Church views on sterilization?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightForFaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightForFaith

Guest
I’m going to get straight to the point…

I recently discovered that one of the students I’m working with for my teaching clinical was sexually assaulted last weekend. She has severe developmental and cognitive disabilities. Naturally, I was completely horrified and disgusted. I realize that abortion and morning-after pills are wrong in the eyes of the Church. However, if she were to conceive, morally, should she be forced to carry a baby full term? This child may not understand what is going on, or understand prenatal care.

Even further, is it right to use ‘sterilization’ (specifically hysterectomies) for young women with severe disabilities? Is this an exception to using it as a contraception, since these women would most likely never be in a situation where they could conceive, anyway? Rather, this would be more of a help, since dealing with menstruation could be difficult and confusing. Moreover, should this type of appalling situation arise, the parents of the child would not have to worry about pregnancy.

This whole situation has really caused me to think a lot! What is the Church’s position on situations like this? I have been praying and praying that this student and her family can recover and get any help needed. She hasn’t been in school for a week since the incident.
 
Sterilization is a complete rejection of God’s will, it is an intrinsic evil. It can never be justified.

What has happened to this girl is atrocious, and it should never have happened; but one grave evil does not warrant another.
 
FightForFaith said:
I’m going to get straight to the point…

I recently discovered that one of the students I’m working with for my teaching clinical was sexually assaulted last weekend. She has severe developmental and cognitive disabilities. Naturally, I was completely horrified and disgusted. I realize that abortion and morning-after pills are wrong in the eyes of the Church. However, if she were to conceive, morally, should she be forced to carry a baby full term? This child may not understand what is going on, or understand prenatal care.

Even further, is it right to use ‘sterilization’ (specifically hysterectomies) for young women with severe disabilities? Is this an exception to using it as a contraception, since these women would most likely never be in a situation where they could conceive, anyway? Rather, this would be more of a help, since dealing with menstruation could be difficult and confusing. Moreover, should this type of appalling situation arise, the parents of the child would not have to worry about pregnancy.

This whole situation has really caused me to think a lot! What is the Church’s position on situations like this? I have been praying and praying that this student and her family can recover and get any help needed. She hasn’t been in school for a week since the incident.
Click to expand...
I think dealing with early menopause would be worse than dealing with menstruation. Purposeful mutilation is a grave sin.

Be careful, you are entering into eugenics territory, thinking the handicapped should be sterilized. It’s a slippery slope and there is no clear line between those with “severe” disabilities and “mild” disabilities. Who do you think should make decisions about the severity of disability? I certainly wouldn’t trust any human entity to decide.

Continue being caring and compassionate as you are, not forgetting the dignity of those entrusted to your care, and trusting in God rather than man.

By the way, the things you mentioned are not “wrong in the eyes of the Church”. They are wrong period. In the eyes of God (and incidentally, natural law).
 
FightForFaith said:
I’m going to get straight to the point…

I recently discovered that one of the students I’m working with for my teaching clinical was sexually assaulted last weekend. She has severe developmental and cognitive disabilities. Naturally, I was completely horrified and disgusted. I realize that abortion and morning-after pills are wrong in the eyes of the Church. However, if she were to conceive, morally, should she be forced to carry a baby full term? This child may not understand what is going on, or understand prenatal care.

Even further, is it right to use ‘sterilization’ (specifically hysterectomies) for young women with severe disabilities? Is this an exception to using it as a contraception, since these women would most likely never be in a situation where they could conceive, anyway? Rather, this would be more of a help, since dealing with menstruation could be difficult and confusing. Moreover, should this type of appalling situation arise, the parents of the child would not have to worry about pregnancy.

This whole situation has really caused me to think a lot! What is the Church’s position on situations like this? I have been praying and praying that this student and her family can recover and get any help needed. She hasn’t been in school for a week since the incident.
Click to expand...
Abortion is not permitted under any circumstances. This case is rather common unfortunately. She may not understand what is going on but it will not disturb her as much as you might imagine becuase she lacks the capicity to analyze it like you or I. She will do fine and the child, who is totally innocent, may be kept and raised by the girl’s parents or put up for adoption.

I don’t know about your second question. Personally, I would see nothing wrong with that and for the reasons you gave. But you should get good advice from the local Diocese’s Pro-Life office or one of the priests available. 👍
 
ExGratia said:
I think dealing with early menopause would be worse than dealing with menstruation. Purposeful mutilation is a grave sin.

Be careful, you are entering into eugenics territory, thinking the handicapped should be sterilized. It’s a slippery slope and there is no clear line between those with “severe” disabilities and “mild” disabilities. Who do you think should make decisions about the severity of disability? I certainly wouldn’t trust any human entity to decide.

Continue being caring and compassionate as you are, not forgetting the dignity of those entrusted to your care, and trusting in God rather than man.

By the way, the things you mentioned are not “wrong in the eyes of the Church”. They are wrong period. In the eyes of God (and incidentally, natural law).
Click to expand...
I apologize… I should have chosen my wording a bit better. I never intended to imply that I believe that people with disabilities should be ‘sterilized’. It absolutely would depend on the individual child and his or her disabilities. Sterilization isn’t even a very good term, anyway, but I couldn’t think of a better one. Please forgive me.

I mentioned that they are wrong in the eyes of the Church, because although the Catholic church does honor those set of beliefs, many people do not. I think it’s important to respect the beliefs of others. Although I really appreciate all of the insight you gave me, I’m not looking for a ‘right or wrong’ lesson, just for more knowledge on the Church’s general beliefs on surgical procedures such as hysterectomies that perhaps are NOT for strictly contraceptive purposes. It isn’t always a black-or-white issue, and I think situations such as this one definitely represent the grey area.
 
