Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?

[graceandglory]

Dear SwizzleStick:

How is it valid?

Let’s look at the thread question: “Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?”

It’s valid because “certain circumstances”, like making life safer for women who live in countries with poor health care, warrant birth control/contraception. Countries where contraception is easily available have healthier women.

Women who save sex for a monogamous marriage with a monogamous partner are healthier women.

Sysyphusisishappy,
You are being a troll.

The original poster is not asking your opinion.

 

[razredge]

I must say, I also find the Church’s teaching on NFP/Birth Control a bit inconsistent.

It would make more sense to either ban contraception entirely (as held by the Church Fathers) or allow other forms of birth control besides NFP.(though not anything that can be an abortifacient like the Pill)

Though I did find it quite strange that a woman only has an 8% chance of conceiving even in her fertile periods (is this just in cases of rape, or normally as well?)

How many days a month do a couple have to abstain from relations with NFP?

 

[benidict]

Since the Pontifical Academy of Life, in its statement opposing the morning after Pill, did not directly address the separate issue of being able to use hormonal therapy to derail ovulation and prevent conception completely apart from the risk of abortion, I do not believe the case is closed. What they say so far is, “No! Under no circumstances, including rape, because this is an abortifacient.” They clearly left enough room for the USCCB to make its statement, which, since it speaks for all the US bishops and they voted on it, would have been reviewed by the Vatican before publication.

Here’s a parallel question: Would it be licit to ask a rapist to wear a condom to reduce the chance of conception? No chance of abortion, there, so if that’s licit, then chemical/hormonal means ought to be just as licit.

Actually, though, since this is my professional field, I’m drafting a letter to the PAL, asking them to directly address the possibility and make a definitive statement. I have no idea if I will even get an answer, or how long an answer would take, but I’ll sure let you know if and when I get one!

(Yep, totally heroically virtuous to bear a child of rape, but I’m not at all convinced that it is a sin not to, if it can be done apart from abortion)

Oh! You Are Good! Excellent questions.

 

[benidict]

SPERM ARE NOT PEOPLE. There is no moral weight to letting them die (or, rather, avoiding letting exactly one of them live).

The Church tells us that NFP is moral, so she in her wisdom is saying it is perfectly okay, for grave reasons, to act in a manner that prevents sperm from living. Poor little guys.

Sheesh, if sperm mattered that much, then you couldn’t have sex during pregnancy, because there is no chance at all that any of them would make it. And, by the way, if you’re not having sex for whatever reason, they get reabsorbed by the body, and gasp DIE.

This reminds me of someone who made the comment on one of these threads, that “Every Sperm is Sacred” is from Monty Python, not the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

I won’t have internet access for a while, now, so I’m not giving you the cold shoulder, but I won’t be replying to anything for a bit.

This was raised on another thread. I think your doing a great job. But the canned answers get tireing. Stick to your guns. I was gonna quote that song from monty python. but you beat me to it.

 

[benidict]

Women who save sex for a monogamous marriage with a monogamous partner are healthier women.

Sysyphusisishappy,
You are being a troll.

The original poster is not asking your opinion.

I cannot disagree with you. 75% of the population of the U.S. has either HPV or HSV2. Anyone who has multiple partners runs the risk of catching one or more of these diseases. For women, It seems that If they have HPV, they have also been exposed to HSV2. Thats Herpes for those of your in rio linda land. Alot of guys will not tell you they are infected. HPV can cause cervical cancer in women, and it is very painful to treat. And the vaccine is NOT a preventative for all strains. Sorry. A little off topic I know. But this little speech goes for guys as well. Save it for marriage. you will be glad you did.

 

[Rock_Happy]

This was raised on another thread. I think your doing a great job. But the canned answers get tireing. Stick to your guns. I was gonna quote that song from monty python. but you beat me to it.

The Catholic argument is consistent in opposing sex which is not intended to make babies.

However, real life shows that even Popes are not always able to avoid the temptation. So, where does that leave us ordinary folks? Stopping disease and suffering is a moral good on my balance sheet. Preventing the transmission of HIV to an infant through the mother’s infection is a moral good. Preventing cancer is a moral good. Not bringing a crack baby into an addicted and abusive household which lacks the emotional capacity or material resources to care for the sick child is morally good.

