Hypothetical Contraception Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ham1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Ham1

Guest
Okay, here’s a tough one that I thought up a few years ago…

It has been claimed that the purpose of medicine is to do what Nature cannot do for herself. We know that clearly God has designed the human mother to breastfeed her child and according to His plan this breastfeeding naturally is designed to space children apart. Sheila Kippley indicates in “Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing” that women who “ecologically” breastfeed usually have 11-12 months of natural infertility. This means that children end up being 2 - 2 1/2 years apart just through God’s design.

Now some women unfortunately have 2 or 3 months infertility even though they are nurturing and breastfeeding their children according God’s natural plan. Let’s say that there was a drug (not the pill, not an abortifacient, remember this is hypothetical) that could supply the mother with the hormones that ought naturally to be there during the first 12 months or so. In supplying these hormones, the drug would restore the mother’s body to the condition that God originally intended, a state of infertility. Would it be morally permissible for the mother to take this drug that would give her the infertility that Nature intended?

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Also, please don’t confuse this with an effort to justify all sorts of contraception. It’s not. The example obviously depends on a very narrow use of such a drug, namely to do what nature originally intended.

Thanks in advance for your replies.
 
I am not sure I agree with this statement:
40.png
Ham1:
… the drug would restore the mother’s body to the condition that God originally intended, a state of infertility.
In my humble opinion, I think this phrase is a little presumptuous. What about the possibility that God originally intended there to be variation from woman to woman?

But back to your question…

If the intent of taking the medication is contraception, then it would be sinful.

If the medication is used to correct a medical condition, your hypothetical situation would fall under the principle of double effect. The intent of the act is to correct a medical problem and the UNDESIRED side effect is contraception. Unless the medical condition is sufficiently serious, I do not think it would be licit.
 
The intent is to remedy the natural infertility that is supposed to naturally occur. Why is fertility/infertility off limits in terms of medical correction?

Double effect would assume that rendering the woman infertile by artificial means is unnatural. Only in this case it’s fixing what ought to occur but doesn’t. Ordinary contraception is frustrating the natural state this is helping the natural state.

And it’s not a stretch to see that God did not design women to have babies every 12 months.

Also, just to reiterate. I am opposed to contraception, but this seems to present a different scenario that is not easily answered with the standard arguments against contraception. THis is meant to be an intellectual exercise ONLY…Thanks for the answers so far!
 
Actually, this hypothetical situation is not all that hypothetical. Giving the mother prolactin, the hormone that normally allows a new mother to breast feed would have exactly the effect that you propose. This is not really used to treat women who have problems breast feeding, but the technology is available to introduce such a drug for this purpose. However, I think that this would fail the test for moral acceptability. Check out the post I made in the contraceptive pills for medical reasons thread for the long answer, but it fails on at least two and perhaps three essential criteria for the doctrine of the double effect to apply. First, the intent is to prevent pregnancy (ie the intent is to have the drug act as a contraceptive). This is always wrong. There is significant variability in when breast feeding women regain fertility, just as there is variability in the reglularity of a woman’s cycle. By your proposed criteria, a woman with an extremely short cycle would qualify for OCPs. Second, the condition being treated is not a serious medical problem. If one tried to argue that the intent was to assist the mom in breast feeding for the benefit of the baby, it fails because an effective alternative is available to treat the condition (formula feeding is possible, safe and effective)
 
40.png
Ham1:
Only in this case it’s fixing what ought to occur but doesn’t.
I dont think we can say what “ought” to happen, even with all the medical research nowadays.
What “ought” to happen is however God makes a particular woman.
If God makes me infertile for only 3 months , and my babies come every 9 months (arrghhhh) and the woman next door has her children 2 years apart through her own natural infertile period, then so be it.

