E
emilyt67
Guest
Are birth control types that keep you from releaseing an egg still a violation of the sixth commandment.If so how?
- Status
1
1ke
Guest
Yes.
**All **forms of contraception and sterilization are immoral-- every single type that has ever been thought up or ever will be thought up.
Contraception is any action taken by the couple before, during, or after intercourse that attempt to make that act of intercourse sterile.
Taking pills or hormonal injections to sterilize yourself temporarily (that’s what suppressing ovluation is) is contraception, and is immoral.
**All **forms of contraception and sterilization are immoral-- every single type that has ever been thought up or ever will be thought up.
Contraception is any action taken by the couple before, during, or after intercourse that attempt to make that act of intercourse sterile.
Taking pills or hormonal injections to sterilize yourself temporarily (that’s what suppressing ovluation is) is contraception, and is immoral.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
That’s not quite true.
While any deliberately contraceptive act is intrinsically immoral according to Church teaching, the act of taking a birth control pill (of one form or another) is morally neutral without context.
To answer the OP’s question, Church teaching is, to the best of my understanding, that if you’re taking birth control of any form in order to not get pregnant that act is immoral. If, however, you are taking it (and not having sex) for some other medical reason then you’re fine. For example, my sister’s former college roommate, a very faithful Catholic who was saving sex for marriage, took the pill to regulate her cycle and help treat her acne.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Each and every knowingly chosen act is either moral or immoral. Although some acts deserve neither reward, nor punishment, and so are in that sense neutral, every knowingly chosen act must be at least morally permissible. There are no morally neutral acts in the ethical teachings of the Church. Every act has three fonts of morality, which make the act either moral or immoral.
Taking a birth control pill is either moral or immoral. If we do not have enough information (because the hypothetical does not provide the information), then we might not be able to determine if it is moral or immoral. But the concrete act of a person taking such a pill, is objectively either moral or immoral. (If she is single, not sexually active, and takes the pill for medical purposes, the act may well be moral, just as in the example that you gave.)
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I grant that the vast majority of actions are either moral or immoral but I think that, for example, lacing one’s shoes in a given way (as opposed to some other way) is morally neutral. There are other examples but I think most trivial actions fall under this category.
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, it is quite true.
(a) The OP asked about *birth control *that suppresses ovulation. Therefore, there certainly was a *context *in her question. The answer is that it is contraception and it is immoral.
(b) My answer said that taking such hormones* to sterilize yourself *is contraception and immoral. My answer was 100% accurate.
Neither I nor the OP were speaking about other contexts in which hormones might be used (i.e. to treat a disease).
The OP did not ask about treating a disease with an unintended side effect of sterility.
M
mark_a
Guest
It has been brought to my attention that the “and not having sex” part of the equation is not true if one is validly married. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=444955&highlight=birth+control+pill
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Lacing one’s shoes a certain way is morally permissible.
It is neutral as regards reward and punishment.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Pope Paul VI: “The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 15).
The above passage refers to indirect sterilization, such as when a woman has a hysterectomy in order to treat a medical disorder, with the result is that she is sterile. In such a case, the therapeutic means is not intrinsically evil, and so it is morally permissible, even when sterility is foreseen as an unintended consequence. But the same passage cannot be applied to contraception because the use of contraception is intrinsically evil. The moral teaching of the Church does not permit the use of an intrinsically evil means, even to achieve a good end. The end never justifies the means.
Notice that the last portion of the above quote excludes as immoral the choice of an “impediment to procreation,” if it is, “for whatever motive, directly willed.” So even when the motive (the purpose or intended end) is therapeutic, if the means is a directly willed act which impedes procreation (e.g. contraception, or direct sterilization), then the act is morally illicit. This distinction is important to a correct understanding of the Church’s teaching. Intrinsically evil acts are never moral for any motive whatsoever, even a therapeutic motive (or medical purpose). What is permissible is an act, such as a medical intervention (e.g. removing a cancerous uterus), which is in itself moral and therefore not intrinsically evil, and which has the unintended effect of sterilization.
The impeding of procreation is an evil moral object, and the deliberate choice of any act directed toward than end is an inherently immoral act. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.
The above passage refers to indirect sterilization, such as when a woman has a hysterectomy in order to treat a medical disorder, with the result is that she is sterile. In such a case, the therapeutic means is not intrinsically evil, and so it is morally permissible, even when sterility is foreseen as an unintended consequence. But the same passage cannot be applied to contraception because the use of contraception is intrinsically evil. The moral teaching of the Church does not permit the use of an intrinsically evil means, even to achieve a good end. The end never justifies the means.
Notice that the last portion of the above quote excludes as immoral the choice of an “impediment to procreation,” if it is, “for whatever motive, directly willed.” So even when the motive (the purpose or intended end) is therapeutic, if the means is a directly willed act which impedes procreation (e.g. contraception, or direct sterilization), then the act is morally illicit. This distinction is important to a correct understanding of the Church’s teaching. Intrinsically evil acts are never moral for any motive whatsoever, even a therapeutic motive (or medical purpose). What is permissible is an act, such as a medical intervention (e.g. removing a cancerous uterus), which is in itself moral and therefore not intrinsically evil, and which has the unintended effect of sterilization.
The impeding of procreation is an evil moral object, and the deliberate choice of any act directed toward than end is an inherently immoral act. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.
J
Jermosh
Guest
There is also the moral use of the morning after pill in the case of Rape, and yes you are correct with its use for theraputic needs.
J
Jea9
Guest
This is a dangerous statement to make without explaining further. It is only moral if they have determined that the woman has not ovulated. If she has ovulated there is a risk that they can abort a child, which would make the morning after pill immoral.
S
SGT_ROCK_33
Guest
Right on and well said… I totally agree!!!
J
Jermosh
Guest
Its not a dangerous statement at all, even if ovulation occurs it would not be an Abortion, it would only be an Abortion if there was conception. If ovulation occurs it is still morally allowed to incapacitatethe sperm iregardless of ovulation occurs or not.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The so-called ‘morning after pill’ is an abortifacient.
morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html
morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html
B
Bookcat
Guest
Readers please note:
These web pages are **not **recommended sources for Catholic sexual ethics…other areas too are of private opinion or are problematic or incorrect from a theological or canonical view.
Instead seek out sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and articles and books for sale from Catholic Answers.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
The morning after pill cannot be abortifacient if the woman has not ovulated.
J
Jermosh
Guest
The Church does not prohibit the use of Contraceptive due to their abortifacient properties.
But to clarify the MAP has abortifacient properties, along with a whole host of other medicines and actions.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Pope John Paul II: “The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as **abortifacients **in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 13.)
J
Jea9
Guest
Your link takes you to a page that says the USCCB does not want it to become a law that hospitals have to give emergency contraceptive to rape victims. It also says: “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."
**I think that shows that this is not morally acceptable, but do you see something I don’t?
J
Jermosh
Guest
Good point, but its not the reason for the prohibtion. Otherwise it would not allow the theraputic use of the Pill, along with a whole host of other medicines and actions.
- Status