This points to the consistent failing I see in the threads on this site. The Pope identifies moral relativism as evil. Indeed, if you want to hurl an insult here, you call someone a moral relativist, and then sit back smugly in your judge’s robes. People will even thrash about trying to revise the history of the Church, and make wild and unsupported claims that Church teachings have not changed over time and due to social pressure. Pure poppycock. The point I am getting to, is that there may be an absolute moral standard, but that its application is often an exercise in relativism. Things are not “black and white”. Contraception is one of those issues. NO, a truck driver in Africa should not hire a prostitute, but YES, if he does so, he should use a condom in order to avoid infecting his wife with HIV along with the child whom she is pregnant with.

 

[wanner47]

The Catholic argument is consistent in opposing sex which is not intended to make babies.

However, real life shows that even Popes are not always able to avoid the temptation. So, where does that leave us ordinary folks? Stopping disease and suffering is a moral good on my balance sheet. Preventing the transmission of HIV to an infant through the mother’s infection is a moral good. Preventing cancer is a moral good. Not bringing a crack baby into an addicted and abusive household which lacks the emotional capacity or material resources to care for the sick child is morally good.

This points to the consistent failing I see in the threads on this site. The Pope identifies moral relativism as evil. Indeed, if you want to hurl an insult here, you call someone a moral relativist, and then sit back smugly in your judge’s robes. People will even thrash about trying to revise the history of the Church, and make wild and unsupported claims that Church teachings have not changed over time and due to social pressure. Pure poppycock. The point I am getting to, is that there may be an absolute moral standard, but that its application is often an exercise in relativism. Things are not “black and white”. Contraception is one of those issues. NO, a truck driver in Africa should not hire a prostitute, but YES, if he does so, he should use a condom in order to avoid infecting his wife with HIV along with the child whom she is pregnant with.

So you’re saying that since some people sin, we should just give up trying to be virtuous? I guess that gives everyone liberty (by your logic) to rape, murder, and steal… after all, other people have done so, ergo it must be impossible to refrain from doing those things.

Do you, then, think Jesus was a liar when he said, “Be perfect, just as my Father in Heaven is perfect”? Is it your opinion that He did not mean what He said?

 

[Rock_Happy]

So you’re saying that since some people sin, we should just give up trying to be virtuous? I guess that gives everyone liberty (by your logic) to rape, murder, and steal… after all, other people have done so, ergo it must be impossible to refrain from doing those things.

Do you, then, think Jesus was a liar when he said, “Be perfect, just as my Father in Heaven is perfect”? Is it your opinion that He did not mean what He said?

No, I did not say that at all. Read my post again.

Let me give you another example. The Catholic Church chose for a variety of reasons to support the Third Reich in some ways. We don’t know all of the reasons. My assumption is that they felt that more lives might be endangered in Axis occupied areas if they took a stronger moral position. Yet, there were individual priests who showed tremendous moral fortitude, and some who were cowards, with others falling in between. The point if this is that there is a moral continuum. The classic example is lying. When a priest tells an adolescent boy in confession not to worry so much about masturbation (and this happens often), he is choosing his words along this moral continuum.

Let me turn your question around, and ask your opinion. You and I would both agree that the truck driver in Africa should not visit a prostitute. However, given the hypothetical that he has given in to temptation, when the prostitute offers him a condom, should he use it, knowing that the potential consequences are infecting his wife and unborn child with a disease? The option is not on the table for you to stop him from sinning with the prostitute. What is your choice on condom use, if he asks you for advice?

 

[wanner47]

No, I did not say that at all. Read my post again.

Let me give you another example. The Catholic Church chose for a variety of reasons to support the Third Reich in some ways. We don’t know all of the reasons. My assumption is that they felt that more lives might be endangered in Axis occupied areas if they took a stronger moral position. Yet, there were individual priests who showed tremendous moral fortitude, and some who were cowards, with others falling in between. The point if this is that there is a moral continuum. The classic example is lying. When a priest tells an adolescent boy in confession not to worry so much about masturbation (and this happens often), he is choosing his words along this moral continuum.

So… you’re comparing saving the lives of other human beings to masturbation?

Let me turn your question around, and ask your opinion. You and I would both agree that the truck driver in Africa should not visit a prostitute. However, given the hypothetical that he has given in to temptation, when the prostitute offers him a condom, should he use it, knowing that the potential consequences are infecting his wife and unborn child with a disease? The option is not on the table for you to stop him from sinning with the prostitute. What is your choice on condom use, if he asks you for advice?