Love Kellie
 
The intent is to restore the body to functioning as it was intended namely temporary infertility. I understand the double effect. But the reason artificial contraception is intrinsically evil (and therefore fails the first principle of the double effect) is that it is FRUSTRATING nature and deliberately rendering infertile that which ought to be fertile. In the use of my hypothetical drug (or perhaps prolactin), the intent is to HELP nature and not to frustrate nature. Contraception is frustrating God’s design, this example would be aiding God’s design -a very different act. Why would helping nature in this case be immoral? We help nature all the time through medical intervention. For women who suffer from infertility, it is permissible for them to take medication to help make their bodies fertile because that is what nature intends. How is this case different?

The big problem as I see it is that it would be very hard to judge when the use of such a drug is moral and when it is immoral. But just because a thing is difficult to judge does not mean it is intrinsically evil.
 
Our growing “intelligence” has given way to our growing arrogance. Simply put, any type of artificial means to suppress insemination is sin. Rationalizing God’s intent is man’s reasoning away the gifts of God.
 
To say that having your fertility return sooner than 11-12 months even while breastfeeding is not the way God intended it seems incorrect. First, there is a huge variation in when fertility returns. Some women remain infertile well into the toddlerhood of their kids. So between those whose infertility is 12 months vs. 24 months, which mother has something “disordered” in her body? Others (like myself) return to fertility within 2 months of birth despite using most or all of the ecological breastfeeding principles. I would never describe fertility as “not the way God intended.” Some people get pregnant 3-4 months after birth and have lots of kids real quick. Is that the result of something being wrong? Or are they just people God intended to bless with large families? As a user of NFP, I think (for now) that my early return of fertility is God blessing me with the ability to use NFP without the uncertainty that some new mothers have - He knows my needs and weeknesses. I’ve certainly never heard that an early return of fertility is a sign of illness in itself.
 
If God did create “woman” to always have extended infertility after the birth of a baby, but due to Original Sin this now varies, then I think we’re just going to have to live with it. We are living in a fallen world with many things being out of sorts.

While it is moral to treat an illness, we need to remember that fertility can never be confused with an illness.

Good question though!

Stephanie
 
Ham1,

While I do understand why you feel that temporary infertility after the birth of a child is what God intends, the natural variability in how long this period lasts is good evidence that that He does not intend ALL women to be infertile for 11-12 months. The same can be said for the natural variabilty in a woman’s cycle. Yes, God did not intend for women to be fertile all the time, but I find it hard to say that by having a shorter period of infertility, either during the normal menstrual cycle or following the birth of a baby represents a disorder. The return to fertility, whether sooner or later is the normal course of events. Artificially prolonging the period of infertility by taking a drug seems to be the unnatural course. The difference with NFP is that we are not doing anything directly to alter the course of our fertile and infertile periods. We just monitor the normal signs of fertility and make decisions about whether or not to have intercourse. Monitoring the return to fertility while breastfeeding by using NFP during this interval can be difficult, but it is not impossible.

The question of taking medicines to restore fertility is a different topic altogether (but one that might be interesting to discuss)
 
Some good responses here…Thanks!

I think perhaps the key to the question (as some of you have outlined) is whether lack of infertility due to breastfeeding constitutes a defect. I tend to think that it does, but I can definitely see the arguments that this is just natural variation.

Obviously, as the Church’s teaching stands, there is no differentiation made in the scenario I have presented. So as it stands, one would have to say that it could not be morally chosen. Contraception is taught to be intrinsically evil. I think that could be changed in the future to contraception that impedes the natural state is intrinsically immoral but as of yet it is not. If it were, it still leads us back to “what constitutes the natural design.”

I still think that it’s an interesting and challenging question.

To continue and setting aside for the moment the Church teaching…

Why does the frustrating vs. helping nature argument not hold up?

Why is the early return of fertility in your view NOT a defect but rather just a natural variation?

Thanks again for the responses.

I do think this is worth exploring in philosophical terms. I have always feared having this question being thrown at me by someone arguing that contraception is NOT intrinsically evil!

FYI to Meglin, I am not trying to be arrogant. I understand the teachings of the Church on this subject and I have absolutely no disagreement with the Church. I realize that science can make man arrogant, however that is not what I am advocating. It is usually in discussions like this that we can better learn the precise philosophical reasoning that lies behind the teachings of our Church.
 
