Is it acceptable for an unmarried woman to go on the IUD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Every time a woman asks a question like this, there are comments that the woman should find the “underlying cause.” As a person who ended up with a hysterectomy because of periods from hell, I would like to disagree. When it happened to me, there was no “underlying cause,” except for a little adenomeiosis (sp?) that the doctor found when removing my uterus.

From reading these posts, it looks to me like nothing much has changed. Many women still have “periods from hell,” and the doctors don’t have a clue what causes it.

Many of these young women would like to have a family someday. If an “underlying cause” is actually found, in a lot of cases it will mean hysterectomy or uterine ablation to fix the problem. Both of these fixes make you unable to have children.

So what would be wrong with using pills or something that secretes hormones to temporarily fix the symptoms? Yes, there are risks, such as an increased risk for cancer or blood clots. However, anyone who has ever watched TV will notice that almost every drug under the sun has a small chance of giving you a horrible side effect.

I would like to point out that there are some people who take statins for their high cholesterol. Some of these people cannot lower their cholesterol no matter what they eat or how much they exercise. The doctor gives them statin drugs, and their cholesterol goes down. Well, the minute they stop the statin drugs, their cholesterol is going to go right back up again. Does this mean that they shouldn’t take the drugs because the drugs don’t permanently fix the problem?

If the young women with “periods from hell” use hormones so they can actually get up in the morning and hold a job, what is wrong with that? At least they can stop the hormones, get pregnant, and be free from their hellish perods for another nine months.

A woman who is unmarried and not sleeping with anyone who happens to be ingesting hormones one way or another is not practicing birth control!
 
Holly3278 said:
No, that wouldn’t be worth it but in all the years that this IUD has been used by people, it has not been known to cause fertility problems.
Click to expand...
I know this is an older post in this thread but you really need to do more research.

The reason the new Mirena IUD is getting so much press and publicity is because most of the IUDs that were used for “all these years” were killing people as well as causing infertility. They were either pulled off the market or very rarely perscribed. The new IUD, Mirena is made of a different material and has infused hormones so it is supposed to be safer (for the mother but not for the baby).

Since any long term hormone use (including birth control pills) can cause fertiltiy problems and IUDs, even without the hormones, can cause fertility problems, it seems logical that the Mirena device would be even more likely to cause fertility problems.
 
The IUD stops any **fertilised egg **from implanting in the uterus ie, it causes abortions, but it is unlikely to help to make periods less painful or less frequent…and if there is extra heavy bleeding during a period while an IUD remains fitted, then there’s a fair chance it’s due to loss of a tiny baby.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hi everyone. Would it be acceptable for an unmarried and chaste woman to go on the IUD to prevent herself from having periods because periods are too painful or are just simply too annoying or would it be a sin to go on the IUD? 🤷:confused:
Click to expand...
To be clear:
  1. Under the circumstances you specify, and upon a Doctors advise, yes it would be “OK.”😉
  2. For all other conceivible circumstances, the answer would be NO.
God bless you, good OP
 
Ok people, I admit, I did the wrong thing. I confessed my sin and it is in the past now. Please don’t harp on me so much or I’ll have the thread closed. My priest has spoken and I trust my priest more than I do a lay person. And yes, I told my priest the complete and total truth in a confession.
 
This is from HV:
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. 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. (19)
Click to expand...
Does anyone know if there is evidence the Church teaches medical therapies that may cause an indirect abortion fall into a different category?

By that I mean is there any teaching that says a woman, married or not, cannot use medicine or medical devices to treat legitimate symptoms or the disease itself that may have a secondary effect that is abortifacient?

Thank you.
 
fix said:
This is from HV:

Does anyone know if there is evidence the Church teaches medical therapies that may cause an indirect abortion fall into a different category?

By that I mean is there any teaching that says a woman, married or not, cannot use medicine or medical devices to treat legitimate symptoms or the disease itself that may have a secondary effect that is abortifacient?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that HV says “cure”.

Last I checked, the chemical forms of ABC do not cure anything, they are used to manage symptoms.
 
kage_ar said:
I find it interesting that HV says “cure”.

Last I checked, the chemical forms of ABC do not cure anything, they are used to manage symptoms.
Click to expand...
That is why I mentioned treating symptoms or the disease itself in my post.

I really am wondering about it. Do you think the word “cure” is translated to mean only something that definitively resolves the disease? I do not know. What if no cure is available, would treating the symptoms with certain medications be morally wrong? Where is the evidence for this?
 
While reading this thread I searched and found this:
This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Click to expand...
 
CWBetts said:
You will probably discount my opinion because I am a man, but all forms of artificial contraception are gravely evil.
Click to expand...
i dont get this at all…
shes chaste, which is contraception all by itself.
add that to if (god forbid) she gets raped, she wont have a possibility of pregnancy which could lead to the (by most members of this forum, ive seen) hated and condemned abortion, so whats wrong with it?
after talking to your doctor about the side effects, i say go with your gut, and doctors advice.
 
iamme said:
im pretty sure not having sex is also an action.
Click to expand...
How is refraining an action? It is choosing not to act. Not engaging in sexual intercourse cannot be contraception unless you conclude every second one is not having sex is to be termed contraception?
 
fix said:
How is refraining an action? It is choosing not to act. Not engaging in sexual intercourse cannot be contraception unless you conclude every second one is not having sex is to be termed contraception?
Click to expand...
it very well could be termed that.
but if ones not having sex, and isnt planning to, how is a contraception contracepting (is that even a word?) anything?
 
iamme said:
it very well could be termed that.
but if ones not having sex, and isnt planning to, how is a contraception contracepting (is that even a word?) anything?
Click to expand...
We are speaking of the sin of contracpetion, correct?

That sin is intentionally altering the sexual act to separate the unitive and procreative elements. If the two people refrain from having sex they are not altering the act in anyway.
 
fix said:
We are speaking of the sin of contracpetion, correct?

That sin is intentionally altering the sexual act to separate the unitive and procreative elements. If the two people refrain from having sex they are not altering the act in anyway.
Click to expand...
thats not what i was talking about. i was talking about a single, chaste woman going on a contraceptive for reasons other than preventing herself from getting pregnant.
 
iamme said:
thats not what i was talking about. i was talking about a single, chaste woman going on a contraceptive for reasons other than preventing herself from getting pregnant.
Click to expand...
And I agree there is no moral problem because she is not contracepting.
 
Well everyone, I have decided, after reading about the side effects on OMSoul, that I will get the IUD removed. 🙂 This will solve a lot of problems for me. PM me for more details. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top