Hypocritical Contraception?

[Calliso]

Also keep in mind that once the egg is fertilized and a human comes into existence with unique DNA, that human spends up to almost 2 weeks floating around before implanting into the uterus. In fact, the human will go through several key stages of development.

So, I guess if you want to draw a line between a 6 month old fetus and an 8 week old embryo, you could also draw a line between a 3 day old blastocyst and a 10 day old zygote.

That’s such a complicated thing to do, though, don’t you think? How would you draw a line between a 1 year old infant and a 5 year old child, or a 12 year old preteen and a 16 year old teen? At what point do they stop being in one stage and go on to the next?

Well personally I donlt know anyone that makes a point to draw the line between a two day old embyro and a 10 day old one for instance. But some people do draw the line at heart beating for instance which I know is very early something like just a few weeks in right? Others draw it at the line when the baby is viable has a good chance of surviving outside the womb others might divide it at the brain and nervous system forming. But yeah it can get complicated.

 

[newbetx]

I don’t know how other people mean it when they say “equal” - I’ve never used this term myself regarding ABC. I think what they are saying is that it gives women the same opportunity that men have in that they can have sex without having to become pregnant. Men have never had to worry about carrying a baby around and all that it entails so it was never a consideration to them when they had sex - with ABC, the women were also able to take this approace.

I want to ad - but not to you Hasikilee becaues you didn’t say it - but there are some folks who seem to be indicating that if a woman uses ABC she suddenly glows red and walks around naked - advsertising “free sex” for all or something. Many women who use ABC are married, they aren’t suddenly simply sex dispensers anymore than women who don’t use birth control are only baby dispensers. Most use it simply because it is more effective than NFP and you don’t have “off” days.

My apologies if I have been less than charitable. These are hot topics and can rile emotions.

It is a different thing to me if it is a monogamous married couple on ABC. I’m not saying it’s right. Just a very different situation.
I don’t know but I’d wager that most users of the pill are not married. And I know from personal experience just how devastating a “casual sexual” lifestyle can be. As my children are reaching dating age, it has sensitized me to the past. While some may be in denial that “free sex” is harmful or that they may fear that they’d be called hypocrites, I am no longer among them. I’ve see the damage I caused others. Even though we both started out to “have fun,” it turned devastating for some. We were both equally duped and will suffer for it for the rest of our lives. The culture told us we couldn’t suffer from casual sex and if someone got pregnant that could be easily fixed. It was a lie.

Sex is serious business. When respected and used properly it is a most wonderful gift God gave us. How can we toss it around, twist it, and use it improperly and it still be a gift? Once it’s “just a thing” it’s value plummets. Is that what we are to give each other? The danger is (but not an absolute Thanks be to God) that a couple takes the view or concept of “free sex” they experienced into the marriage. This is where whole familys become train wrecks. This too, I’ve seen. It’s common enough that it’s no longer a fringe argument. People are now approaching marriage as a thing, not a relationship. And certainly not a sacred act. And that, too, diminishes all of us who see it as sacramental and meaningful.

And manytimes when married women start with ABC, they notice a change in the relationship with their husband. Maybe not at first but after years, and the next thing you know they do feel like sex dispensers. When there is an “endless” capacity for something, it looses it value. When there becomes a difference in desires and meeting them, conflict arises. Attitudes can change and relationships suffer. I won’t say that this is unique to ABC, but I think the stats indicate that ABC has been a contributor to failed marriages.

Again, my apologies to those I may have been discourteous to.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The pill however does cause abortions. Are you aware of that?

That has never been documented

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am aware that some types of the pill do prevent implantation yes.

That has never been documented and would mean no babies were ever born to pill users which is incorrect

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Techincally though is it? I mean if it is not implanted it is not considered a pregnancy yet is it?

According to the medical community, it is. The theory that you aren’t pregnant until the human implants into the uterus was started by a man looking for ways to avoid scandal over abortive birth control pills.

Also, regardless of whether you consider yourself pregnant or unpregnant, or halfway pregnant, the human still exists.

Calliso

Hasikelee is correct the objective was to prevent the court system from deciding if birth control pills could be banned for contributing to miscarriages. By setting the legal definition of pregnancy to require implantation the miscarriage argument was outside normal court control. Now only the US Supreme Court could change such a ruling, and that ruling would require a violation of the constitution be the challenge(not the science involved).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…My question actually refers to times when a couple is infertile. When I’m pregnant, how can I have sex with “an open possibility that life can be formed”? The bigger question: Does the Church really teach, like ForMary said, that we must have “an open possibility that life can be formed” in every marital act?

This is not directed at you, Em, but to the forum in general: NFP promoters often witness to the world that NFP is effective at both postponing pregnancy and keeping marital relations open to life. It’s no wonder their audience is confused and skeptical. Maybe we need better terms to describe the benefit NFP really provides.

