C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Ok, I’m curious, please list all of my BETTER solutions. :ehh:
- Status
K
Kelfa28
Guest
This bugs me too.I get really irritated that the bolded part of #3 gets thrown around. I used to consider myself pro-choice, and it’s stuff like those statements that allowed me to continue thinking pro-lifers were stupid for a long, long time (I was a teen and early 20-something who thought I knew everything). CAN hormonal contraceptives act as an abortifacient? Yes. That matters. But it’s not their primary mechanism, and that matters too. The primary mechanism is to prevent ovulation. If ovulation does not occur, abortion cannot occur. But you have folks trying to say the above and it makes us sound ignorant and uneducated. The distinction matters. We need to be clear about facts.
Now, if you want to talk about a contraceptive method that only works by causing abortion, you’ve got one - the copper IUD (not all IUDs). But that’s not how it works for hormonal methods.
The pill is NOT used to cause abortions.
The way it’s discussed here…100% of all eggs are fertilized and then aborted when on the pill.
Anyone know the actual stats on how remote this actually is?
Are there stats even available?
It’s remote because the pill suppresses ovulation.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yes. Let’s.
H
heidi_storage
Guest
Right. I’ve been very hesitant to bring this up, because readers might mistakenly believe that I am trying to promote anti-Catholic teaching on birth control. I am not. I do think, however, that it’s a mistake to call OCPs abortifacients; the combined contraceptive pills are quite good at suppressing ovulation.
Frankly, a woman is probably more likely to create an unfavorable environment for a fertilized egg when she’s returning to fertility while breastfeeding. For many women, the first few ovulatory cycles are accompanied by a short luteal phase, meaning that a fertilized egg won’t be able to implant. Does this mean that breastfeeding is abortifacient? Of course not!
A
alphawoman
Guest
This set of position papers from the American Association of Prolife OBGYNs might be of interest. It informed my discussions to some degree with my priest and Catholic bioethicist when I was given permission to use combined oral contraceptives as part of a treatment plan for severe PCOS. Please be advised that the position statement is not provided by exclusively Catholic physicians, and so the document needs to be read through a critical lens.
aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/
As with all cases such as these, the details are critical for making a good decision. My personal view on use of oral contraceptives is aligned with the Church-- NEVER for contraception, and only with careful consultation for serious medical issues.
Hope this helps!
aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/
As with all cases such as these, the details are critical for making a good decision. My personal view on use of oral contraceptives is aligned with the Church-- NEVER for contraception, and only with careful consultation for serious medical issues.
Hope this helps!
S
sherimarie
Guest
The first few cycles are typically anovulatory. There is not a lot of evidence at all that the BCP is good at suppressing ovulation. The proof that it suppresses implantation can be viewed every month in the reduction of menstrual flow from the person on the pill. Compared to how it is for the average woman, it is much reduced. That matters very much according to IVF doctors there is a big difference in implantation rates when the uterine lining is properly built up.
S
sherimarie
Guest
Yes, let me contact Dr. Google and put forward many good suggestions for your treatment plan.
Wait, here’s a better idea, find a good pro-life Dr and pray that God gives him the wisdom to fix you up.
And if he suggests anything contrary to church teaching ditch him and find a better one.
S
sherimarie
Guest
I’m not sure what your referring to here.
HV no.14 states “it is not permissible, not even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom.”
What you are doing when you take the pill is making your womb hostile to humane life. Now so does radiation or certain cancer treatments. So if you find these treatments to be unavoidable you must refrain from sex so you don’t endanger your children.
Someone tell me that makes sense!!!
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
Well, you just said that she’s pursuing the wrong treatment plan, so asking you what the right one is seemed logical.Yes, let me contact Dr. Google and put forward many good suggestions for your treatment plan.
Wait, here’s a better idea, find a good pro-life Dr and pray that God gives him the wisdom to fix you up.
And if he suggests anything contrary to church teaching ditch him and find a better one.
The OP did find a “good, pro-life doctor.” Who was apparently totally unfamiliar with Humanae Vitae, and whose solution was that she undergo painful, debilitating surgeries every three months for the rest of her fertile life. These surgeries have a 2-month recovery time.
Whereas, as we’ve demonstrated, accepting hormonal treatment for her condition a) isn’t against Church teaching (I cited Humanae Vitae; you cited the secular media, which, despite what they so often seem to think, is not a source of Catholic teaching) and b) is the standard medical recommendation for her condition.
In endometriosis, tissue that is ordinarily found in the uterus grows outside the uterus. In the OP’s case, it’s everywhere: on her gastrointestinal organs, spread throughout her abdomen, and so on. Using hormonal therapy means that this stuff can’t grow where it isn’t supposed to anymore, meaning far less pain and suffering, which is the primary goal.
I ask again: cite a source of authentic Catholic teaching which says that this isn’t an acceptable treatment method. I have already demonstrated that it is. You keep stating your opinion, and you’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s not in line with Church teaching.
K
kptrs
Guest
This is quite heartless, considering what the OP has already been through. Please read her posting history before making statements like this.Yes, let me contact Dr. Google and put forward many good suggestions for your treatment plan.