I would tell him that a condom is no guarantee that he will not catch disease, so no matter what he does he’s putting his wife and unborn child at risk. I would tell him that he should cease intercourse with his wife if he truly wants to keep her safe. However, if a truck driver in Africa cares about what the Catholic Church teaches, he wouldn’t be visiting a prostitute in the first place, so what makes you think he also cares about what the Catholic Church teaches about using a condom?

 

[Mberg3]

I have an issue with the Catholic positition on Birth Control and here is why:

There is a husband named Mike and a wife named Claire. Mike and Claire do not want to have a child for the first 3 years of their marriage and so they use NFP with the intention of preventing pregnancy. They practice it strictly so there is a 98% effectiveness rate. After the three years they resume normal relations and have a baby and they live happily ever after.

But

What if Mike and Claire chose to take the Birth Control Pill. They did not want to have a child in the first 3 years of their marriage so they used BCP with the intention of preventing pregnancy. They practice it strictly so there is a 98% effectiveness rate. After the three years they resume normal relations and have a baby and they live happily ever after.

There are really no visible differences between the two married couples. Both chose to not have children and whether being “open to life” is a mindset or a percentage both had the same situation. In the situation there was a choice of means toward a goal. One choice was NFP and the other choice was BCP. It is very rare that the means and not the intentions are “intrinsically evil”. It is like making a million dollars. There are many MEANS to working to gain a million dollars, but we determine right and wrong from intent. The intent to steal a million dollars is immoral whether done through fraud, bank robbery, or some other illegal activity where as earning a million dollars in a lifetime or a day is equally noble when it is earned through a profession. As you can see from above the INTENT was the same but the MEANS were different. So there has to be something intrinsically evil in the MEANS of preventing pregnancy, but that comes into issue when you consider different types of contraception. If a condom is evil while NFP is acceptable despite intention then we fall into a logical conundrum because a Condoms effectiveness is 85-90% where as NFP (if done strictly) is 98%. In this case you are saying it is MORE moral to be less open to the possibility of life. Keep in mind that to refute this you have to examine Like with Like and tell to me why one is more moral than the other. I do not think one is “more open to life”
because you would have to define open-to-life. If it is intent to want children we have seen that the intent is the same. If it is putting yourself at a high chance of pregnancy then we have seen that Condoms are more “open to live”. If it is trusting God to intervene and cause pregnancy despite the intent of an individual to become pregnant then we know that NFP, and artificial birth control can fail. Why should we not see both failures in the same light?

 

[wanner47]

I have an issue with the Catholic positition on Birth Control and here is why:

Maybe this analogy will help.

Mike and Claire know that they are named sole heirs of Mike’s wealthy grandmother and are looking forward to their inheritance. One night, Grandma dies peacefully in her sleep. Mike and Claire inherit and live happily ever after.

versus

Mike and Claire know that they are named sole heirs of Mike’s wealthy grandmother and are looking forward to their inheritance. One night, Mike smothers his grandmother with a pillow, and she dies. The death is assumed to be due to natural causes and the family declines an autopsy. Mike and Claire inherit and live happily ever after.

The end is the same: Grandma dies. Do you think both means are moral as well?

 

[Warrior1979]

Maybe this analogy will help.

Mike and Claire know that they are named sole heirs of Mike’s wealthy grandmother and are looking forward to their inheritance. One night, Grandma dies peacefully in her sleep. Mike and Claire inherit and live happily ever after.

versus

Mike and Claire know that they are named sole heirs of Mike’s wealthy grandmother and are looking forward to their inheritance. One night, Mike smothers his grandmother with a pillow, and she dies. The death is assumed to be due to natural causes and the family declines an autopsy. Mike and Claire inherit and live happily ever after.

The end is the same: Grandma dies. Do you think both means are moral as well?

The problem with this analogy is that the non-implantation rate statistically will be higher practicing NFP vs. using BCP, since BCP prevents ovulation.

 

[wanner47]

The problem with this analogy is that the non-implantation rate statistically will be higher practicing NFP vs. using BCP, since BCP prevents ovulation.

So you see no difference between death happening naturally and deliberately causing death?

If there is no moral difference whatsoever between dying of natural causes and deliberate murder, do you feel that all murder is moral?

Regardless, the analogy demonstrates how a good end does not justify immoral means. Condoms aren’t abortifacent but they are still an evil means to a positive end.

 

[razredge]

The problem with this analogy is that the non-implantation rate statistically will be higher practicing NFP vs. using BCP, since BCP prevents ovulation.

Wait a minute - what? So you’re saying that NFP can also act as an abortifacient like the Pill can - and actually has a greater chance of preventing the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterine lining?

