Contraception- experts please (don't want anyone who apposes the Catholic view)

[Texas_Roofer]

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?

It is a great question however much like the earlier response we have to be careful of which context we use the word contraception. Many, many, many, many things are contraceptive in the science context to include, steroids, blood pressure medicine, extreme athlete fitness for woman, etc, etc. However these are not concerns of the church. The church is concerned when the relation is altered from its natural form and result from an intention to do so. So clearly in the church’s view if there is no relation then it cannot be altered.

Still not answered clearly is in relation to an abortifacient medicine. If such medicine is not taken for the purposes of contraception, is it legitimate to have sexual relations while taking such mediation? Since it does not prevent conception, is legitimate to take such medication and have sexual relations?

It may floor you to learn the USCCB has allowed the use abortifacient medicine to flush an egg in a woman who has suffered the trauma of rape, provided the action is performed quickly enough that it is reasonable to believe pregnancy has not had time to occur! She may not flush a baby but she may flush her egg quickly to prevent conception. How is that too muddy the waters. The logic is this forced action is not a natural form of relations and thus the action is not altering a natural form of relations. Additionally it is inevitable we will learn many things we do/eat/take affect conception however when we do these things without knowledge of the relationship to conception the missing intent prevents the action from being sin. A third form of the answer will occur when one (as a man on blood pressure medicine) attempts relations which are rendered fruitless due do a medicine which he knows creates conceptions problems however it is against his will that he suffers the conception problem. In this case he would rather be health and not need the blood pressure medicine. In all three of the above conditions the natural process of relations is alter however in none is it a desire to alter the relation, so none are sins.

What about pills that genuine make one sterile, or nearly sterile, such as a pill that reduces sperm count? Can these be taken and still have sexual relations, provided the end is not to prevent conception?

What is the intent of the action? if the pill is primarily for blood pressure, or other intents then medicine maybe therapeutic –
*Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)* - PPVI 1968 HUMANAE VITAE

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

I enjoyed that response, it explains allot!

I still am uneasy about this though.

Of course my original question was answered, so thank you all.

I wish I knew more on this one!!!

Marc

 

[Suudy]

It may floor you to learn the USCCB has allowed the use abortifacient medicine to flush an egg in a woman who has suffered the trauma of rape, provided the action is performed quickly enough that it is reasonable to believe pregnancy has not had time to occur! She may not flush a baby but she may flush her egg quickly to prevent conception. How is that too muddy the waters.

Do you have a reference for this?

How can one be certain that there is no baby? This seems exceedingly dangerous since there is no way to know if conception had occurred. And the potential for doing such an evil such as an abortion seems to outweigh any rationale for flushing an egg before it gets the chance to be fertilized.

I’m not sold on this one.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Do you have a reference for this?

How can one be certain that there is no baby? This seems exceedingly dangerous since there is no way to know if conception had occurred. And the potential for doing such an evil such as an abortion seems to outweigh any rationale for flushing an egg before it gets the chance to be fertilized.

I’m not sold on this one.

I’m glad you asked I could have used better word choices :

*Emergency Contraception
“Emergency Contraceptives” are multiple-dose oral contraceptives taken after intercourse. The pills have at least four possible mechanisms: (1) suppressing ovulation, (2) altering cervical mucus to hinder the transport of sperm, (3) slowing the transport of the ovum and (4) inhibiting implantation of the newly conceived human embryo. Which of these mechanisms is operative depends on when the pills are taken. If taken before ovulation, EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, thereby preventing conception. If taken after the LH surge which triggers ovulation, EC will not disrupt ovulation in that cycle, but can inhibit implantation of the developing embryo.1

Treatment of Victims of Sexual Assault
Victims of sexual assault should be treated with compassion and understanding. Health care providers who treat sexual assault victims should provide medically accurate information and offer spiritual and psychological support.

A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.2

Hospitals should develop appropriate protocols to determine whether administering emergency contraception would have an abortifacient effect. Tests are available to determine whether ovulation has occurred.3

Laws Mandating the Administration of “Emergency Contraception” To Rape Victims
The proposed federal “Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act” (S. 1240, H.R. 464) and similar legislation in the states would force all hospitals, even hospitals with pro-life policies, to administer drugs which can act as abortifacients to rape victims. The federal bill would also require hospitals to provide the pills to teenagers who engage in consensual intercourse in violation of state laws on statutory rape. Additionally, the bill requires health care providers to misinform women about how emergency contraception works, violating norms for informed consent. Specifically, the bill mandates that hospitals tell women that “emergency contraception” is not abortifacient.

Conclusion
The law should not require hospitals to administer so-called “emergency contraception” when those drugs will end the life of a newly conceived human embryo. Hospitals can offer rape victims treatments that are truly contraceptive and address their other needs with compassion and respect.

See, e.g., C. Kahlenborn et al., “Postfertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception,” 36 The Annals of Pharmacology 465 ( March 2002); J. Wilks, “The Impact of the Pill on Implantation Factors – New Research Findings,” 16 Ethics & Medicine 15-22 (2000); K. Moore and T. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed. (2003), 56; W. Larimore and J. Stanford, “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” 9 Archives of Family Medicine 126-133 (2000).

See Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 4th Edition, ¶36 (June 2001), usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml.

For a thorough discussion of such testing protocols see P. Cataldo and A. Moraczewski (eds.), Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Ethics Committees (National Catholic Bioethics Center 2001), Chapter 11 (“Pregnancy Prevention After Sexual Assault”).
Email us at prolife@usccb.org
Pro-Life Activities | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.*–

usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

 

[Suudy]

Thanks for the quote and clarification. I have a few other points though.

Let’s look at these one-by-one. And only within the context of rape or incest.

1. Suppressing ovulation. In this case, I can see this being legitimate. It does not threaten the safety of a child. This I understand.
2. Hindering sperm transport. This too makes sense. However, if fertilization does occur, then the child must be allowed to come to term.
3. Slowing ovum transport. Like #2 above, this makes sense.
4. Inhibiting implantation. This seems like an illegitimate use in the cases of rape and incest. Which appears to be confirmed by your quoted text.

It appears to me that medical contraceptives that are abortifacient in nature would never be permitted, even in cases of rape and incest. My point is that it is not possible to determine if conception has occurred until it is too late to do anything about it. Nothing in the quoted text suggests that it is acceptable to flush an unfertilized egg, especially when it is unlikely that one can determine the state of conception. The first three options inhibit the likelihood of conception, but do not flush an unfertilized egg. And fourth option would never be acceptable.

Finally, I’m still curious how this applies to the case of taking medicine with an abortifacient effect for a legitimate medical reason (other than BC) and sexual relations. Is it legitimate for a couple to have sexual relations when one is taking a medicine that has an abortifacient effect?