You are correct it can be confusing. A pregnant woman is in a non-fertile state, however the action of her and her husband are normal and natural so by the Church teaching the relation is open to life.

“an open possibility that life can be formed” I see no real difference between this statement and the statement as it appears in church teaching. This statement may even be used in some church documents. Again the requirement is the relation be performed as God designed. Whether the time is open to fertility is not the issue, because God designed this infertile period. The issue is the relation was open to life by following God’s design.

The teaching is logical when you look at God’s plan down to man. The confusion is looking from a man and woman having relations and going backwards to how that fits into the design of God.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I… I think what they are saying is that it gives women the same opportunity that men have in that they can have sex without having to become pregnant. Men have never had to worry about carrying a baby around and all that it entails so it was never a consideration to them when they had sex - with ABC, the women were also able to take this approace.

actually a Catholic man is equally responsible for all aspects of pregnancy which is one of the primary reasons the teachings are what they are! Similarly the Church teaches there is not relations without responsibility before, during, and after.

…there are some folks who seem to be indicating that if a woman uses ABC she suddenly glows red and walks around naked - advsertising “free sex” for all or something. Many women who use ABC are married, they aren’t suddenly simply sex dispensers anymore than women who don’t use birth control are only baby dispensers. Most use it simply because it is more effective than NFP and you don’t have “off” days.

It is certainly possible for ABC to be used with best intentions however even in this case are you really not echo the part of the church teaching which indicates with ABC the man and woman can at least pretend to reduce their personal responsibility because the baby will not result so who cares if we/I … instead of taking this relations issue so seriously?

hope that helps

 

[Calliso]

actually a Catholic man is equally responsible for all aspects of pregnancy which is one of the primary reasons the teachings are what they are! Similarly the Church teaches there is not relations without responsibility before, during, and after.
It is certainly possible for ABC to be used with best intentions however even in this case are you really not echo the part of the church teaching which indicates with ABC the man and woman can at least pretend to reduce their personal responsibility because the baby will not result so who cares if we/I … instead of taking this relations issue so seriously?

hope that helps

Aye but they still donlt have to deal with the physical aspects of it. Though yeah it would be nice if ALL men took responsiblity for any pregnancies they helped create huh? And you are right abc does allow people to reduce personal responsiblity I can;t argue against that.

 

[Calliso]

That has never been documented and would mean no babies were ever born to pill users which is incorrect

Well sometimes it fails…kinda like even vascetomies sometimes fail. It is rare but it does happen. Though with birht control pills I have to wonder how much of the failure is because of improper usage, like people skipping pills…and stuff.

 

[Good_Daughter]

As long as you are open to life, you are encouraged to enjoy the marital embrace as much as you like. No mater what your current state of fertility.

Are you saying that the Church teaches we are allowed to postpone pregnancy as long as we are open to life? That sounds contradictory.

I question whether the Church really teaches each marital embrace must be “open to life”. It seems more accurate to say the Church teaches each marital embrace must be “open to its natural end”, which may or may not be life (never denying that the marital embrace itself is inherently connected to reproduction.)

If pregnancy has the potential to put a womans life at risk, do she and her husband really need to keep the marital embrace open to life or is it sufficient for them to keep it open to its natural end?

“Open to life” is also a description that could, in some cases, be applied to those who contracept. There are couples who oppose all abortion, use non-abortive contraception and, should that contraception fail, would consider even an unplanned baby a blessing. Arguably, these couples could be considered “open to life”. What they are not open to is keeping the natural end of the marital embrace intact.

Keeping sex open to life and keeping sex open to is natural end may sound like identical ideas but in practice I think they’re quite different. I also think the second comes closer to describing the requirement of Catholic teaching.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Are you saying that the Church teaches we are allowed to postpone pregnancy as long as we are open to life? That sounds contradictory.

It may well sound that why; however if the stage is naturally infertile pregnancy is being postponed through the naturally designed process. Same is true of couples using naturally infertile periods to postpone child birthing

I question whether the Church really teaches each marital embrace must be “open to life”. It seems more accurate to say the Church teaches each marital embrace must be “open to its natural end”, which may or may not be life (never denying that the marital embrace itself is inherently connected to reproduction.)

The church does require a natural end to relations (as designed) similarly the church requires the male and female processes not be tampered with. The infertile stage is just that.

If pregnancy has the potential to put a womans life at risk, do she and her husband really need to keep the marital embrace open to life or is it sufficient for them to keep it open to its natural end?

thoses conditions are not separate under church teaching. Remember the church considers celibacy the standard state of life

“Open to life” is also a description that could, in some cases, be applied to those who contraception. There are couples who oppose all abortion, use non-abortive contraception and, should that contraception fail, would consider even an unplanned baby a blessing. Arguably, these couples could be considered “open to life”. What they are not open to is keeping the natural end of the marital embrace intact.

