Hypothetical NFP-type question

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriousInIL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CuriousInIL

Guest
This is a hypothetical question (at least for now).
Assume that there is a medication/supplement that has the effect on a large percentage (+95%) of fertile women that ovulation occurs very regularly 48 hours after consumption if the supplement is taken approximately every 21 days. Thus, this supplement brings extreme reliability to knowing when ovulation occurs.
With that certainty, couples could use NFP rules to very much enhance the possibility of conception if TTC and would have very certain birth control if practicing periodic continence to avoid pregnancy.
Would taking such a supplement be moral? Why or why not?
 
CuriousInIL said:
This is a hypothetical question (at least for now).
Assume that there is a medication/supplement that has the effect on a large percentage (+95%) of fertile women that ovulation occurs very regularly 48 hours after consumption if the supplement is taken approximately every 21 days. Thus, this supplement brings extreme reliability to knowing when ovulation occurs.
With that certainty, couples could use NFP rules to very much enhance the possibility of conception if TTC and would have very certain birth control if practicing periodic continence to avoid pregnancy.
Would taking such a supplement be moral? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
hmm this is difficult. Some women already have very regular cycles, so there is nothing morally wrong with having a regular cycle. Obviously intent would play a part in determining whether it is morally acceptable, but I’m sure your more curious as to whether just the act of taking the medication would be morally wrong or right. I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint anything wrong with it myself so I would side on saying it would be moral right now.
 
Not all bad ideas are sins. I’m not sure this would be sinful since the couple is still maintaining the relatively normal human fertility pattern and monthly comes face to face with the reality of sex and babies being non-separate topics (which has more to do, IMO, with large NFP families than ‘oopsies’ do), it might be licit.

On the other hand, why chemically manipulate the woman’s cycle for mere regularity’s sake? ALL drugs have side effects, and should only be used when the harm of not using them outweighs the side effects from using them.
 
I think it would have to be shown first that the drug itself ONLY makes ovulation regular and does not affect, in any way, the egg, the sperm, the embryo, or the implantation of the embryo, or the uterus’ natural function.
 
Since drugs that induce ovulation are acceptable as a treatment for infertility, I don’t see how this would be any different.
 
Corki said:
Since drugs that induce ovulation are acceptable as a treatment for infertility, I don’t see how this would be any different.
Click to expand...
As long as coitus is used as the method of insemination, ovulation induction drugs are morally allowed.

Staging ovulation at one time in order to ensure that you will be rendered infertile at some other time at which you wish to engage in intercourse is not legitimate, but artificially contraceptive. As Pope Paul VI put it, sexual relation between husband and wife continue to be legitimate even at times when “for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile” (Humanae Vitae, underline mine).

It is not legitimate to choose to have intercourse at times when a husband and wife are infertile for reasons dependent upon their own will. If someone were forcing the husband or wife to take contraceptives against his or her will, their marital sexual activity would still be legitimate, even though they are aware that they are infertile for artificial reasons. It is the connection between the infertility and an act of their will that is important in determining whether intercourse is legitimate.
 
EasterJoy said:
As long as coitus is used as the method of insemination, ovulation induction drugs are morally allowed.

Staging ovulation at one time in order to ensure that you will be rendered infertile at some other time at which you wish to engage in intercourse is not legitimate, but artificially contraceptive. As Pope Paul VI put it, sexual relation between husband and wife continue to be legitimate even at times when “for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile” (Humanae Vitae, underline mine).

It is not legitimate to choose to have intercourse at times when a husband and wife are infertile for reasons dependent upon their own will. If someone were forcing the husband or wife to take contraceptives against his or her will, their marital sexual activity would still be legitimate, even though they are aware that they are infertile for artificial reasons. It is the connection between the infertility and an act of their will that is important in determining whether intercourse is legitimate.
Click to expand...
Just thinking aloud here -
  1. the first quote taken alone would been to preclude a couple from having relations after a voluntary sterilization, even if confessed and absolved.
  2. would a drug such as mentioned in the OP supress ovulation at any other time except the scheduled time? If so, it would be wrong. But if ovulation could still occur “naturally” that’s different. With fertile women, there’s always the chance of an additional egg unless ovulation is supressed. The main way oral contraceptives work is they “trick” the ovaries into “thinking” a woman is already pregnant and so no ovulation occurs. But barring pregnancy or supression of ovulation, there is still an element of independence.
Am I way off track?
 
Corki said:
Just thinking aloud here -
  1. the first quote taken alone would been to preclude a couple from having relations after a voluntary sterilization, even if confessed and absolved.
  2. would a drug such as mentioned in the OP supress ovulation at any other time except the scheduled time? If so, it would be wrong. But if ovulation could still occur “naturally” that’s different. With fertile women, there’s always the chance of an additional egg unless ovulation is supressed. The main way oral contraceptives work is they “trick” the ovaries into “thinking” a woman is already pregnant and so no ovulation occurs. But barring pregnancy or supression of ovulation, there is still an element of independence.
Am I way off track?
Click to expand...
It is the act with the intention to contracept that is the sin, not the marital act afterwards. If you take action to contracept and later repent of it, you don’t have to be able to reverse the act or wait until the contraceptive effect wears off in order to resume relations.

As far as (2), I was answering as if her “ideal situation” could be realized: that is, if ovulation could be artificially planned to hit on this day and not on that day.

Now, if a woman were to take the drug with the intention that she could conceive by having intercourse on such-and-such a day, it wouldn’t be contraceptive if she were to have relations with her husband during the infertile time, even if they “missed” the fertile window. The drug would not have been taken with the intention of rendering herself infertile; that was an unintended side effect of rendering herself fertile on some other day. It is taking a drug or otherwise acting for the purpose of artificially rendering a marital act infertile that is problematic…and that is true whether you choose a way that achieves that end or not. It is the acting with an intention to achieve that end that is the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top