Maternal Mortality rate and the morality of contraception

[svoboda]

I think this is important enough to have its own thread, so here:

**The lifetime risk of maternal death in Africa is 1 in 16. ** In the western world it is 1 in 2800. And this is just mortality, it says nothing about the physical complications and damage resulting form pregnancy.

"Over 300 million women in the developing world suffer from short-term or long-term illness brought about by pregnancy and childbirth. 529 000 die each year."

Less than 1% of maternal deaths occur in high income countries.

who.int/whr/2005/media_centre/facts_en.pdf

Women in the third world don’t enjoy the best of women’s rights, they might be married young to older men, they might be in polygamous marriages, they might have very little say in when and whether they have sex.

Perhaps many of their husbands would not be willing to abstain and use NFP.

In light of the extremely high maternal mortality rate, can you really say that birth control/sterilization is immoral for those women? It might be their only way to live. It might be the only way for them to have the number of children they can actually feed.

If their husbands are unwilling to use NFP and insist on having sex when they want, if the authorities wouldn’t do anything about it, what would you suggest those women should do?

 

[svoboda]

300 million, that’s nearly the entire population of the United States.

Those are just the women who suffer severely as a result of pregnancy/childbirth.

 

[puzzleannie]

the fallacy here is the assumption that the way to address social ills is by implementing another assault on women as a solution to the problem. This allows the society to continue the practices and conditions that oppress women, and merely relieve men from the guilt and need to change those conditions and practices. That is analogous to saying so many millions of children will be born into poverty, so the social solution is to prevent their birth, rather than addressing and eliminating causes of poverty.

 

[1ke]

svoboda:

In light of the extremely high maternal mortality rate, can you really say that birth control/sterilization is immoral for those women?

Yes, we can. Contraception is intrinsically disordered. That means it is never a moral choice. What you propose here is “situational ethics”… the same philosophy used to justify abortion, and every other gravely immoral act.

svoboda:

It might be their only way to live. It might be the only way for them to have the number of children they can actually feed.

You do not know this. You also assume that these women do not want their children. This is a false assumption-- many women in this country and in other countries have many children because they WANT many children. It is a fallacy to assume that women in other cultures only have children because they don’t know how to stop themselves. You also assume that most women in developing countries have brutal husbands who do not love or respect them. I think there’s some cultural bias going on here.

svoboda:

If their husbands are unwilling to use NFP and insist on having sex when they want, if the authorities wouldn’t do anything about it, what would you suggest those women should do?

Educate and pray for their husbands. The world is a disordered place svoboda, bringing more sin and disorder into it is never the answer. Teaching the Truth is the answer.

 

[setter]

svoboda:

In light of the extremely high maternal mortality rate, can you really say that birth control/sterilization is immoral for those women? It might be their only way to live. It might be the only way for them to have the number of children they can actually feed.

Whether the human tragedy and suffering is one or 300M, the questions to YOU come down to: Do YOU believe that some means, no matter what the case, are ALWAYS evil? Do you believe that it is NEVER permissible to prescribe an evil means as a solution, when in fact there are good (non-evil) means available, (though not being fully promoted or exercised)?

If your answer to either or both these questions are NO, then you have abandoned the Catholic position of what it means to offer and extend as a charitable response and solution to our fellow children of God who are undergoing untold human suffering and tragedy.

 

[svoboda]

puzzleannie:

the fallacy here is the assumption that the way to address social ills is by implementing another assault on women as a solution to the problem. This allows the society to continue the practices and conditions that oppress women, and merely relieve men from the guilt and need to change those conditions and practices. That is analogous to saying so many millions of children will be born into poverty, so the social solution is to prevent their birth, rather than addressing and eliminating causes of poverty.

You are oversimplifying. Ideally yes, the causes of poverty should be eliminated so that every single child could have a great life. Is it going to happen soon? No. Many people are working hard to fix the situation in those countries.

Children would be poor even here if women just kept having one baby after another. Part of the reason why children here have such great lives is that their parents have small families. Children are expensive, few people here can afford to raise many without slipping into poverty.

Sure, ideally the situation of women in those nations should be changed. This is the goal we should all strive for. Is it going to happen today? No. Is it going to happen within the next year? No. Until it happens, those women should be using birth control to protect themselves from DEATH. This isn’t trivial. A 1 in 16 chance of dying is unbelievably high.