The use of contraception (as condom) is not considered “open to life” or “natural”

Keeping sex open to life and keeping sex open to is natural end may sound like identical ideas but in practice I think they’re quite different. I also think the second comes closer to describing the requirement of Catholic teaching.

The church differentiates the two by 1) one is completely natural and the other 2) uses contraception

is this helping?

 

[newbetx]

Are you saying that the Church teaches we are allowed to postpone pregnancy as long as we are open to life? That sounds contradictory.

I question whether the Church really teaches each marital embrace must be “open to life”. It seems more accurate to say the Church teaches each marital embrace must be “open to its natural end”, which may or may not be life (never denying that the marital embrace itself is inherently connected to reproduction.)

If pregnancy has the potential to put a womans life at risk, do she and her husband really need to keep the marital embrace open to life or is it sufficient for them to keep it open to its natural end?

“Open to life” is also a description that could, in some cases, be applied to those who contracept. There are couples who oppose all abortion, use non-abortive contraception and, should that contraception fail, would consider even an unplanned baby a blessing. Arguably, these couples could be considered “open to life”. What they are not open to is keeping the natural end of the marital embrace intact.

Keeping sex open to life and keeping sex open to is natural end may sound like identical ideas but in practice I think they’re quite different. I also think the second comes closer to describing the requirement of Catholic teaching.

Your description here is very good. May I borrow it?

I was more thinking about the later stages of creating a family. But it can apply to the early days of marriage as well. There is a lot of focus on NFP and the “spacing of children” with the implication that a couple must “plan” one more. As I understood the CCC, at some point a couple may decide they only have the means to raise the ones they have. So postponing indefinatly is possible. Some quote a Bishop saying this is not acceptable, but I don’t know that I ever understood the full text or the intent of Bishops remarks. This is a sticking point about what has been written about NFP in the past.

As I understand things from TOB and CCC, we are called to have children. We are called to raise them in the faith. We are called not to be selfish when chosing to try or not to have more. We are called to be prudent about our ability to provide for them. There is an end game that has to take place. It has been debated before that there is not a set number of children or age that you are allowed to stop. Just that we are called to bring forth offspring unselfishly.

Hypothetically, Is a couple married at 20 with 5 children at 30 required to continue to have more children for the next 15 or so years of their fertility, or based on their means can they stop trying at 5 and raise these. This gets hotly contested. The answer is, it depends. Some say, “If God doesn’t think you need more, you won’t get pregnant again”. Many think, “God give us fertility and lets us not try but, if he wills it, it’ll happen anyway.” From what I found in the CCC, the later is acceptable practice.

 

[holdencaulfield]

That has never been documented

Want to bet.

 

[Good_Daughter]

It may well sound that why; however if the stage is naturally infertile pregnancy is being postponed through the naturally designed process. Same is true of couples using naturally infertile periods to postpone child birthing The church does require a natural end to relations (as designed) similarly the church requires the male and female processes not be tampered with. The infertile stage is just that. thoses conditions are not separate under church teaching. Remember the church considers celibacy the standard state of life The use of contraception (as condom) is not considered “open to life” or “natural” The church differentiates the two by 1) one is completely natural and the other 2) uses contraception

is this helping?

Thank you for your post, as far as I can see, I agree with everything you’ve written.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Your description here is very good. May I borrow it?

Use anything you like, anytime, and feel free to call it your own. You’re such a good poster, I’m sure your spin will only improve my description.

I was more thinking about the later stages of creating a family. But it can apply to the early days of marriage as well. There is a lot of focus on NFP and the “spacing of children” with the implication that a couple must “plan” one more. As I understood the CCC, at some point a couple may decide they only have the means to raise the ones they have. So postponing indefinatly is possible. Some quote a Bishop saying this is not acceptable, but I don’t know that I ever understood the full text or the intent of Bishops remarks. This is a sticking point about what has been written about NFP in the past.

As I understand things from TOB and CCC, we are called to have children. We are called to raise them in the faith. We are called not to be selfish when chosing to try or not to have more. We are called to be prudent about our ability to provide for them. There is an end game that has to take place. It has been debated before that there is not a set number of children or age that you are allowed to stop. Just that we are called to bring forth offspring unselfishly.

Hypothetically, Is a couple married at 20 with 5 children at 30 required to continue to have more children for the next 15 or so years of their fertility, or based on their means can they stop trying at 5 and raise these. This gets hotly contested. The answer is, it depends. Some say, “If God doesn’t think you need more, you won’t get pregnant again”. Many think, “God give us fertility and lets us not try but, if he wills it, it’ll happen anyway.” From what I found in the CCC, the later is acceptable practice.

