If a person's wife takes birth control pills, how culpable is the husband if he has sex?

[TheHolyGhost]

If a person’s wife is taking birth control pills, let’s say for the sake of making things more serious, birth control pills that contain abortifacients, and the husband has sex with her and ejaculates inside her vagina each time, how culpable is he if a micro-abortion were to take place?

Is he just as guilty for contributing to the abortion indirectly by having sex with the wife even though he is against abortion?

 

[1ke]

We cannot answer that.

Such a person should be under the guidance of his confessor. The confessor would use guidance from the Church such as the Vademecum for Confessors, which addresses such topics as being the sinned-against spouse.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Can’t edit anymore, but sort of a side question… for these combination birth control pills, is there any way to tell which method was used in preventing the pregnancy, whether it was the contraceptive aspect that kicked in or the abortive?

Do women know if they have had or are having a micro-abortion?

 

[1ke]

No.

I don’t understand what you mean by “micro abortion”. But no, a woman would not be able to tell by what mechanism the Pill is working at any given time, the physician’s prescribing information (available on Pill websites) would indicate the detailed pharmacology

The abortifacient mechanism of the Pill is highly theoretical, some Pills can work this way if they fail to supress ovulation, but there aren’t any experiments I know of documenting how often or even if they actuallly do.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

We cannot answer that.

Such a person should be under the guidance of his confessor. The confessor would use guidance from the Church such as the Vademecum for Confessors, which addresses such topics as being the sinned-against spouse.

This.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

No.

I don’t understand what you mean by “micro abortion”. But no, a woman would not be able to tell by what mechanism the Pill is working at any given time, the physician’s prescribing information (available on Pill websites) would indicate the detailed pharmacology

The abortifacient mechanism of the Pill is highly theoretical, some Pills can work this way if they fail to supress ovulation, but there aren’t any experiments I know of documenting how often or even if they actuallly do.

By micro-abortion meaning a fertilized egg that could not attach itself to the womb that ends up dying.

I guess a person would want to know what mechanism of the pill kicked in, but there is no way to tell. So that leaves a person 50/50 on it. But are you saying that the abortive mechanism is just theoretical? Or do you mean that there is no data to indicate that the mechanisms of suppressing ovulation fails and therefore don’t really know if the third mechanism even comes into play because the first is so effective?

 

[1ke]

Or do you mean that there is no data to indicate that the mechanisms of suppressing ovulation fails and therefore don’t really know if the third mechanism even comes into play because the first is so effective?

Correct. We don’t really know when or if this actually occurs.

 

[Stillsosola]

the pill suppresses ovulation to answer the how it works question and no I dont think you are culpable as long as your not the one forcing her your not forcing her to take them are you? Are they prescribed for a medical condition? Contraception is a slippery slope with alot of confessors so I dont know how much info he could give you about it just avoid sleeping with her and if she asks tell her due to her birth control use which is contrary to your faith

 

[RoseMary131]

If birth control pills that contain abortifacients

if a micro-abortion were to take place?

The birth control pill, patch, implant, shot… are abortifacients - period.

The hormones in this that “control’s birth” is an abortifacient.

Does it always act as an abortifcient? No

The first line of “defense” against life - is to cause the woman not to ovulate. Without ovulation, no egg is released.

The second line of “defense” against life - is to change the mucus of the woman. This will change the ability of the sperm to reach the egg as easily, once Defense #1 did not work and the woman ovulates - releasing an egg.

The third line of “defense” against life - is to change the lining of the uterus, to make the uterus hostile to the fertilized egg, to make the uterus unable to nourish the newly formed human life.

Now, the egg has been released, the sperm has united with the egg - there is new life - a new individual. The fertilization happens in the Fallopian tubes and the newly formed life must implant into the lining of the uterus in order to be nourished until birth.

This third line of “defense” is chemically changing the woman’s body. If it “works”, their child will die - is aborted.

You can call it micro if you want… an abortion is an abortion…

Does it make it any smaller of killing their unborn newly conceived child if we call it “micro-abortion”?

 

[RoseMary131]

Do women know if they have had or are having a -]micro-/-]abortion?

If an egg is fertilized and the lining of the uterus can not sustain this new life, the life is aborted. The woman will not know.

My belief is that when (if) the parents of this child are in Heaven, they will get to meet their precious child.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

If an egg is fertilized and the lining of the uterus can not sustain this new life, the life is aborted. The woman will not know.

My belief is that when (if) the parents of this child are in Heaven, they will get to meet their precious child.

I figured as much. I did a quick google search after what 1ke said and apparently BCP’s work 95-99% in suppressing ovulation. So that seems to indicate that there is a 95-99% chance that an egg was never fertilized. The abortifacient mechanism acts as a “back up” plan, but it would seem the first method would have taken care of it, though no one can be sure in any one instance.