Dr Paul:
Actually, this hypothetical situation is not all that hypothetical. Giving the mother prolactin, the hormone that normally allows a new mother to breast feed would have exactly the effect that you propose. This is not really used to treat women who have problems breast feeding, but the technology is available to introduce such a drug for this purpose. However, I think that this would fail the test for moral acceptability. Check out the post I made in the contraceptive pills for medical reasons thread for the long answer, but it fails on at least two and perhaps three essential criteria for the doctrine of the double effect to apply. First, the intent is to prevent pregnancy (ie the intent is to have the drug act as a contraceptive). This is always wrong. There is significant variability in when breast feeding women regain fertility, just as there is variability in the reglularity of a woman’s cycle. By your proposed criteria, a woman with an extremely short cycle would qualify for OCPs. Second, the condition being treated is not a serious medical problem. If one tried to argue that the intent was to assist the mom in breast feeding for the benefit of the baby, it fails because an effective alternative is available to treat the condition (formula feeding is possible, safe and effective)
What if the intent was to breastfeed for the benefit of the child and to save money? I had no natural “let down” response. I never leaked milk, not one drop and got incredibly engorged, the kids just couldn’t latch on. Hand pumps … worthless… I could hardly force the stuff out. I also had issues with two of the kids being in the hospital a week after birth because of jaundice (was told it was a reaction because I had an antibody against their blood type).

Women who breastfeed can and do still get pregnant despite having the prolactin naturally. I expect that would be true of women who would use it to supplement their own prolactin. There is no barrier, there wouldn’t be an abortificient (sp?) aspect. Likely fertility would come back in a similiar timing to other breastfeeding women even with the supplemental prolactin.

Given your tests above, why does breastfeeding without the chemical help pass the moral test? It is promoted for delaying a return to fertility (done with the intent to prevent conception -usually the # 1 suggestion on most NFP sites), there is the alternative of bottle feeding which doesn’t supress fertility which is safe and effective. I know breastfeeding isn’t a treatment for an illness and something you do naturally (though it certainly didn’t come naturally for me) … but with the specific intent to suppress fertility and a safe alternative in bottlefeeding it seems like breastfeeding shouldn’t be allowed either.
 
The thing is, breastfeeding is the means by which God intends human mothers to feed their babies. Formula may be (assuming clean water supply, an assumption which cannot be made globally) safe, and while it is effective in providing nourishment, it is not as good as breastfeeding. The fact that some women have a fairly significant period of natural infertility while nursing may be touted as a “side benefit,” but it remains that the primary purpose of breastfeeding is providing the baby with the best possible food for said baby, reduce likelihood of illnesses in baby (a benefit that seems to extend well beyond the breastfeeding years, as all of my children get sick less often & when they do, have a less serious case compared to my husband and I), and yes, cost can be a serious motivator (free vs. $1000+/yr).

While infertility is a clear problem, and medical treatment can help sometimes–this is quite different than chemically inducing infertility because we think it is right. If a couple who experiences early return of fertility has a serious reason to postpone adding another child, they can licitly use NFP for that purpose, there’s no need to create a drug to “help” them. Natural infertility post-partum may be a natural consequence, but that does not mean there is a right to demand any specified amount of time, or to consider any arbitrary standard (averages, by their very nature, point to the fact that there will be some on the low end and some on the high end–not homogeneity within the group). Should we induce fertility at some point post-partum, or trust that it will return in God’s time?
 
