vs. baby).

On the other hand, if the mother has a medical condition that would put her life at risk during childbirth, that too is a factor; so is the financial stability of the household. Having way more children than you can support, perhaps for the selfish reasons of wanting more children to support you in your old age is morally questionable as well.

That’s not to say I’ve explained these examples well, but our fertility isn’t just there to make as many babies as possible. There are reasons to limit our fertility, in that sense, which brings us to “suppressing fertility”.

That’s where NFP comes in; while designed to “limit fertility”, NFP does not “suppress” fertility, as would the various means of contraception. The key point in Catholic Theology is that the couple not actively “suppress” their fertility.

Another dimention is that of marital chastity. In a sense, it limits fertility (100% effective ), but does not suppress fertility.

The real moral challenges come into play where a couple cannot effectively use NFP, as in cases where the woman has irregular cycles, or other medical considerations.

 

[PRmerger]

There are reasons to limit our fertility, in that sense, which brings us to “suppressing fertility”.

That’s where NFP comes in; while designed to “limit fertility”, NFP does not “suppress” fertility, as would the various means of contraception. The key point in Catholic Theology is that the couple not actively “suppress” their fertility.

Therein lies my dilemma. What’s so immoral about “suppressing fertility”? If there are good, moral reasons to “limit fertility”, it would seem to follow that suppressing fertility would also be licit(esp.in light of the fact that it is indeed morally licit to “suppress immunity” for higher reasons).

 

[Newbie2]

Therein lies my dilemma. What’s so immoral about “suppressing fertility”? If there are good, moral reasons to “limit fertility”, it would seem to follow that suppressing fertility would also be licit(esp.in light of the fact that it is indeed morally licit to “suppress immunity” for higher reasons).

Well, first I don’t think the immune system and the reproductive system make good comparisons, as they have two entirely different functions.

Look at it this way; if under certain circumstances i.e. diseases that are treated with immunosuppressive medications, you don’t intervene. The patient dies, or at the very least, gets sicker or doesn’t get well. That’s pretty well acceptable as a moral action.
This action, treating with such drugs, is not against life (rather is preserving life) and is morally acceptable.

If you suppress fertility, i.e. contraception, this action is actively directed against life.

NFP and marital Chastity are not actions actively directed against life.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, first I don’t think the immune system and the reproductive system make good comparisons, as they have two entirely different functions.

Look at it this way; if under certain circumstances i.e. diseases that are treated with immunosuppressive medications, you don’t intervene. The patient dies, or at the very least, gets sicker or doesn’t get well. That’s pretty well acceptable as a moral action.
This action, treating with such drugs, is not against life (rather is preserving life) and is morally acceptable.

If you suppress fertility, i.e. contraception, this action is actively directed against life.

NFP and marital Chastity are not actions actively directed against life.

Ok. I guess what I’m not understanding is the Natural Law argument against ABC. ]Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law (from Catholic Answers tract)

It seems that we could substitute “Immunosuppressants” for “Contraception” in the above sentence, and a reasonable argument would be offered against suppressing the immune system.

 

[fix]

The Church has no problem with science appropriately intervening to heal or enhance bodily health. Rather, the Church teaches that all contraception is morally wrong; and not only wrong, but seriously wrong. The covenant which husband and wife enter at marriage requires that all intercourse remain open to the transmission of new life. This is what becoming “one flesh” implies: complete self-giving, without reservation or exception, just as Christ withheld nothing of Himself from His bride, the Church, by dying for her on the cross. Any intentional interference with the procreative nature of intercourse necessarily involves spouses’ withholding themselves from each other and from God, who is their partner in sacramental love. In effect, they steal something infinitely precious, themselves, from each other and from their Creator.

1. And this is why natural family planning (NFP) differs not merely in style but in moral substance from contraception as a means of regulating family size. NFP is not contraception. Rather, it is a method of fertility awareness and appreciation. It is an entirely different approach to regulating birth. NFP does nothing to attack fertility, withhold the gift of oneself from one’s spouse, or block the procreative nature of intercourse. The marriage covenant requires that each act of intercourse be fully an act of self-giving, and therefore open to the possibility of new life. But when, for good reasons, a husband and wife limit their intercourse to the wife’s natural periods of infertility during a month, they are simply observing a cycle which God Himself created in the woman. They are not subverting it. And so they are living within the law of God’s love.

A pastoral letter on the truth and
meaning of married love