Far better to protect such vulnerable people from predators than do violence upon them via sterilization and forced abortion.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Sterilization is a complete rejection of God’s will, it is an intrinsic evil. It can never be justified.
Click to expand...
Not true. A pregnant mother with a cancerous uterus can legitimately have her uterus removed. Sterilization isn’t intended, but as an unintended side effect, it may be OK in some circumstances.
 
I’m not looking for a ‘right or wrong’ lesson, just for more knowledge on the Church’s general beliefs on surgical procedures such as hysterectomies that perhaps are NOT for strictly contraceptive purposes.
Click to expand...
If someone needs a hysterectomie for a medical reason, like if they have cancer and the organ must be removed, this is permissible. If a woman is pregnant but her life is in danger and the hysterectomie must be preformed, this is also permissible. The key is that the intention behind the procedure is to remove the diseased organ…not to sterilize the woman or abort the child. Those things are just the side-effects that result from the intended purpose.

Intention matters, and makes the difference in cases such as these.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Abortion is not permitted under any circumstances. This case is rather common unfortunately. She may not understand what is going on but it will not disturb her as much as you might imagine becuase she lacks the capicity to analyze it like you or I. She will do fine and the child, who is totally innocent, may be kept and raised by the girl’s parents or put up for adoption.

I don’t know about your second question. Personally, I would see nothing wrong with that and for the reasons you gave. But you should get good advice from the local Diocese’s Pro-Life office or one of the priests available. 👍
Click to expand...
The removal of a healthy uterus (which is what a hysterectomy is) merely because its owner may fall pregnant and is disabled Is wrong. Just as wrong as cutting off her toea because she may not understand that she has to wash between them and may get tinea or other infections.
 
LilyM said:
The removal of a healthy uterus (which is what a hysterectomy is) merely because its owner may fall pregnant and is disabled Is wrong. Just as wrong as cutting off her toea because she may not understand that she has to wash between them and may get tinea or other infections.
Click to expand...
You must have missunderstood my comment upon the O.P. The question posed was whether certain meds would be allowed which would render these severly disabled people from becoming pregnant. It was not to induce an abortion. That is always wrong. Nothing was ever mentioned about hysterectomies on pregnant women, certainly not by me. And of course, whatever the situation, moral advice should be sought from a priest or the pro-life office of the local diocese before sterilazation could be administered. One always follows Church teaching in these matters. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
You must have missunderstood my comment upon the O.P. The question posed was whether certain meds would be allowed which would render these severly disabled people from becoming pregnant. It was not to induce an abortion. That is always wrong. Nothing was ever mentioned about hysterectomies on pregnant women, certainly not by me. And of course, whatever the situation, moral advice should be sought from a priest or the pro-life office of the local diocese before sterilazation could be administered. One always follows Church teaching in these matters. 👍
Click to expand...
The question initially posted was not about meds - the poster understood that one cannot take medications for purposes of contraception. The question was whether a hysterectomy was permissible for a woman due to the fact that mentally she might not be able to cope with pregnancy.

If you were talking about anything else then you misunderstood the question (and given that the word hysterectomy was actually used I don’t think I’m misunderstanding it) and were off topic.
 
LilyM said:
If you were talking about anything else then you misunderstood the question (and given that the word hysterectomy was actually used I don’t think I’m misunderstanding it) and were off topic.
Click to expand...
Right. The OP asked two questions:
  • in the case of a woman with “severe developmental and cognitive disabilities” who became pregnant after being sexually assaulted, would the Church require her to carry the baby to term?
  • in the case of fertile (but not pregnant) women with severe disabilities, is sterilization (e.g., by way of hysterectomy) an option allowed by the Church?
The answer to these questions was that, if these descriptions were the entirety of the situations at hand, then the woman (like any pregnant woman) would be expected to respect the life of the baby she’s carrying; and, that it would be immoral to perform hysterectomies on women purely for the purpose of sterilization.

If there were any other dimensions to the question (one hypothetical given was the case of a pregnant woman with a cancerous uterus), then the answers might change – the Church doesn’t forbid hysterectomies per se.

Hope this helps!

G.
 
Gorgias said:
Right. The OP asked two questions:
  • in the case of a woman with “severe developmental and cognitive disabilities” who became pregnant after being sexually assaulted, would the Church require her to carry the baby to term?
  • in the case of fertile (but not pregnant) women with severe disabilities, is sterilization (e.g., by way of hysterectomy) an option allowed by the Church?
The answer to these questions was that, if these descriptions were the entirety of the situations at hand, then the woman (like any pregnant woman) would be expected to respect the life of the baby she’s carrying; and, that it would be immoral to perform hysterectomies on women purely for the purpose of sterilization.

If there were any other dimensions to the question (one hypothetical given was the case of a pregnant woman with a cancerous uterus), then the answers might change – the Church doesn’t forbid hysterectomies per se.

Hope this helps!

G.
Click to expand...
You worded what I was asking in a much more clear way. Thank you. 🙂 Such a confusing topic!
 
Don’t talk to just any priest. Sorry, but there have been some ill-informed priests. The Bioethics Center would be better.
It would be much harder on a young woman to have an abortion than to bring her baby into the world. Even if she has cognitive disabilities, she has enough intelligence to attend your school, and would realize that she had allowed her baby to be killed. If she got pregnant and carried the child to term, she would experience the joy of giving her baby life and helping find a loving adoptive family for him.
Sterilizing a disabled person to prevent pregnancy would be saying she couldn’t be protected from predators, which shouldn’t be the case. Of course some developmentally disabled people choose to have unprotected sex, which gives rise to a difficult situation for their guardians. But still the goal should be to provide protection, and watch who she spends time with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top