Contraception to Prevent Miscarriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lafayette1834
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lafayette1834

Guest
Hi Everyone!

This is my first post, but I’ve read Catholic Answers a number of times when I found myself facing a difficult question, and this community has been incredibly helpful. Thanks to you all!

===================

I recently read an article in which a former pro-life activist argued that contraception saves lives by preventing miscarriages. She pointed out that many new embryos die before the mother even realizes she’s pregnant, and that if pro-life individuals took their position seriously, they would try to maximize contraceptive use.

To de-couple the point from the contraception culture wars: Any sex that could cause pregnancy could also lead to that pregnancy’s death. Let’s take the NIH’s rather high estimate that 50% of all zygotes die prior to birth.

Questions: Does the risk of miscarriage obligate us to minimize procreative sex, either through contraception or abstinence?

It seems that the only way out of this conundrum is to invoke the principle of double effect, which I don’t really buy - if I can forsee the consequences of my actions, I should probably take those consequences into account.

===================

I’d really appreciate any and all help with this conundrum from people more wise and knowledgable than myself.

-Andrew
 
Miscarriages are accidents. By this logic you can also says that contraception prevents disease because a person won’t be concieved and born to get sick. It prevents crime because, who knows, the person might become a criminal. Etc.
 
Lafayette1834 said:
Hi Everyone!

This is my first post, but I’ve read Catholic Answers a number of times when I found myself facing a difficult question, and this community has been incredibly helpful. Thanks to you all!

===================

I recently read an article in which a former pro-life activist argued that contraception saves lives by preventing miscarriages. She pointed out that many new embryos die before the mother even realizes she’s pregnant, and that if pro-life individuals took their position seriously, they would try to maximize contraceptive use.

To de-couple the point from the contraception culture wars: Any sex that could cause pregnancy could also lead to that pregnancy’s death. Let’s take the NIH’s rather high estimate that 50% of all zygotes die prior to birth.

Questions: Does the risk of miscarriage obligate us to minimize procreative sex, either through contraception or abstinence?

It seems that the only way out of this conundrum is to invoke the principle of double effect, which I don’t really buy - if I can forsee the consequences of my actions, I should probably take those consequences into account.

===================

I’d really appreciate any and all help with this conundrum from people more wise and knowledgable than myself.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
You are correct that without life, then there is no death.

So, you are posing the question, should we avoid the possibility of life, in order to avoid the possibility of death? If the answer is yes, then the conclusion is that all life should end, since everyone alive will die, and you propose no new human life.

I would question your premise that death is bad. It is a natural part of our life cycle. A miscarriage is a shortened natural life cycle.

I think that the argument against contraception is that it’s purpose is to deny the possibility of life.
 
From the catchism:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
 
The NIH? It is part of the same HHS that is persecuting the Church! The same HHS that demands contraception and abortion coverage. Talk about an agenda-driven organization. The 50% figure is clearly made up - there is no way to know this to a certainty. Their agenda is that future human life is bad and must be prevented. Where does this garbage come from?
 
Is this only refering to barrier methods of contraception? Obvioulsy, the pill causes miscarriages, so the whole premise makes no sense.
 
epan said:
You are correct that without life, then there is no death.

So, you are posing the question, should we avoid the possibility of life, in order to avoid the possibility of death? If the answer is yes, then the conclusion is that all life should end, since everyone alive will die, and you propose no new human life.

I would question your premise that death is bad. It is a natural part of our life cycle. A miscarriage is a shortened natural life cycle. All life will die.

I think that the argument against contraception is that it’s purpose is to deny the possibility of life.
Click to expand...
 
