Medical issues with having children and contraception

[Bonbar]

You are totally uneducated about the gift he has given. You really need to study your faith more.

If I were “totally uneducated” about these matters, and if I had not studied my faith, do you really think I would be asking these questions?

I’ve met nobody who has even suggested a vasectomy would not be appropriate in my situation.

Indeed, my priest has told me to get one!

It is precisely because I do know my faith, that I am here getting a second opinion, so to speak…


Give me some credit, ma’am…
It is no small matter to abstain from sex for the next several years. Especially when your wife is total hottie.
If there is a morally acceptable way to continue on as we have been, I want to find it.
If not, I can live with it. But, the Catechism does not directly speak to my situation. Neither do many of the writings regarding the Theology of the Body.

 

[dkoinzan]

I recognize what you are saying, it is you that doesn’t get it. I have held dead children in my arms and I would gladly give my life for them. I recognize that God has a plan for all of us and I have given my will to him to do as he wishes. I know that each life is created for the salvation of all people of all times. My little ones who died before birth had a special part to play in all of time. I don’t know why it was God gave them to me and then took them away, but I do know it was all up to God and not me. I trust Him. I know I have a thirst to make it into heaven. I desire it more than I desire sex or my life here on earth. I know we are suppose to accept what every God places in our lives and learn to follow him through it. My life is no more or less important than the lives I have carried. Find yourself a good priest and talk to him. You must be feeling that your line of thinking isn’t quite right or you wouldn’t be posting here.

 

[nodito]

Dear Bonbar,

You asked:

Would it be immoral for a man to wear a condom if his wife had no uterus?

The answer is yes, and here’s why. The condom itself is morally neutral, as you’ve noted. It’s the act of altering sexual intercourse that is morally problematic. When we have sex with our spouse, we’re meant to image God’s love. God’s love is free, total, faithful, and fruitful, and so each act of intercourse must be ordered in these ways. Normally, when a man puts on a condom before sex, he is denying two of these aspects. The sex is no longer fruitful (because he’s trying to remove the possibility of pregnancy) and no longer total (because he’s holding an important part of himself back - his fertility and his seminal fluid. In a situation like you described, the person may not be trying to remove the possibility of pregnancy (because it’s already gone), but he would not be giving his full self to his wife during intercourse. And so in seeking the pleasure of sex while putting a “barrier” between him and his wife, he fails to demonstrate true love.

The thing I find most curious about your posts is the frequent reiteration that you and your wife cannot have children and, therefore, that the vasectomy serves no other purpose than to keep your wife healthy. This is not true. The fact of the matter is, you can have children. Everytime you conceive, you have brought into this world a new child. A woman becomes a mother the moment she conceives. Thus, the vasectomy serves to keep you from having children. In your situation, because pregnancy would be so dangerous for your wife’s health, it makes sense to avoid becoming pregnant. But this is not much different from any other couple who has very serious reasons to avoid pregnancy. If having a baby would be financially crippling, for example, the family may feel that another pregnancy would threaten the health and wellbeing of their existing children. Nevertheless, it is not licit to mutiliate (read: disable) a healthy bodily organ.

As for as mutilation goes, a vasectomy wouldn’t be mutilation for it’s own sake. It would be to preserve the health of the wife. (It is also completely reversible unlike the numerous boob jobs, face lifts, ear rings, tummy tucks, gastric bypasses, liposuctions, circumcisions, and other procedures I see evidence of every Sunday at Mass… Are you sure you are not going out of your way to find a reason to condemn a vasectomy in this case?

There are a number of licit medical options to preserve someone’s health, but maiming someone else’s organs is not one of them. And it is never moral to do evil so that good may come of it. As to the other surgeries you mention, I’m not well versed enough in moral theology to either accuse or defend them. My sense is that none of these procedures (except maybe gastric bypass) are designed to frustrate the purpose of a particular organ or system. A face lift makes a person look younger, for example, but it doesn’t keep the person’s face from working. A circumcision can be done for religious or health reasons, but it doesn’t prevent the boy’s sexual organ from working. Ear rings are designed to look fashionable, but piercings don’t keep a person’s ears from hearing. A vasectomy, however, is intended to keep a man’s reproductive system from working correctly. There is a big difference. However, even if it were true that these other procedures actually are immoral, the mere fact that “everybody else is doing it” wouldn’t justify it for you.

