Are you saying that the pharmaceutical companies are not driven by profit? Are you saying that the pharmaceutical companies are not trying to limit their product liability? Are you saying that the pharmaceutical companies always behave in an ethical manner and do not bias or hide the data ever?
I think the intent was to say that the church does not require a person to be sexually inactive or post-menopausal to take contraceptive drugs for legitimate health reasons.
Why do you call the abortifacient effect a secondary effect if it is part of the very own nature of the pill. When you state that “you could not avoid it if you wanted to…” you affirm that people are willing to commit murder if the sperm is not stopped before fertilizing the egg.
Who are referring to? Which post?
Many drugs can have abortifacient properties. That does not mean correctly using them is a sin.
What I was saying is that it appears as if Baltobetsy was actually saying that Ron Conte was mistaken in his post that stated that it was only morally acceptable to take contraceptives for health reasons if one were sexually inactive or post-menopausal.
Ah, I see your point now.
No. I’m saying that drugs companies are not mustacio twisting fiends actively seeking for ways to commit murder. That came about as an unintended side effect of the primary function of the contraceptive. No demonstrable intent to murder by either patient or drug company.
Suppose that you had to get to work, but that there was a demonstrator sleeping on your dirveway and refusing to move. Then as you reversed your car getting out of the driveway, intending to fo to work, you drove over the person lying in the driveway and killed him as an unintended effect. You did not intend to kill the person, but it was only an unintended effect of your need to drive to work.
But, the act of treating pathology can always have some untoward result. There is no moral prohibition from treating pathology because a bad side effect may happen.
I was speaking about the case where there were other alternatives available. If there are no other alternatives for the illness in question, then probably your argument is OK.
Contraception requires intent. Intent is lacking when using a medication, any medication for that matter, that would have contraceptive effects. Prednisone is one example, in the proper dose.
Ron Conte, I’m pretty sure that it is also immoral to use any type of artificial contraception even when the woman is post-menopausal or has had surgical sterilization.
Use of the birth control pill for medical reasons in a post-menopausal woman would not fit the definition of contraception. It is the same pill, but it is not acting as a contraceptive. The same is true for a woman who is not sexually active, or who has had a hysterectomy and so cannot conceive.
I believe the church’s teaching is that the use of the birth control pill for medical reasons is not immoral regardless of whether or not the woman is sexually active or has had a hysterectomy. For the sake of argument, I’m assuming the sexual activity is in the context of marriage.
Thank you, JulianN. That’s exactly what I was saying, and am still waiting for Ron Conte to back up this statement with some citations from Church documents. Apparently he is unable to do so, leaving us to conclude that he is incorrect.
When can a person use contraceptive-
a) I understand for health reasons.
but can they use it
b) in accords with the law of dual effect,
if
c) their health could not afford the result?
please give me references and the official answer, and opinions where useful, I do want the thread answered.
There are some problems inherit in the question
Are you saying that the “medicine has the ability to contraception” and the “natural relations which could create pregnancy are present”? Are both required in order to be considered contraception, and hence illegitimate?