The spirituality of NFP is such a huge topic. The points you raise are threads on their own (some probably in existence on CAF). My own overly-simplistic prayer is usually, “Lord, please make your will really obvious to me and, with your grace, I’ll do my part to conform to it”. I find that helps with my family planning, but I am always trying to understand Church teaching better. As with most aspects of Catholic life, internalizing the teaching is step one. Interpreting it for real life can be the tough part, especially when that requires holiness and obedience. (Not always my strong points, but I try.)

 

[Em_in_FL]

First off… yes, the contraceptive pill DOES work in two ways… first by stoping ovulation, and secondly by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting…
This is well documented… look at any prescribing information on the pill… yasmin, for example says…

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
PHARMACODYNAMICS
Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of
gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action
is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in
the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of sperm entry
into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood
of implantation).

And yes, it is an abortion.
The MOMENT an egg is fertilized by sperm (conception) a NEW and UNIQUE set of HUMAN DNA is created.
We can “define” life in any way that makes the guilt go away… when it’s “ensouled”, when it’s implanted, when it’s “viable”… but that’s all semantics…
Again… the MOMENT of conception and new HUMAN BEING is formed… this unique set of human DNA never existed before and is nothing other than HUMAN.
Call it what you want… but taking deliberate steps to halt the natural process of that life is abortion.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Want to bet.

Sure though it is not a bet because it is known not a single case has been documented

First off… yes, the contraceptive pill DOES work in two ways… first by stoping ovulation, and secondly by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting…
This is well documented… look at any prescribing information on the pill… yasmin, for example says…

And yes, it is an abortion.
The MOMENT an egg is fertilized by sperm (conception) a NEW and UNIQUE set of HUMAN DNA is created.
We can “define” life in any way that makes the guilt go away… when it’s “ensouled”, when it’s implanted, when it’s “viable”… but that’s all semantics…
Again… the MOMENT of conception and new HUMAN BEING is formed… this unique set of human DNA never existed before and is nothing other than HUMAN.
Call it what you want… but taking deliberate steps to halt the natural process of that life is abortion.

The pill is claimed to work in three ways 1) ovulation suppression, 2) Mucus thickening, and 3) thinning the uterus liner. The fact is properly taken child birthing is reduced by ~95% however only ovulation suppression is proven to work. Not a single documented case of pregnancy prevention has been attributed to mucus thickening, or thinning of the uterus liner. And there is additional problems concerning many estimate 50-75% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant that is with natural process only. If that estimate is even partially true more fertilized eggs are lost through women using natural means than women using ABC.

It is important not to confuse the facts

 

[Em_in_FL]

The pill is claimed to work in three ways 1) ovulation suppression, 2) Mucus thickening, and 3) thinning the uterus liner. The fact is properly taken child birthing is reduced by ~95% however only ovulation suppression is proven to work. Not a single documented case of pregnancy prevention has been attributed to mucus thickening, or thinning of the uterus liner. And there is additional problems concerning many estimate 50-75% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant that is with natural process only. If that estimate is even partially true more fertilized eggs are lost through women using natural means than women using ABC.

It is important not to confuse the facts

Sure, natural miscarriages happen all the time.
But those aren’t caused by taking deliberate steps for the pregnancy to never exist in the first place.

Can you reference your information with links?
I provided the documentation that says the pill “reduces the likelihood of implantation” (written by the pill manufacturer directly)…
Please provide references for your information.

 

[hasikelee]

Sure though it is not a bet because it is known not a single case has been documented

The pill is claimed to work in three ways 1) ovulation suppression, 2) Mucus thickening, and 3) thinning the uterus liner. The fact is properly taken child birthing is reduced by ~95% however only ovulation suppression is proven to work. Not a single documented case of pregnancy prevention has been attributed to mucus thickening, or thinning of the uterus liner. And there is additional problems concerning many estimate 50-75% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant that is with natural process only. If that estimate is even partially true more fertilized eggs are lost through women using natural means than women using ABC.

It is important not to confuse the facts

I’ve always wondered about the lack of research in this area, and the lack of findings. It seems so odd that the companies who make these drugs state that the purpose is to “prevent a fertilized egg from implanting” but they have no science to back it up. You’d think that legally they would have to rescind this statement, as science has not proven what they claim their drugs will do.

Edit: Playing devil’s advocate on myself, I’d have to say…then again, what in the world is intended by tightening and thinning the endometrial lining of the uterus? Hmm, must be to better help the human implant, right?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sure, natural miscarriages happen all the time.
But those aren’t caused by taking deliberate steps for the pregnancy to never exist in the first place.

Can you reference your information with links?
I provided the documentation that says the pill “reduces the likelihood of implantation” (written by the pill manufacturer directly)…
Please provide references for your information.

A statement by others is not a proof. In over 40 years there are zero cases documented. Read medical reports on the subject.