Confused aboud NFP

[UbiCaritas]

That is like saying I am going to shoot in the woods with kids around for whatever reason. Your intention isn’t to kill, but there’s a great likelihood someone will die.

The Church states in that case the guilty is still there because of the very real possibility of death.

No, it’s like saying “there’s a guy standing in front of me, waving a knife around and expressing his intention to kill me. I pulled my gun and shot him. Yes, there’s a chance that there could be people in the woods behind him, but it’s a small one, and I I shot him to protect myself, not to hurt someone else.”

In the scenario you describe, the person is shooting into the woods for no reason and knowing that there are children there. In the scenario I used, the person has a reason to use her gun and can’t know if there are children there but must act on the information she has–a rather closer analogy.

 

[alphawoman]

We are all on the same page here. We are all trying to save babies. And one should not be made guilty if they have repented.

However, people should know the truth of the roads they have taken, so they do not make the same mistake, or minimize a sinful action that will result in death eventually.

The principle of double effect does not hold in this case. This is so because whatever benefits the pill may boast does not outweigh the eventuality of a child’s death.

If double effect is applicable here, you can take anything during pregnancy, and say it’s medicinal. But prenatal advice of avoiding certain medicines still should be followed by Catholics in spite of the good it may do.

You are incorrect both about the principle of double effect and the distinction between willed abortion and miscarriage resulting from use of hormonal contraceptives for licit therapeutic purposes. I have consulted with my Catholic doctor and my spiritual director on the matter, the latter who consulted with a Catholic bioethicist at a Catholic university. The context and intent behind therapeutic use of hormonal contraceptives is highly specific to the individual patient and should not be taken lightly. However, there are circumstances where the maximally life preserving and promoting option is to use hormonal medications that carry a small probability of miscarriage. You are fortunate to not be able to envision a situation where the principle of double effect warrants such medical treatments; may your health always remain good.

I would recommend you start a new thread if you wish to discuss the topic further, as this discussion is about NFP.

 

[12345678]

Actually, you’re wrong on this.

Catholic teaching does allow for the principle of double effect when treating pregnant women.

Here’s an example for you: ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the baby implants outside of the uterus, usually in a Fallopian tube. The baby can grow there for a time, but that area isn’t designed to hold a baby. The tube will eventually rupture, causing hemorrhage, sepsis, and death in the mom. There is no alternative.

In such cases, a Catholic woman can in good conscience have the baby removed not in order to kill the baby, although that’s sadly inevitable (we’re talking 6-8 weeks gestation, no possibility of survival), but in order to save mom’s life.

…

This is incorrect. The baby cannot be removed on its own, but the diseased portion of the tube can be removed (the part that will rupture if left as is), and since the baby is in that portion, it will be an unintended side effect. That portion of the tube, if they know it poses a danger to the mother, would need to be removed regardless if there is a baby causing the problem or something else. Aborting a baby (either by removing a non-viable baby, or by using abortive medications) is never an option. This is what I have read is the general conclusion of moral theologians on this topic.

 

[Xantippe]

What you are saying is not helpful; please stop.

In general, I think this line of argument is much more suited to a general discussion on the topic, rather than specific situations. The OP cannot change the past, but she has committed to following Church teaching and that’s what this thread is about.

Right.

 

[alphawoman]

This is incorrect. The baby cannot be removed on its own, but the diseased portion of the tube can be removed (the part that will rupture if left as is), and since the baby is in that portion, it will be an unintended side effect. That portion of the tube, if they know it poses a danger to the mother, would need to be removed regardless if there is a baby causing the problem or something else. Aborting a baby (either by removing a non-viable baby, or by using abortive medications) is never an option. This is what I have read is the general conclusion of moral theologians on this topic.

I think your clarification of the requirement to remove the affected fallopian tube was explicitly assumed by UbiCaritas, but it is good that you posted this for readers who might not have understood the implicit implication.

The challenge with these fertility treatment discussions is that they are case-specific and require a significant degree of detail around the medical condition, treatment algorithm, clinical history, fertility status, marital status, and intent to fully determine the most moral and medically sound course of action. Thankfully the Church, in her mercy, has provisions for selection of medical treatments for legitimate conditions, and priests are armed with the moral authority of the Church to deliberate on such cases as required by their parishioners. Thank God for priests!

 

[Starbelle]

The pill actually causes abortions. That and all hormonal contraceptives. So technically, you were a mother. The baby (or babies) were just aborted.

I have read quite a lot about the pill and I know that some people consider it to be abortifacent. However, for implantation to be hindered, ovulation and fertilization must take place. The pill is designed to prevent ovulation from taking place. If you take the pill on time and avoid all possible interactions, you will not ovulate. The women that got pregnant while on the pill made some sort of mistake. I know from personal experience that even one missed pill can trigger breakthrough bleending, so you could possibly ovulate. However, in the rare cases that I missed a pill or was prescribed antibiotics I was carefull. And I avoided every possible interaction, from grapefruit to St John’s wort. Therefore, I am sure that I haven’t been pregnant while on the pill.
I don’t consider your post ofensive but allow me to disagree about the pill being abortifacent (when taken by the book). I can see where people are coming from regarding the IUD and plan B, but the pill prevents ovulation. If taken correctly there won’t be a ferilized egg în the first place.