40.png
marciadietrich:
Given your tests above, why does breastfeeding without the chemical help pass the moral test? It is promoted for delaying a return to fertility (done with the intent to prevent conception -usually the # 1 suggestion on most NFP sites), there is the alternative of bottle feeding which doesn’t supress fertility which is safe and effective. I know breastfeeding isn’t a treatment for an illness and something you do naturally (though it certainly didn’t come naturally for me) … but with the specific intent to suppress fertility and a safe alternative in bottlefeeding it seems like breastfeeding shouldn’t be allowed either.
Good questions! Thanks to all for contributing to this discussion. The difference between breast feeding as a means of avoiding pregnancy and using a drug for the same effect is very similar to (if not identical) to the difference between NFP and contraception in the non-breast feeding situation. With serious reasons for wanting to postpone another pregnancy (I don’t think anyone would argue that already having another baby in the house is not a good reason), the desire to avoid pregnancy is not in itself immoral. What is immoral is the deliberate attempt to interfere (using artificial means) with one’s natural fertility. The key question here is whether or not an early return to fertility constitutes a disease process. I would argue that it does not.
 
This is really a good discussion. A lot of thought provoking material. I guess my stance on it all, coming from someone who has used both contraception(before I knew) and NFP, is I think you have to watch where your thinking is…it is very easy even with NFP to get a contraceptive mentality. We did anyways. I don’t believe just because you have a baby in the house is a grave reason to practice NFP. The teaching is, there must be a grave physical or/and financial reason. We have two children that are 13 mos apart while we were learning the NFP, boy that was an upset! Not now of course, but you see what I mean. I have found that for every child, if we really go to Him in times of what we feel is a crisis, He will always give the necessary graces and blessings. The reasons for the use of NFP that the Church gives are the exact reasons that the Church of England gave for couples to practice artificial birth control, and look where that has gone. The Church sometimes in all her mercy does things to help people get a little closer to God. I am sure we all have heard the statistics that 85% of Catholics are using some form of artificial birth control. If one looks at history, the Church has done away with some disciplines that were not being adhered to, to keep people from committing mortal sins;i.e. no meat on Fridays only in Lent. What I am trying to say is, God gave us all our fertility as a blessing. None of us know when that is going to be taken away. What if it is today, tomorrow, next month, next year…are we ready to be happy with not having any more children according to our time frame. I don’t want to be the woman thinking someday I wonder how many children I could have had if I had been totally open to His plan. God never makes any mistakes on what he hands each one of us. Alot of children all at once can teach one some serious patience. That might be what is needed to get to heaven. Only God knows. God bless you all.
 
My thought process is this. I am one of those who started back to fertility with in a 2 month period, who definitely envied a good friend who was infertile for 2 years. However, I have never been one in any circumstance to do things with medicine that can be done in other natural ways, especially when the situation is not life threatening. example: even when trying to loose weight, (which at times can be life threatening) all the pills in the world are not going to help (I know), if you are unwilling to watch what you eat, and excersize. The same with fertility. There are actually benefits and graces given to the couple who will practice according to church teaching, even if God designs that you should be fertile sooner. The benefits of breastfeeding are tremendous to baby as well as mother, and if medication is given for the purpose of helping the mother to breastfeed, then that is okay, but not for the purpose of prolonging infertility.
 
40.png
Momof9:
I don’t believe just because you have a baby in the house is a grave reason to practice NFP. The teaching is, there must be a grave physical or/and financial reason.
You are correct in pointing out the dangers of a contraceptive mentality, even when using the practice of NFP. As clearly stated in the catechism

"For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness, but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. (CCC #2368)

However, a just reason is not limited to grave physical and/or financial reasons. Some (but not necessrily all) parents are poorly able to cope with the stresses and demands that a new child brings. Responsible parenthood requires that the father and mother are able to meet the physical, emotional and financial needs of the entire family. Being overwhelmed by the birth of new child, experiencing postpartem depression, being physically exhausted from lack of sleep, and many other reasons may be just reasons. The key is that the parents are sincerely acting out of love and not selfishness. The beauty of NFP is that even when parents come to a decision to try to space out the birth of another child, God can veto the decision. One good test of whether parents have fallen into a contraceptive mentality is to consider how they would respond if they did became pregnant while using NFP. One should remain open to the idea of having children, even if they are attempting to avoid conception. Using a chemical means to alter one’s fertility is really difficult to reconcile with this mentality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top