Exactly. The Pill or IUD are potentially abortifacient. The fact that miscarriages happen is something God knows about and we don’t know what His purpose is in calling those little souls home so early. But taking matters into our own hands is being presumptuous. It’s like shooting a soldier before he’s deployed to prevent him from dying in battle. 🤷
 
the pill can CAUSE chemical abortions. If a woman has suffered several miscarriages, there may be a problem, and I would suggest they contact the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, Nebraska. They help with all kinds of fertility problems, including recurring miscarriages.
 
po18guy said:
The NIH? It is part of the same HHS that is persecuting the Church! The same HHS that demands contraception and abortion coverage. Talk about an agenda-driven organization. The 50% figure is clearly made up - there is no way to know this to a certainty. Their agenda is that future human life is bad and must be prevented. Where does this garbage come from?
Click to expand...
I don’t think they made this statistic up. I looked this up in a medical book that I have here at home. It is published by the Mayo Clinic. Here is the quote I read:

“About 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, most of them before a woman has any idea she is pregnant. The percentage of miscarriages in women who know they are pregnant is about 10%.”

They are not discussing the pill or anything like that. They are simply stating what happens to women who aren’t on any kind of contraception. I think you can find a similar statistic in almost any book that discusses women’s reproductive systems.
 
Listener said:
I don’t think they made this statistic up. I looked this up in a medical book that I have here at home. It is published by the Mayo Clinic. Here is the quote I read:

“About 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, most of them before a woman has any idea she is pregnant. The percentage of miscarriages in women who know they are pregnant is about 10%.”

They are not discussing the pill or anything like that. They are simply stating what happens to women who aren’t on any kind of contraception. I think you can find a similar statistic in almost any book that discusses women’s reproductive systems.
Click to expand...
I have heard this too, although I also heard that this figure was based off of those who were undergoing IVF and so is possibly skewed. Take it with a grain of salt until you look into the actual studies behind it to find out what conclusions can actually be taken from the study. All statistics need to be taken with a giant slab of salt to be perfectly honest, there’s way to much mis-information out there.
 
Use of oral contraceptives can result in a series of miscarriages after you are off the pill and trying to conceive.
 
We cannot use evil to do good. Contraception is intrinsically evil anyways, no matter what wonderful effects science claims it could have. 🤷
 
Lafayette1834 said:
Hi Everyone!

This is my first post, but I’ve read Catholic Answers a number of times when I found myself facing a difficult question, and this community has been incredibly helpful. Thanks to you all!

===================
I recently read an article in which a former pro-life activist argued that contraception saves lives by preventing miscarriages. She pointed out that many new embryos die before the mother even realizes she’s pregnant, and that if pro-life individuals took their position seriously, they would try to maximize contraceptive use.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Listener said:
I don’t think they made this statistic up. I looked this up in a medical book that I have here at home. It is published by the Mayo Clinic. Here is the quote I read:

“About 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, most of them before a woman has any idea she is pregnant. The percentage of miscarriages in women who know they are pregnant is about 10%.”

They are not discussing the pill or anything like that. They are simply stating what happens to women who aren’t on any kind of contraception. I think you can find a similar statistic in almost any book that discusses women’s reproductive systems.
Click to expand...
I believe that it is made up. It is at the very least a guess. Do they have a wombcam implanted in every woman on earth? Let us not also forget the agenda of HHS, the NIH’s parent.

Do they see this as a good or an evil? Do they offer any ideas as to why this occurs at such a rate, if indeed it does occur? Do they have a horse in the IVF race?

Let’s take their “logic” al little further: How could any one ethically try to conceive at any time, knowing that there was such a high probability of failure? This entire train of thought strikes me as clearly anti-life.
 
I can’t believe that in today’s age people are not
using contraception, I just don’t understand
 
Thank god the Dems won , this way women will
still maintain there rights to Heath issues
 
Abortion is not a health issue. It doesn’t make any one healthy. It leaves one dead, and one seriously injured. God said be fruitful & multiply. Giving life, and loving our children is natural, and stretches us to be givers, and not takers. Have you ever read the harmful effects of taking the pill. the insert in microscopic print of all the ways it can harm or kill you takes up four pages! Many women die each year from taking the pill. If you love your wife you would not have her risk her life when you can use Natural Family Planning. It healthy, safe, non toxic, and environment friendly.
 
I understand what your saying but she’s getting
older she’s 48 now, and I worry due to her being
old, if she got pregnant chances are the child
could be born defective then what?
 
I’m not trying to sound harsh but it is a fact,
God said go out and be fruitful I agree but when
your starting a new family as you get older
I believe God wants you to use your head and
not possibly bring a defective child into the world
just because you had sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top