I’ll pray for your wife’s health. God bless.

 

[Nanny_PK]

I would like to ask a question that always pops into my head when I read these type topics. Before I ask it, I would like to make it very clear that I no longer agree with ABC for the sake of birth control. I did not always think that; but after much thought and prayer, I have changed my opinion. That being said, onto my question.

In the OP the question is raised that another pregnancy would most certainly kill the mother. And while I know that there are times when doctors have been wrong – like several other posters mentioned, being told they could not have a baby and they were blessed with one despite what doctors said – I think it’s wise to get good, strong medical opinions and make your decisions based on the best information you have at the time. Being that the sanctity of life is of upmost importance, doesn’t that include the mother’s life? Isn’t the mother just as entitled to life as a potential unborn baby? And from what the OP stated, if the mother became pregnant again, in all likelihood neither the baby or the baby would survive.

I do not think there’s an easy answer to the OP’s question. And I fully respect everyone’s opinion on both sides of the debate. I just wanted to add some of my thoughts to the discussion.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Essentially, my wife is now infertile.

That is, even if she wanted to, she could not give birth to a child. (Of course, she could conceive, but that alone does not constitute reproduction.)

I’m confused. How does conception not constitute procreation?

 

[Bonbar]

I’m confused. How does conception not constitute procreation?

I’ll answer your question with another question…

Would it be moral to sacrifice the life of the mother to conceive an embryo that could never become viable?

Would you risk life and limb (and the life and limb of others) to rescue a vial containing a frozen fertilized egg from a burning building?

 

[nodito]

I would like to ask a question that always pops into my head when I read these type topics. Before I ask it, I would like to make it very clear that I no longer agree with ABC for the sake of birth control. I did not always think that; but after much thought and prayer, I have changed my opinion.

Nanny PK, I found this statement here to be very profound and humbling. I think it takes guts to admit to a change of thought on such a controversial topic and I admire you for telling us about it.

In the OP the question is raised that another pregnancy would most certainly kill the mother. And while I know that there are times when doctors have been wrong – like several other posters mentioned, being told they could not have a baby and they were blessed with one despite what doctors said – I think it’s wise to get good, strong medical opinions and make your decisions based on the best information you have at the time.

I agree.

Being that the sanctity of life is of upmost importance, doesn’t that include the mother’s life? Isn’t the mother just as entitled to life as a potential unborn baby? And from what the OP stated, if the mother became pregnant again, in all likelihood neither the baby or the baby would survive.

It’s a good question and a good contribution. You’re right, the life of the mother is just as important as the life of any child conceived. The Church has always maintained that every human life is valuable and that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God. Thus, in a situation like the OP described, he is well within his rights to protect his wife’s health and life by avoiding pregnancy.

That said, there are both morally acceptable and morally unacceptable ways of doing this. The moral choices he has available to him are: learn and practice conservative NFP, abstain completely, and/or pursue additional medical procedures and opinions that might permit his wife to safely give birth. The morally unacceptable choices are: contraception of any type (because it violates the very purpose of sex, demonstrates an attitude of selfishness, and falsifies love), abortion of the young child, or adopting a total disregard for his wife’s health and having sex with her whenever anyway just because he feels like it.

In almost every situation we encounter, we are faced with the decision to do good or evil. For example, consider a situation in which a man has a need to provide for his family. This man could morally choose to get a job, ask his relatives for help, or appeal for charity. Or he could decide to steal something from a neighbor, murder the rich man down the street, or commit insurance fraud. The first three options are licit and good, though perhaps more difficult. The latter three are unacceptable options. In the same way, a man may have very good and noble reasons for wanting to keep his wife from becoming pregnant (and I would say the OP falls in this category) but there are both good and bad ways of going about this.

