How do you prevent conception for medical reasons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter searchingforGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

searchingforGod

Guest
My wife just suffered through a second late term miscarriage after delivering 4 beautiful healthy children. The doctors have told us that any subsequent pregnancies will end with a miscarriage due to her internal issues (don’t want to go into it on a public forum). There is also a good chance that she might lose her life as a result (she had emergency procedures done both miscarriages)

We have always practiced NFP and nothing else and we know that there is always a chance on conception even when she is not in the fertile stage of her cycle (our first miscarriage was unplanned)

Is there something we can do medically that would prevent a pregancy or we solely at the mercy of God on this one? There would seem to some logic that says that being responsible would include making sure that her life is not at risk.

Can anyone please comment on this? Thanks!
 
Sterilization is a moral evil.

NFP can be used following the most conservative rules-- using the post-ovulatory time of the month. Or, you can abstain if her condition is that serious.

There are several women on this forum, Rayne89 and chronie4life (and some others but I can’t remember their screen names), that have serious medical conditions that could be life threatening if they become pregnant. They use NFP. Why don’t you PM them?
 
1ke,

Thank you for the response. I am aware of the intrinsic evil of sterilization but there does seem to be the need to balance putting a life in jeopardy (my wife’s) and being open to life which will end in a perinatal death which is why I posted the question.

I would think that there would be some logic about defending existing life vs. being open to life that doesn’t yet exist (if that makes sense)

I have had a couple of PMs from others and look forward to learning God’s way of looking at it.
 
My deepest sympathies for the miscarriages suffered by the OP and his family.
searchingforGod said:
I would think that there would be some logic about defending existing life vs. being open to life that doesn’t yet exist (if that makes sense)
Click to expand...
I have yet to see anything in Catholic teaching that says the marital act must be “open to life” at all times. The Church does teach couples to keep every marital act open to its natural end.

Good NFP helps couples predict clearly the end (results) of any given marital act. That way, couples with serious reason to avoid pregnancy can restrict the marital act to times when no conception will result, keeping the act open to its natural end. Contraception thwarts God’s gift of fertility to create a more predictable but unnatural or “fake” end to the marital act.

Closing yourselves off from the natural end of the marital act may help preserve your wife’s life but, statistically, it’s not going to do that any better than good NFP. Contraception also comes with definite spritual and possible emotional and physical drawbacks. Good NFP only has perks (provided you can go 10 consecutive days without sex and not die). In addition, you can always “tweak” NFP to make it more conservative (and nearly 100% effective) which you can’t do with contraception.

To use an analogy: If weight gain would be life-threatening for me, is it responsible behaviour to eat what I like, then thwart the natural end of eating by making myself vomit to reduce the risk of weight gain? Doesn’t it make more sense to learn about nutrition (then I’ll be able to predict weight gain, loss or maintenance after eating certain foods) and be open to the natural end of eating, which is digestion with no weight gain when I make nutritious choices?

All theory aside, I really feel for you and your wife’s situation. What a good husband you are to consider her health so carefully. When I say good NFP, I mean a method that gives you the motivation, education and support that you need. I also mean a method that addresses the causes of unreasonable amounts of abstinence. I pray that you have access to good NFP instructors who will be helpful in your particular situation. God bless.
 
searchingforGod said:
I would think that there would be some logic about defending existing life vs. being open to life that doesn’t yet exist (if that makes sense)
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true. That is why the Church states that for just reasons one may postpone or avoid conception indefinitely. The licit means for doing so is through abstaining from relations. This can be complete abstinence or, by the grace of modern science, the use of NFP.

Keep in mind too, that your wife can revisit her condition periodically with her doctor. Although you have not given specifics, it is possible that her condition might improve over time as her body is given time to heal. Perhaps you will not be able to have any more children, but then again, perhaps you will. Perhaps contacting Dr. Hilgers at the Pope Paul VI Institute could give you a second opinion and some other options. www.popepaulvi.com
 
hi Searching, I hope you are doing okay. I am so sorry for your loss. If you don’t mind me asking, and you shouldn’t answer if you do, Can I ask how far along your wife was at the time of the miscarriages?

