Contraception vs. NFP - Catholic Answers

[Abbadon]

No. You are confusing normal and natural.

Normal is the way the body is supposed to function. We are normally supposed to breath, as it is the way the our cells receive oxygen. Your desire to not breathe has nothing to do with whether breathing is a normal human function.

Medicine, generally speaking, restores normal physiology. I administer insulin to a diabetic patient so that their blood glucose levels are at a normal physiologic levels. When a patient does not receive insulin, their blood sugar levels may spike enough to a level to send them into diabetic ketoacidosis. This is the natural way the body responds to extremely high blood sugar levels. However, this is not the normal state, or the way the body is supposed to work. Administering insulin is not thwarting the way the body’s normal system works.

Yes you are you are thwarting the way HER body is normally meant to work. She is meant to die. What you are doing is improving it to work as effectively as your own, to work in a way so that she can live. It may be the natural way that several bodies respond to high blood sugar levels but it is not the way her body responds to it.You could even administer ir or we could develop a device that administers it in a way that is far superior to the way our pancreas does.

Medicine, at the best of times, improves physiology.

I’ll give another example if I am not being clear enough, your body codes for a protein that causes inability to sweat. This protein expression is natural to you, it is a normal function of your cells to do this , if it was beneficial for you not to sweat and increased your relative fitness no doubt you would survive and pass this trait on to your progeny and maybe in a few million years all of your species would no longer sweat. But because this is harmful we intervene and create repressive proteins that prevent expression of the gene, we artificially alter normal expression of a gene for the benefit of the individual.

This is the technicality I am trying to get at, everything functions in nature as it should, it just might not be what is best for our way of life as an individual.

Also, you are patently wrong about your statistic that 75% of unassisted births would result in death of the mother or child.

I know the statistic is high, no doubt rounded to 3/4 as soon as I can cite it I will. It was using data considering a pre-bronze age scenario of health care. I’ll try to find it as soon as possible. Out of curiosity, I’m assuming your a nurse, do you know how many women die in childbirth without hospital care? No doubt there are religious circles from which we can draw the data in today’s day and age. I’ll have a look for that while I look for the other one, let me know if you know.

 

[Abbadon]

I believe my examples were from a completely medical point of view.

Nursing textbooks are not written from any particular worldview, yet they all agree that there is such a thing as normal physiology.

Condoms thwart fertility, normal physiology, is the most basic sense.

No doubt when medical text books use the term normal physiology I think I understand what they mean, and that’s a great way of putting it, especially at the macro and practical level of nursing. But I think your inferring from that and taking from that more than it means. Or perhaps I’m not taking enough…
I think what normal physiology could imply is effective protocol in operating human biological functions? healthy physiology is wording I can get behind, but i disagree with the word normal because normal is not always the most appropriate.

Normally some patients do not have the ability to produce their own insulin as a result we must alter their normal state by giving them insulin so that they can function better than they normally would.

I highly doubt medical text books would say condoms interfere with normal physiology. That’s like saying plastic bags or pants interfere with normal physiology. Of course they thwart fertility so does masturbation…

 

[lizziebits]

Just to let you know, I’m not leaving you hanging, but I’ve got to be off the computer for a while and will get back to you.

 

[vppoole]

Then why do we need caesareans? Women can die of pregnancy and do.

No strictly true, parthenogenesis, also we have artificial insemination for infertile couples.

The point is that contraceptives are unethical means to avoiding pregnancy. The rationale behind the production and distribution of contraceptives conflicts with established medical ethics, for reasons already listed in this thread.

Parthenogenesis in humans?? There are no known cases of it naturally occurring in mammals in the wild, and its laboratory use in order to create human embryos for embryonic stem cell research is not ethical common ground either. As someone outside of the Catholic position with an interest in dialogue, why don’t you start with a mutually morally agreeable example and go from there?

Actually, why would you support artificial insemination anyway? From an evolutionary perspective, wouldn’t it be wrong for a scientist to cut out the process of natural selection of human sperm in the process of fertilization? Artificial insemination hinders evolution. Why would you support a personal decision to override evolution? After all, infertile couples have much better choices than artificial insemination.

Pax!

 

[gardenswithkids]

…No strictly true, parthenogenesis, also we have artificial insemination for infertile couples.

You might have human being confused with banana trees. We’re talking about humans. Artificial insemination, (which is also against Church teachings–different topic, however) still requires a fertile male human and a female human.

Then why do we need caesareans? Women can die of pregnancy and do.