Was that helpful?

 

[nodito]

Would it be moral to sacrifice the life of the mother to conceive an embryo that could never become viable?

No, I wouldn’t think so. You don’t have to sacrifice yourself for anything that doesn’t exist. But we’re not debating about whether you should or should not impregnant your wife. I think we’ve agreed that you have sufficiently grave reasons to avoid pregnancy. The issue at hand is the way you go about doing so.

Would you risk life and limb (and the life and limb of others) to rescue a vial containing a frozen fertilized egg from a burning building?

This is a different question, because in this situation, you’re talking about an actual person who already exists (in contrast to a potential life that doesn’t exist yet). There’s a lot of controversy about what to do with IVF “leftover” embryos and whether it is, for example, morally permissable to adopt them. I’d be interested to hear others weigh in on this. I will say this, however. If it was my child, my embryo, that was somehow stuck in a burning building, I would absolutely risk my life to save it. I mean, common on, she’s my child!

But again, these are two different situations. The burning building one would more closely ressemble a situation in which your wife was already pregnant. If she were already pregnant, she can’t choose to kill an innocent human being. But because she is not pregnant, she need not risk her life for a potential future child that doesn’t exist yet. Thus, you can choose to avoid pregnancy, albeit by doing so in a moral manner.

 

[Nanny_PK]

In almost every situation we encounter, we are faced with the decision to do good or evil. For example, consider a situation in which a man has a need to provide for his family. This man could morally choose to get a job, ask his relatives for help, or appeal for charity. Or he could decide to steal something from a neighbor, murder the rich man down the street, or commit insurance fraud. The first three options are licit and good, though perhaps more difficult. The latter three are unacceptable options. In the same way, a man may have very good and noble reasons for wanting to keep his wife from becoming pregnant (and I would say the OP falls in this category) but there are both good and bad ways of going about this.

Was that helpful?

Actually quite helpful. I had never seen it in that light before. I work in a criminal courtroom, and many times I’ve said that exact same thing about the choices that people have and the ones they make. That was an excellent way of putting it into a context that I could wrap my brain around.

Thank you!

 

[BiologyBrain]

In the OP the question is raised that another pregnancy would most certainly kill the mother. And while I know that there are times when doctors have been wrong – like several other posters mentioned, being told they could not have a baby and they were blessed with one despite what doctors said – I think it’s wise to get good, strong medical opinions and make your decisions based on the best information you have at the time. Being that the sanctity of life is of upmost importance, doesn’t that include the mother’s life? Isn’t the mother just as entitled to life as a potential unborn baby? And from what the OP stated, if the mother became pregnant again, in all likelihood neither the baby or the baby would survive.

Yes, sanctity of life holds true for the mother as well. No one (on this forum) wants the mother OR child to die. However, the mother does not have to have sex (during fertile times) & risk getting pregnant. That is a choice she makes (with the exception of rape/incest, but that’s not what we’re talking about here). If she makes the choice to have sex, then she is actually putting herself at risk. It is not morally good to make the baby (the result of her choice) pay for the mother’s choice. Nor is it morally good to disregard the purpose God gave sex (the twofold purpose - procreation and unity) just because the mother chooses to put herself at risk by having sex. To put personal pleasure at a higher priority than morality, and/or health is immoral and disordered.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Just to clarify, I am dealing with a situation where my wife could CONCEIVE but could not bring the child to term… that is, within a month or two – due to the hormonal changes of a pregnancy and their effect on a serious blood condition my wife has – my wife would miscarry and my wife would most likely die. (I’ll spare you the details…)

I’m wondering if it would actually be more licit and medically sound for your wife to have a hysterectomy if her uterus is so damaged. Removal of a damaged organ - even a reproductive one - is entirely licit as treatment and/or prevention of a life-threatening medical situation. This is most commonly used morally/licitly as a prophylactic hysterectomy for a woman who has been diagnosed w/ precursors for ovarian/uterine cancer. It can also be morally and licitly used for a woman who experiences heavy bleeding both during her period and/or between her period. There are moral reasons for a hysterectomy.