PS- I use the term “micro abortion” for the purpose of asking the question. If a woman knowing has an abortion, then she will obviously know she’s had one. But in saying “micro abortion” this refers to a woman indirectly or somewhat unknowingly having an abortion.

 

[maryjk]

Can’t edit anymore, but sort of a side question… for these combination birth control pills, is there any way to tell which method was used in preventing the pregnancy, whether it was the contraceptive aspect that kicked in or the abortive?

Do women know if they have had or are having a micro-abortion?

It depends.

I know when I ovulate. I have pain. So, if I were taking birth control pills, and I had pain, I would know that I ovulated. I would know that the first mechanism did not work.

So, I wouldn’t know if the egg actually fertilized, but I would know if there *was *an egg to be fertilized.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Is anyone else shocked that the Holy Ghost doesn’t know the answer to this question? Seriously, perhaps taking one of the Divine Names as your pseudonym isn’t such a great idea. I mean, why not just sign on as Jesus Christ or God?

 

[Listener]

It depends.

I know when I ovulate. I have pain. So, if I were taking birth control pills, and I had pain, I would know that I ovulated. I would know that the first mechanism did not work.

So, I wouldn’t know if the egg actually fertilized, but I would know if there *was *an egg to be fertilized.

I agree with this. When I was young, I could also tell. I really think that if most women had “breakthrough” ovulation, they would know it. I have also read that the pill works by preventing ovulation 95% of the time, so most women probably aren’t ovulating while on the pill. You are much more likely to lose a pregnancy in this way if you are NOT on the pill. I have read in a medical book that as many as 50% of fertilized eggs are lost in this way. So if you were on the pill and this did happen, and you somehow could know it happened, how would you know that it wasn’t one of those defective pregnancies that would have been lost anyway? Where is your full knowledge and full consent?

So, no, I don’t think this husband would be guilty of anything.

 

[thistle]

Is anyone else shocked that the Holy Ghost doesn’t know the answer to this question? Seriously, perhaps taking one of the Divine Names as your pseudonym isn’t such a great idea. I mean, why not just sign on as Jesus Christ or God?

What does anyone’s forum name have to do with the thread topic?

 

[Cojuanco]

If a person’s wife is taking birth control pills, let’s say for the sake of making things more serious, birth control pills that contain abortifacients, and the husband has sex with her and ejaculates inside her vagina each time, how culpable is he if a micro-abortion were to take place?

Is he just as guilty for contributing to the abortion indirectly by having sex with the wife even though he is against abortion?

First, the scientific jury is still out as to whether the forms of the pill commonly used in the First World are abortifacients per se. Preventing implantation is a potential side effect, but then again, a lot of other medicines also have similar side effects. Otherwise, taking Viagra for erectile dysfunction would be sinful because one of the potential side effects are lethal heart attacks.

Secondly, as to having intercourse, the Pontifical Council for the Family has issued this advice to confessors (my comments in bold, which of course are not authoritative):

1. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund.** [This is the problem you describe.]** In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses** [so this is not talking about, say, marital rape]**, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

1. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself [So therefore, ordinarily one could not wear a condom while having intercourse with their wife who at the same time is taking oral contraceptives];
2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse**[which seems to me to be a matter to be decided between the innocent party and the confessor, but seems to be the case, for example, where withholding the marital debt would cause deep emotional problems in the marriage or exacerbate existing ones]**;
3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).[So one cannot encourage the wife to remain on the pill for family-planning purposes, but should seek to dissuade them, using due prudence]

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

Note that this applies only if the woman is taking the pill for family planning purposes. This does not cover the normally morally licit scenario of the woman taking the Pill as a treatment of serious illness, as prescribed by a medical man.

 

[PietroPaolo]

What does anyone’s forum name have to do with the thread topic?

The thread is on culpability for sin.
Sacrilege is sinful.
The OP’s forum name is sacrilegious.
Therefore the OP’s forum name is sinful.
Therefore a post on the OP’s forum name is on topic.

God bless.

 

[thistle]

The thread is on culpability for sin.
Sacrilege is sinful.
The OP’s forum name is sacrilegious.
Therefore the OP’s forum name is sinful.
Therefore a post on the OP’s forum name is on topic.

God bless.

I’m assuming you must be joking.
Who says the forum name is sacrilege? Are you suggesting that Catholic Answers Forums is committing a sin of grave matter by allowing a member to have this name?
You have no right to judge!

 

[Abu]

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #59, 1930: “Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.”

Thus should a faithful Catholic endeavour to persuade a sinning partner to repent and reform.

 

[Cojuanco]

But it must be done with prudence, but not necessarily then and there, and certainly not every time.