As for women being assaulted by contraception, I don’t buy it. My own mother used contraception throughout her entire life. Good women I know have used contraception. Most people, including most Catholics use contraception. Contraception freed women from constant pregnancy, it enabled women to have careers, to have lives outside of the home.

Most women would agree with me, not with you. I don’t see how contraception is an assault on women. If anything is an assault on women, it is constant pregnancy and a 1 in 16 chance of dying from it AND the teaching that their use of birth control to save themselves from death would be MORTALLY SINFUL.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

As for women being assaulted by contraception, I don’t buy it. My own mother used contraception throughout her entire life. Good women I know have used contraception. Most people, including most Catholics use contraception. Contraception freed women from constant pregnancy, it enabled women to have careers, to have lives outside of the home.

Most women would agree with me, not with you. I don’t see how contraception is an assault on women. If anything is an assault on women, it is constant pregnancy and a 1 in 16 chance of dying from it AND the teaching that their use of birth control to save themselves from death would be MORTALLY SINFUL.

The modern embrace of contraception has helped foster disunity, abortion, failed marriages, normalize deviant sexual acts, infidelity and fornication to name a few evils.

It would seem your position is that the ends justify the means?

 

[svoboda]

1ke:

Yes, we can. Contraception is intrinsically disordered. That means it is never a moral choice. What you propose here is “situational ethics”… the same philosophy used to justify abortion, and every other gravely immoral act.

But abortion is a gravely immoral act because it destroys a human life. It hurts somebody.

Contraception is a method to prevent conception of human life, no one is hurt by it.

You do not know this. You also assume that these women do not want their children. This is a false assumption-- many women in this country and in other countries have many children because they WANT many children. It is a fallacy to assume that women in other cultures only have children because they don’t know how to stop themselves. You also assume that most women in developing countries have brutal husbands who do not love or respect them. I think there’s some cultural bias going on here.

If some women want many children and can feed them, I have no opposition to their doing so.

But not all women want children, if I lived in Africa I would rather sterilize myself and remain childless than have a 1 in 16 risk of dying as a result of pregnancy/childbirth complications. If I were married young to an older man (not out of love) I would want 0 children.

As for women’s rights in places like that, ever seen footage of Afghanistan under the Taliban? Documentaries about young girls in developing nations who are married off to older men? Polygamy statistics?

That’s not saying that men are bad. Were men following Taliban regime bad? They were raised into an evil system and conformed to it just like most people conform to existing authority and lifestyle.

Educate and pray for their husbands. The world is a disordered place svoboda, bringing more sin and disorder into it is never the answer. Teaching the Truth is the answer.

In my opinion birth control is a far lesser “sin” than not giving women a chance to avoid the 1 in 16 chance of dying from pregnancy.

 

[svoboda]

fix:

The modern embrace of contraception has helped foster disunity, abortion, failed marriages, normalize deviant sexual acts, infidelity and fornication to name a few evils.

It would seem your position is that the ends justify the means?

Not at all, I don’t think the ends justify the means. Murdering people, stealing, lying, abusing your children, torture etc. are always grave evils even if they bring about great results.

Birth control, on the other hand, doesn’t hurt anyone. I don’t see anything wrong with it in principle.

But I agree with you, contraception can make it much easier for people to act on their desires and urges. In the past people might have been held back from promiscuity by the fear of pregnancy, now they can contracept and have sex whenever they want. Some people do it.

But this is just like blaming the internet for people looking at pornography. The internet makes it extremely easy to look at pornography, but in the end people still make a choice.

Does contraception cause marriages to fail? I have not seen any evidence of it. Infidelity causes marriages to fail, maybe contraception makes infidelity much easier.

Maybe society as a whole has moved away from religion and legitimized promiscuity. I don’t think contraception can be blamed for it. Correlation is not the same as causation. You might as well say that failed marriages cause people to use contraception.

 

[buffalo]

Pro Life Expectancy - a look at the actual actuarials

World life expentancy is 21 years.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, I think more women historically have agreed with annie.

As a woman, I find your premise rather insulting to women, and to mothers of “larger” families (what is that, three or more?)

I find the whole idea that a child’s life can only be “worthy” if the child’s parents are wealthy enough that they can offer him or her “things”, and that a child who might have to SHARE attention with siblings, or perhaps not have the latest clothes or technology, is somehow “deprived”, shallow and materialistic. I’d venture to say that the average “only child” today has LESS attention from mom and dad, and certainly doesn’t even have the interaction of a sibling. That kid with the “great life” of computer, cell phone, charge cards, and car is more likely than his or her peer 50 years ago to: Engage in premarital sex, with all its complication. Commit suicide. Be addicted to drugs. Commit a crime. Be a victim of a crime.