Wait, here’s a better idea, find a good pro-life Dr and pray that God gives him the wisdom to fix you up.
And if he suggests anything contrary to church teaching ditch him and find a better one.
Perhaps you are the one who needs to consult with trustworthy Church officials before harassing someone who is, in actuality, making Church-approved choices.
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
I’m not sure what your referring to here.
HV no.14 states “it is not permissible, not even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom.”
What you are doing when you take the pill is making your womb hostile to humane life. Now so does radiation or certain cancer treatments. So if you find these treatments to be unavoidable you must refrain from sex so you don’t endanger your children.
Someone tell me that makes sense!!!
- Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. "
I believe you’re referring to that paragraph.
The OP isn’t doing “evil.” She’s seeking treatment for a medical condition, and contraception may be a result of that treatment. Are you familiar with the theological principle of double effect? Here ya go: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33215
If she were taking contraceptive pills to avoid getting pregnant because she could die if she got pregnant, the primary effect of the pills would be contraceptive, even if for a good reason, and would be unacceptable in Church teaching. If the primary purpose of the pills is medicinal–see above and below–then it’s acceptable.
That these medications can render her sterile, temporarily or otherwise, is an unintended consequence of taking them. By your argument, a woman with ovarian cancer couldn’t have a hysterectomy in order to save her life because she’ll become sterile in the process. Similarly, she couldn’t have many types of radiation or chemotherapy treatments because the Catholic Church doesn’t permit sterilization per se. It does permit treatment of medical conditions if a secondary and unintended effect of the medical treatment is sterility. See below.
- On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Ubicaritas,
While I am not siding with Sheri in this debate, I think you misread her post. She said that while certain forms of medical treatment may be licit, that a couple must abstain from sexual relations during that time, because of the possibility that a baby conceived would be aborted due to side effects of the treatment.
Now, I am the one who hunted down the CA Apologist links in Convert’s other threads, which characterize the possible loss of the baby as an unintended miscarriage, and not a directly intended abortion. So I am still sticking with my advice to contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center, and rely upon a priest and doctor for personal direction, instead of strangers on the Internet. But I think it is only fair to acknowledge that some people, like Sheri, will object to this idea of using the pill while also having sexual relations, not because of its contraceptive effect, but for its abortifacient one. That is too great a risk for some folks to accept, especially when they are not bedridden and disabled.
However, the risk of miscarriage while on the pill for endometriosis is probably no greater than the risk of miscarriage due to the disease itself, and probably even less, actually. And the risk is probably still less than it is for a sexually active 45yo woman. Many of my older friends have shared with me that they miscarry many times over in their 40s. Like dozens of times. They are not guilty of those lives lost. And since the Church allows therapeutic use of hormones for endometriosis, neither would such a woman be guilty of causing a miscarriage.
However, avoiding possible guilt of sin is different than avoiding the objective reality of miscarriage in the first place. That is the scenario that is causing grief here, and why, in my opinion, Convert needs to get definitive answers and then stop listening to strangers on the Internet, who will likely burden her conscience more than it already needs to be.
To Convert,
I hope that you find relief through treatment with your new doctors and the answers you need from experts. Please guard yourself. This issue is personal and sensitive and I hate the idea of strangers on the Internet interfering with your medical treatment or married sex life when this is an issue the Church has already addressed.
While I am not siding with Sheri in this debate, I think you misread her post. She said that while certain forms of medical treatment may be licit, that a couple must abstain from sexual relations during that time, because of the possibility that a baby conceived would be aborted due to side effects of the treatment.
Now, I am the one who hunted down the CA Apologist links in Convert’s other threads, which characterize the possible loss of the baby as an unintended miscarriage, and not a directly intended abortion. So I am still sticking with my advice to contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center, and rely upon a priest and doctor for personal direction, instead of strangers on the Internet. But I think it is only fair to acknowledge that some people, like Sheri, will object to this idea of using the pill while also having sexual relations, not because of its contraceptive effect, but for its abortifacient one. That is too great a risk for some folks to accept, especially when they are not bedridden and disabled.
However, the risk of miscarriage while on the pill for endometriosis is probably no greater than the risk of miscarriage due to the disease itself, and probably even less, actually. And the risk is probably still less than it is for a sexually active 45yo woman. Many of my older friends have shared with me that they miscarry many times over in their 40s. Like dozens of times. They are not guilty of those lives lost. And since the Church allows therapeutic use of hormones for endometriosis, neither would such a woman be guilty of causing a miscarriage.
However, avoiding possible guilt of sin is different than avoiding the objective reality of miscarriage in the first place. That is the scenario that is causing grief here, and why, in my opinion, Convert needs to get definitive answers and then stop listening to strangers on the Internet, who will likely burden her conscience more than it already needs to be.
To Convert,
I hope that you find relief through treatment with your new doctors and the answers you need from experts. Please guard yourself. This issue is personal and sensitive and I hate the idea of strangers on the Internet interfering with your medical treatment or married sex life when this is an issue the Church has already addressed.