That’ll be a big problem for NFP then as embryos are being aborted - so paradoxically using barrier methods is actually more moral than using NFP or the pill.

Couples who practice NFP must find that rather shocking if true.

 

[wanner47]

Wait a minute - what? So you’re saying that NFP can also act as an abortifacient like the Pill can - and actually has a greater chance of preventing the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterine lining?

That’ll be a big problem for NFP then as embryos are being aborted - so paradoxically using barrier methods is actually more moral than using NFP or the pill.

Couples who practice NFP must find that rather shocking if true.

By this logic, mothers who miscarry have deliberately killed their children!

Is that what you believe?

 

[Warrior1979]

So you see no difference between death happening naturally and deliberately causing death?

If there is no moral difference whatsoever between dying of natural causes and deliberate murder, do you feel that all murder is moral?

I’m not going to address these extremely radical, emotional charged comments.

 

[wanner47]

I’m not going to address these extremely radical, emotional charged comments.

What? How are they radical or emotionally charged?

They are very valid questions given your argument. You are saying that if a zygote dies of natural causes, and if a zygote dies because the endometerium of the uterus has been deliberately rendered inhospitable by the Pill, then the two deaths have the exact same moral weight and there is no difference between them.

This is your argument, correct? If it is not, can you clarify?

 

[Warrior1979]

Wait a minute - what? So you’re saying that NFP can also act as an abortifacient like the Pill can - and actually has a greater chance of preventing the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterine lining?

“abortificant” is the wrong term. A certain amount fertilized eggs simply don’t implant for a variety of reasons. The purpose of the pill is to stop ovulation, which means a vastly reduced chance of fertilized eggs. On the extremely small chance an egg is fertilized while on the pill, the egg might not implant because of the cycle the body is in…which is exactly what happens when one is not on the pill.

The only difference between the causes is that in the case of the pill, a hormone is being taken for three weeks out of the month. This in not, say, a copper IUD, which is completely unnatural and truly abortificant.

Couples who practice NFP must find that rather shocking if true.

Most couples that practice NFP don’t know that fertilized eggs not implanting occurs all the time, nor do couples on the pill realize that there is a remote chance of this happening (though much less often). In either case, these are not “murders,” as some extremely radical individuals like to refer to them as.

 

[razredge]

“abortificant” is the wrong term. A certain amount fertilized eggs simply don’t implant for a variety of reasons. The purpose of the pill is to stop ovulation, which means a vastly reduced chance of fertilized eggs. On the extremely small chance an egg is fertilized while on the pill, the egg might not implant because of the cycle the body is in…which is exactly what happens when one is not on the pill

.

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying.

Most couples that practice NFP don’t know that fertilized eggs not implanting occurs all the time, nor do couples on the pill realize that there is a remote chance of this happening (though much less often). In either case, these are not “murders,” as some extremely radical individuals like to refer to them as

Yes, I suspect most wouldnt - but wouldn’t this necessarily mean a shift in the church’s stance on abortion from instead of at conception to the time where the zygote/embryo gets implanted in the uterine lining?

 

[Rock_Happy]

So… you’re comparing saving the lives of other human beings to masturbation?

I would tell him that a condom is no guarantee that he will not catch disease, so no matter what he does he’s putting his wife and unborn child at risk. I would tell him that he should cease intercourse with his wife if he truly wants to keep her safe. However, if a truck driver in Africa cares about what the Catholic Church teaches, he wouldn’t be visiting a prostitute in the first place, so what makes you think he also cares about what the Catholic Church teaches about using a condom?

No. I am saying that I see a lot of people walking around with wooden clubs here, and trying to fish with them. Hitting the water with a club is pointless. I find it hard to believe that a moral system which has evolved for 2,000 years is too obtuse to understand the nuances of every day moral decisions. In the example of the truck driver and the prostitute there is more than one moral choice to make. One choice if made poorly does not release the truck driver from being able to make the second choice in the best way that he is able.

As for loving that Catholic Church, I have no idea if the truck drive in this example does. But I can tell you that plenty of Popes have made objectively bad moral choices, some of them beyond the imagination of the modern mind in their brutality and cruelty - mortal sins as extreme as can be imagined. Yet, I don’t question that they loved the Catholic Church. They were just human as I am, and they made mistakes as I do. Fortunately for me and for the rest of the world, I am not in a position of such influence that my mistakes have as far reaching consequences.