It is a huge leap from lamenting the maternal mortality rate to making judgment calls on how you can only be a “good” parent if you “limit” your “breeding”.

 

[svoboda]

Tantum ergo:

Actually, I think more women historically have agreed with annie.

Those women probably couldn’t have even imagined a world where they would be treated like full human beings, where they’d be allowed to vote, to run for office, to hold leadership positions, to get an education, to own property, to have laws that protect them from domestic violence etc.

As a woman, I find your premise rather insulting to women, and to mothers of “larger” families (what is that, three or more?)

If women are happy being mothers of large families, good for them. I just don’t think this should be forced on every single woman, as it is forced on women in developing nations. They have no choice! 529000 of them die each year due to pregnancy related complications!

In my opinion, saying that they cannot use birth control where it might very well be the ONLY WAY for them to avoid death is very cruel. They are human beings with emotions, with hopes, with dreams, with a desire to LIVE.

I find the whole idea that a child’s life can only be “worthy” if the child’s parents are wealthy enough that they can offer him or her “things”, and that a child who might have to SHARE attention with siblings, or perhaps not have the latest clothes or technology, is somehow “deprived”, shallow and materialistic. I’d venture to say that the average “only child” today has LESS attention from mom and dad, and certainly doesn’t even have the interaction of a sibling. That kid with the “great life” of computer, cell phone, charge cards, and car is more likely than his or her peer 50 years ago to: Engage in premarital sex, with all its complication. Commit suicide. Be addicted to drugs. Commit a crime. Be a victim of a crime.

You are reading so much into what I said. I was talking about POVERTY, not having enough food, not having enough necessities. A child’s life is always worthy, and that’s exactly why parents shouldn’t have more children than they can provide for.

You gravely exaggerated things. Sure children can go without the latest technology. But there are things such as extracurricular activities (sports, music lessons, vacations) that are important to the psychological well being of children. In my opinion it is better to have fewer children and give them good lives than have many and be unable to provide for them.

I think interaction with siblings is important. Please don’t project stereotypes onto me.

 

[buffalo]

svoboda:

Those women probably couldn’t have even imagined a world where they would be treated like full human beings, where they’d be allowed to vote, to run for office, to hold leadership positions, to get an education, to own property, to have laws that protect them from domestic violence etc.

If women are happy being mothers of large families, good for them. I just don’t think this should be forced on every single woman, as it is forced on women in developing nations. They have no choice! 529000 of them die each year due to pregnancy related complications!

In my opinion, saying that they cannot use birth control where it might very well be the ONLY WAY for them to avoid death is very cruel. They are human beings with emotions, with hopes, with dreams, with a desire to LIVE.

You are reading so much into what I said. I was talking about POVERTY, not having enough food, not having enough necessities. A child’s life is always worthy, and that’s exactly why parents shouldn’t have more children than they can provide for.

You gravely exaggerated things. Sure children can go without the latest technology. But there are things such as extracurricular activities (sports, music lessons, vacations) that are important to the psychological well being of children. In my opinion it is better to have fewer children and give them good lives than have many and be unable to provide for them.

I think interaction with siblings is important. Please don’t project stereotypes onto me.

None of this has any bearing on their worthiness to enter eternal life.

 

[svoboda]

buffalo:

None of this has any bearing on their worthiness to enter eternal life.

But “eternal life” doesnt mean their lives here are worthless and should not be protected.

We should fight for quality of life for every single human being, we should protect them from illness and death.

 

[buffalo]

svoboda:

But “eternal life” doesnt mean their lives here are worthless and should not be protected.

We should fight for quality of life for every single human being, we should protect them from illness and death.

Protecting them by aborting their unborn children? Who exactly does this protect?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Those women probably couldn’t have even imagined a world where they would be treated like full human beings, where they’d be allowed to vote, to run for office, to hold leadership positions, to get an education, to own property, to have laws that protect them from domestic violence etc.

So, you think that a woman only becomes a mother if she has NO OTHER CHOICE?

You think motherhood is so valueless that no woman would choose it? That a vote, or some “position of leadership” (please tell me what percentage of working women are in positions of leadership, BTW) is MORE IMPORTANT? A bigger cookie?