P
pensmama87
Guest
A woman on the pill does not menstruate. She experiences withdrawal bleeding during the week of placebo pills.
However, you are correct that the uterine lining does not build up, either. The whole system is put on hold. There aren’t cycles. That’s why you can’t chart on the Pill.
There are Pill babies, so yes, breakthrough ovulation has to occur sometimes, but what you’re suggesting is not accurate.
A
alphawoman
Guest
Ubi and jmjzelie both make good points in their posts. (Thank you both!)
Ubi has kindly and credibly provided the Church’s teaching on the subject, which can be applied to the specifics of any individual’s medical treatment.
Jmjzelie makes an excellent point that consultation with bioethicists/priests is an important step in deciding on medical treatment to give due consideration to the specific factors at play.
Sherri is expressing personal opinion which is not reflective of Church teaching on therapeutic use of medicines that can induce sterility licitly under the principle of double effect. That she would not be personally comfortable with the possibility of unintended miscarriage resulting from therapeutic use of oral contraceptives, absent an understanding of the moral and medical factors underpinning convert’s case, should have ZERO bearing on convert’s decision.
Sherri, I commend you for your obvious passion for protecting the unborn. Doubtless, your posts here are made in a spirit of promoting life and respect for God’s natural order. While your motives are good, I would gently advise you that your treatment of the topic is not reflective of the teaching of the Church.
Ubi has kindly and credibly provided the Church’s teaching on the subject, which can be applied to the specifics of any individual’s medical treatment.
Jmjzelie makes an excellent point that consultation with bioethicists/priests is an important step in deciding on medical treatment to give due consideration to the specific factors at play.
Sherri is expressing personal opinion which is not reflective of Church teaching on therapeutic use of medicines that can induce sterility licitly under the principle of double effect. That she would not be personally comfortable with the possibility of unintended miscarriage resulting from therapeutic use of oral contraceptives, absent an understanding of the moral and medical factors underpinning convert’s case, should have ZERO bearing on convert’s decision.
Sherri, I commend you for your obvious passion for protecting the unborn. Doubtless, your posts here are made in a spirit of promoting life and respect for God’s natural order. While your motives are good, I would gently advise you that your treatment of the topic is not reflective of the teaching of the Church.
S
sherimarie
Guest
I did quote HV> having sex while on the pill could endanger a child’s life. You folks come back with “she can’t get pregnant any way, no chance” and “the pill doesn’t always cause abortion” and etc. Im saying look at it from a logical stand point. You don’t partake in activity that can effect a childs life. If she is determined to take the pill let her abstain. What is the problem with that?
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
I…don’t…even…:dts:Yes, let me contact Dr. Google and put forward many good suggestions for your treatment plan.
Wait, here’s a better idea, find a good pro-life Dr and pray that God gives him the wisdom to fix you up.
And if he suggests anything contrary to church teaching ditch him and find a better one.
First of all, I did. Did you not read anything I said???
Second of all, these doctors aren’t everywhere, so not everyone will have this luxury.
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
So could having sex while breastfeeding/spending time in a hot tub/taking ibuprofen. The church doesn’t forbid any of those activities, either, unless they’re directly intended to prevent implantation.
You quoted paragraph 14 of Humanae Vitae, which states that one cannot use contraception as contraception even for a good reason. An example of that would be a woman who’s had five C-sections, and whose doctor has told her that if she gets pregnant again, she and the baby will probably die. Avoiding pregnancy is probably a good idea in her situation, but that doesn’t mean she can use contraception in order to do so.
Paragraph 15, which I also quoted, says perfectly clearly that medical treatments which can have unintended, contraceptive side effects are acceptable under Catholic teaching.
Now, you and jmjzelie do bring up a good point: the pill, though rarely, due to its suppression of ovulation, can be abortifacient. The Church, however, leaves it entirely up to the couple whether or not they’ll abstain or not during use of the pill, and has no requirements in either direction on it, just like it doesn’t require breastfeeding or perimenopausal women to abstain from sex, even though it’s quite possible that they’ll have some early miscarriages as a result of the hormonal levels associated with both seasons of life. The Church does not require abstinence of a couple when the woman is taking a medical treatment that could potentially cause sterility or miscarriage–again, see the principle of double effect. Paragraph 15 explicitly states that some medical treatments have “contraceptive effect” but are still acceptable as long as their purpose is treatment of a medical condition, and not contraception. They’d hardly have a contraceptive effect if the couple wasn’t having sex in the first place!
As for the comments about the improbability of conception while on the pill, you’re the one who said that the pill causes miscarriages. Others stepped in and said that while that’s possible, it’s quite rare, as the primary mechanism of the pill is to prevent ovulation in the first place.
S
sherimarie
Guest
Look I really think this just comes down to common sense. You seem to think the church is leaving the door open to use of the pill for a good reason. It’s not it can’t. But this poor op is going to get a ll kinds of frazzeled if we keep this up on her thread. If you want to continue this “is the pill ok in hard cases?” arguement why not open a different thread. I would be more comfortable with that. Best of luck to the op.
P
pianistclare
Guest
P
pianistclare
Guest
She has many threads. Just read them.
- Status