Has she seen a high risk ob and talked with him/her about what having another child might do? if she hasn’t I suggest she talks to one as they are the experts.

my previous ob told me that she would send me to a high risk with my next pregnancy and that I would be monitored every week - if something is wrong, then baby is out at the hospital accross the street. If they monitored your wife (and if by late term you mean old enough to survive (21 weeks and up), then maybe you won’t want to put off kids indefinately.

Also, if you absolutely do, I would suggest she charts her cycle and that you two only engage in activity three days after you are sure she’s ovulated. This is the best way to avoid pregnancy (and a new cycle starts the day of her period, so during then and the days after are off limits too - only after ovualtion in each cycle would it be “safe”.
 
searchingforGod said:
I am aware of the intrinsic evil of sterilization but there does seem to be the need to balance putting a life in jeopardy (my wife’s) and being open to life which will end in a perinatal death which is why I posted the question.

I would think that there would be some logic about defending existing life vs. being open to life that doesn’t yet exist (if that makes sense)
Click to expand...
Acknowledging right off the bat that I am not guided by the same moral compass that you are, there is no way in the world that I would put my wife at risk by exposing her to the possibility of a life-ending pregnancy. Nor would I allow our marriage to deteriorate into a relationship devoid of intimacy when a relatively safe medical procedure could solve the problem. I can’t remember who said this, so I can’t give the proper credit, but it might apply to your situation:

“Sometimes you have to forego your principles and just do the right thing.”
 
rick43235 said:
Acknowledging right off the bat that I am not guided by the same moral compass that you are, there is no way in the world that I would put my wife at risk by exposing her to the possibility of a life-ending pregnancy. Nor would I allow our marriage to deteriorate into a relationship devoid of intimacy when a relatively safe medical procedure could solve the problem. I can’t remember who said this, so I can’t give the proper credit, but it might apply to your situation:

“Sometimes you have to forego your principles and just do the right thing.”
Click to expand...
I agree - this is a no brainer! Sorry, but after reading much online here with the Catholic Church teaching against condoms, even in marriages with one partner with HIV, in my opinion the Catholic Church loses credibility with not protecting the LIVING. Protect the LIVING – your wife and the mother of your children!

God Bless!
 
rick43235 said:
Acknowledging right off the bat that I am not guided by the same moral compass that you are, there is no way in the world that I would put my wife at risk by exposing her to the possibility of a life-ending pregnancy. Nor would I allow our marriage to deteriorate into a relationship devoid of intimacy when a relatively safe medical procedure could solve the problem. I can’t remember who said this, so I can’t give the proper credit, but it might apply to your situation:

“Sometimes you have to forego your principles and just do the right thing.”
Click to expand...
How does following Catholic teaching expose the OP’s wife to a life-ending pregnancy?

How does following Catholic teaching allow a marriage to deteriorate into a relationship devoid of intimacy?

Does intimacy=sex (and therefore, no sex=no intimacy)?
 
emeraldcoast said:
I agree - this is a no brainer! Sorry, but after reading much online here with the Catholic Church teaching against condoms, even in marriages with one partner with HIV, in my opinion the Catholic Church loses credibility with not protecting the LIVING.
Click to expand...
That’s strange, I’ve always found Catholicism teaches an unwavering protection of the living.
emeraldcoast said:
Protect the LIVING – your wife and the mother of your children!
Click to expand...
Does this mean you promote abstinence for husbands with HIV, in order to eliminate (rather than just reduce) the risk of the virus spreading to their wives?
 
rick43235 said:
Acknowledging right off the bat that I am not guided by the same moral compass that you are, there is no way in the world that I would put my wife at risk by exposing her to the possibility of a life-ending pregnancy. Nor would I allow our marriage to deteriorate into a relationship devoid of intimacy when a relatively safe medical procedure could solve the problem. I can’t remember who said this, so I can’t give the proper credit, but it might apply to your situation:

“Sometimes you have to forego your principles and just do the right thing.”
Click to expand...
Sorry, if you think in any case that sticking with your principles is contrary to doing the right thing then either your principles or your concept of the ‘right thing’ are skewed. If your principles ever contradict what is right in any given situation then you have no integrity as a person.