“Forcing women to become pregnant”. That is how YOU see the lives of women in Africa. First, you’re insulting the average man in Africa by equating him to a rapist. Second, you’re insulting the average woman, by focusing on statistics without focusing on what the woman HERSELF wants. Do you KNOW that these women “are forced” into pregnancy?

Are you so elitist that your conception (pun intended) of choice is based on CONVENIENCE rather than on love?

A respectful challenge here.

You show me, not what YOU THINK, or what YOU WANT, but what that African WOMAN WANTS.

Not what YOU THINK SHE WANTS. What SHE wants.

 

[svoboda]

buffalo:

Protecting them by aborting their unborn children? Who exactly does this protect?

I think abortion is evil, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[svoboda]

Tantum ergo:

So, you think that a woman only becomes a mother if she has NO OTHER CHOICE?

You are reading so much into what I write. That’s not what I said. I said that historically women had no other choice. Some women may have still wanted to be stay at home moms as some women want that today.

Let me be very clear: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS CHOICE.

What’s wrong is forcing this choice on every single woman. Because not every single woman wants to live that way.

What is EVIL (in my opinion) is forcing that on women in the third world when it means a 1 in 16 chance of DYING!

You think motherhood is so valueless that no woman would choose it? That a vote, or some “position of leadership” (please tell me what percentage of working women are in positions of leadership, BTW) is MORE IMPORTANT? A bigger cookie?

How would you feel if out of nowhere I started saying that you’re a Nazi who thinks Jews should be burned? Hmm?

May I point out to you that most women who vote, who are leaders in society, who have careers are ALSO MOTHERS. Women don’t have to choose one or the other, and most don’t.

Motherhood is extremely important. Brining new human beings into the world is extremely important, otherwise we’ll go go extinct.

“Forcing women to become pregnant”. That is how YOU see the lives of women in Africa. First, you’re insulting the average man in Africa by equating him to a rapist. Second, you’re insulting the average woman, by focusing on statistics without focusing on what the woman HERSELF wants. Do you KNOW that these women “are forced” into pregnancy?

I know that without birth control they have no choice but to become pregnant, some might like it, some might not. Some might prefer life to pregnancy. I would.

I think they should have a choice, that’s all I’m saying. 1 in 16 chance of DEATH, is a huge risk, they should be given a way out.

The Church should not say that using birth control is immoral for those women. They should have a way out of a very high probability of death.

If they still want to have large families and take that risk, that’s their choice, but I think they should be able to decide for themselves.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Buffalo, this is the crazy sort of logic that permeates a certain group (which shall be nameless) today: We care SO MUCH for women and children that, if their lives can’t be perfect, if they can’t have all the little things that benefit them psychologically, if they might have to suffer any PAIN whatsoever in life–well, we don’t want them to have life AT ALL on those terms.

They won’t suffer pain if they never have the chance to live.

At the age of 16, I argued that legalizing abortion was tantamount to legalizing murder. Despite the jeers of everyone from classmates to teachers to the media to “experts” who derided my contention that by consenting to abortion legalization we would be opening up precedent for euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide, and would be MORE likely to see HIGHER rates of child abuse, teen pregnancy, divorce, and deviant sexual practices.

One wonders, if the “compassionate ones” have their way, what the world would be like in 30 years, given the heartache and evil that resulted from the prototypical “compassionate” decision of 1973. . .

 

[Kendy]

1ke:

You do not know this. You also assume that these women do not want their children. This is a false assumption-- many women in this country and in other countries have many children because they WANT many children. It is a fallacy to assume that women in other cultures only have children because they don’t know how to stop themselves. You also assume that most women in developing countries have brutal husbands who do not love or respect them. I think there’s some cultural bias going on here.

QUOTE]

Well, I can speak from the perspective of a woman from a third world country. My grandmother had no control over her body, could not say “no” to her husband. The man was definitely the head of the house and no one questioned him, and she had more than a dozen children most of whom died. Her story is similar to that of most women of her generation and many Haitian women who live in the provinces of today.

My mother did have a say in the matter and she chose to have only three children. So, did most of her sisters and my aunts on my father side. And most of the Haitian women, I know, when given a choice choose smaller families.

Furthermore, I did some work on third world development, particularly studying parts of Africa, and most women reported that they would prefer to have smaller families than watch their children die of malnutrition or rsik their own death, but they didn’t really have a choice.

Kendy