A fertile women who has had no sexual contact with a fertile man (or contact with his sperm) is not a likely candidate for a C-sections. Again, fertility alone does not cause pregnancy. Very, very basic reproductive facts.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I was talking about the women dying, from pregnancy complications without medical aids.

Then you would be blatantly incorrect

…But as a non-believer, and one who understands evolution and aspires to work on (rather than just with) cells and genetics, this doesn’t suffice…

Shouldn’t this have been the way to start the thread?

…Is it possible for you to explain this in a way that applies to people of all faiths and those with none?..

here is the problem what morals do they have? How did they gets these morals? (you need not answer)

If your faith is science alone, then you are void of moral standing by your own definition. So I would suggest your original post is now moot. If sterilizing… 6 year olds is done with good science then science alone allows it, similarly when you use science to kill then science alone allows it. May I suggest your original post indicates you want a moral base and thus his talk affected you?

 

[lizziebits]

To your point about childbirth:

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000345.htm

This site gives an interesting look at a small study done in 1984 looking a religious sect who refused prenatal care for its women and also labored at home without medical assistance.

It reports a maternal death rate of 872/100000, which is of course obscenely high, but comes no where close to the death rate of 75,000/100,000 that you suggested.

More later, as I’m making dinner.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

To your point about childbirth:

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000345.htm

This site gives an interesting look at a small study done in 1984 looking a religious sect who refused prenatal care for its women and also labored at home without medical assistance.

It reports a maternal death rate of 872/100000, which is of course obscenely high, but comes no where close to the death rate of 75,000/100,000 that you suggested.

More later, as I’m making dinner.

Just as a math test what percent of women are there if the death rate per pregnancy is 75%?

Well after first attempted birth 25%, or 1 woman per 4 men in adult society
women surviving two births (.25 x.25) 6%, or 1 woman per 17 men in adult society
women surviving three births (.25 x.25 x .25) 1.6% or, 1 woman per 63 men in adult society
women surviving four births (.25 x.25 x .25 x .25) 0.4%, or 1 woman per 250 men in adult society
women surviving five births (.25 x.25 x .25 x .25 x .25) 0.1%, or 1 woman per 4000 men in adult society

5 children is commonly quoted as expected before contraception methods were known. So was adult society 1 woman per 4000 men?

 

[Abbadon]

To your point about childbirth:

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000345.htm

This site gives an interesting look at a small study done in 1984 looking a religious sect who refused prenatal care for its women and also labored at home without medical assistance.

It reports a maternal death rate of 872/100000, which is of course obscenely high, but comes no where close to the death rate of 75,000/100,000 that you suggested.

More later, as I’m making dinner.

Your probably right, it did seem insanely high, i’ll still try and remember the original source.

 

[Abbadon]

Then you would be blatantly incorrect Shouldn’t this have been the way to start the thread? here is the problem what morals do they have? How did they gets these morals? (you need not answer)

If your faith is science alone, then you are void of moral standing by your own definition. So I would suggest your original post is now moot. If sterilizing… 6 year olds is done with good science then science alone allows it, similarly when you use science to kill then science alone allows it. May I suggest your original post indicates you want a moral base and thus his talk affected you?

Science is amoral and does not present a moral point of view. The morality comes from the individual who applies it. If consent is provided and sterilization is in the 6 year olds best interests and the parents also consent and the process is reversible with no ill effects, I do not see why I wouldn’t.

For me the morality comes from what is the harm. Although I personally wouldn’t use chemical contraception I cannot withhold anothers right to do whatever they choose with thier body, even if that sadly includes destruction. If I care enough I will try to dissuade them. But especially in the case of contraception what else am I going to do? Put them in jail for not wanting to have children? Make them have children?

I’ve already been won over on the use of NFP, but I think this idea of natural being better or that normal state is better is a bad one. I did not have the intention of going down a moral path, this was more a technical biological point.

 

[Abbadon]

You might have human being confused with banana trees. We’re talking about humans. Artificial insemination, (which is also against Church teachings–different topic, however) still requires a fertile male human and a female human.

A fertile women who has had no sexual contact with a fertile man (or contact with his sperm) is not a likely candidate for a C-sections. Again, fertility alone does not cause pregnancy. Very, very basic reproductive facts.

Oh being fertile alone, I was coupling fertility with reproduction, silly me. Considering how retarded the human body can be I would not be surprised that for a woman as part of her fertility included heavy blood loss that had a potential effect of bleeding to death. Or a hormonal imbalance at puberty that made her become a man, causing psychological damage.

Nope humans can also undergo parthenogenesis, however it usually ends in a physiological abortion.