Right for who? for you or the unborn children to whom you’re denying life by artificially contracepting? Right for God who created your bodies (since you didn’t)? Right in what context? the short term or the long term? The physical or spiritual?
 
LilyM said:
Sorry, if you think in any case that sticking with your principles is contrary to doing the right thing then either your principles or your concept of the ‘right thing’ are skewed. If your principles ever contradict what is right in any given situation then you have no integrity as a person.

Right for who? for you or the unborn children to whom you’re denying life by artificially contracepting? Right for God who created your bodies (since you didn’t)? Right in what context? the short term or the long term? The physical or spiritual?
Click to expand...
While I agree with your statement on principles, Catholic couples are under no obligation to bring life into the world when doing so could cause harm to family members who are already living.

Faithful Catholic couples may postpone pregnancy, even indefinitely, when they have serious reason to do so (as in the case derscribed by the OP).
 
Good_Daughter said:
Faithful Catholic couples may postpone pregnancy, even indefinitely, when they have serious reason to do so (as in the case derscribed by the OP).
Click to expand...
This is true, Catholics may postpone pregnancy as long as there is true grave reason.

Catholics are also called to do the right thing, yes, which in the case of a life ending pregnancy would be two things: abstinence or nfp. If one person in a marriage has a deadly disease that could be transferred via sexual intercourse there is only one right thing to do, and that is abstinence. Why on earth would a man with HIV risk the life of his wife by using a condom? That is NOT protecting the living at all.

We need to get the notion that “sex (and only sex) = a loving and successful marriage” out of our heads b/c sometimes sex is not the most loving thing to do.
 
Harrison said:
Why on earth would a man with HIV risk the life of his wife by using a condom? That is NOT protecting the living at all.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And is the marital act still the marital act when one frustrates it with a condom? Nope.
 
Harrison said:
We need to get the notion that “sex (and only sex) = a loving and successful marriage” out of our heads b/c sometimes sex is not the most loving thing to do.
Click to expand...
No one has said that “sex and only sex” is the key to a loving marriage. But to give it up completely when there are alternatives doesn’t make much sense either.
 
rick43235 said:
No one has said that “sex and only sex” is the key to a loving marriage. But to give it up completely when there are alternatives doesn’t make much sense either.
Click to expand...
I am certain no one here suggested giving it up completely. :confused: That is not what NFP is about.
 
rick43235 said:
No one has said that “sex and only sex” is the key to a loving marriage. But to give it up completely when there are alternatives doesn’t make much sense either.
Click to expand...
What is an alternative to the authentic, unaltered, marital act?
 
searchingforGod said:
My wife just suffered through a second late term miscarriage after delivering 4 beautiful healthy children. The doctors have told us that any subsequent pregnancies will end with a miscarriage due to her internal issues (don’t want to go into it on a public forum). There is also a good chance that she might lose her life as a result (she had emergency procedures done both miscarriages)

We have always practiced NFP and nothing else and we know that there is always a chance on conception even when she is not in the fertile stage of her cycle (our first miscarriage was unplanned)

Is there something we can do medically that would prevent a pregancy or we solely at the mercy of God on this one? There would seem to some logic that says that being responsible would include making sure that her life is not at risk.

Can anyone please comment on this? Thanks!
Click to expand...
If I were in your position I would have a vasectomy with full trust in the understanding and love of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top