You raise a good point, but realistically a vasectomy (and tubal) is many orders of magnitude more effective than any other of the methods. NFP, after all, is neither designed nor intended to eliminate the possibility of pregnancy.

Actually, if you look at the ‘birth control’ charts - the statistics for sympto-thermal NFP rival those of hormonal bc, condoms (surpassed by quite a bit), vasectomies, and tubals. Generally hormonal bc and sympto-thermal NFP are given rates of 97-99% accurate. Vasectomies & tubals (as well as hysterectomies) are given rates of 99% generally. These are the rates printed on my doctor’s poster in the exam room. However, there are no negative side effects to NFP. Nor are there clear-cut guaranteed moral concerns w/ NFP. Looks to me like the choice is clear!

 

[kage_ar]

Bonbar -

To quote Lewis in Screwtape “Why use adultery when golf will do?”

Satan tempts us with what seems to be good. To have you convinced that committing a sin, permanant sterilization, has a noble and worthy cause. You would never do this for any other reason.

Know that this is something the Church is not squishy on, in spite of the emotional answer that well meaning Christians and even the occasional Priest or two will give you, the Chuch is clear on this subject.

Prayers for you, that your wife will find a great doctor, that you will embrace either NFP or the cross of prolonged abstinance and that you and all of your family will grow in Grace as you resist ole wormwood.

 

[Cajun_Girl]

I’m wondering if it would actually be more licit and medically sound for your wife to have a hysterectomy if her uterus is so damaged. Removal of a damaged organ - even a reproductive one - is entirely licit as treatment and/or prevention of a life-threatening medical situation. This is most commonly used morally/licitly as a prophylactic hysterectomy for a woman who has been diagnosed w/ precursors for ovarian/uterine cancer. It can also be morally and licitly used for a woman who experiences heavy bleeding both during her period and/or between her period. There are moral reasons for a hysterectomy.

I’m not a doctor (or a Biology Brain ), but this question did occur to me too. Can anyone comment on the acceptability of removing a gravely damaged uterus?

Sorry to enter into this discussion so late. . .

 

[Good_Daughter]

I’ll answer your question with another question…

Would it be moral to sacrifice the life of the mother to conceive an embryo that could never become viable?

Would you risk life and limb (and the life and limb of others) to rescue a vial containing a frozen fertilized egg from a burning building?

I was hoping you would answer my question with an answer, but that’s okay.

 

[BiologyBrain]

I was hoping you would answer my question with an answer, but that’s okay.

I was kind of hoping that too!

How is conception not procreation? Are all my miscarried babies non-existant to people that think conception isn’t procreation? Aren’t those babies just as much a piece of my husband and me as my birthed son?

Methinks its rationalization to deny that conception is procreation. If conception is possible, so are future generations. If conception is impossible (or very low probability) future generations are in danger. Perhaps it wishful thinking to deny conception as equal to procreation (or at least a HUGE part of it). If conception isn’t procreation, then there are LOTS of things you’re “allowed” to do morally.

 

[kage_ar]

I’m not a doctor (or a Biology Brain ), but this question did occur to me too. Can anyone comment on the acceptability of removing a gravely damaged uterus?

Sorry to enter into this discussion so late. . .

Let’s say your appendix is going to rupture, or your uterus is cancerous. Removal of the organ to preserve the life is the proper medical treatment. Removal of the uterus as a contraceptive is not permitted.

What it sounds like here is that the uterus is something that is causing the body to be sick, the doctors have said that pregnancy would have serious problems because of some blood issue of some kind.

Assuming the problem is pregnancy, removal of the uterus to prevent pregnancy would be contraceptive.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Let’s say your appendix is going to rupture, or your uterus is cancerous. Removal of the organ to preserve the life is the proper medical treatment. Removal of the uterus as a contraceptive is not permitted.

What it sounds like here is that the uterus is something that is causing the body to be sick, the doctors have said that pregnancy would have serious problems because of some blood issue of some kind.

Assuming the problem is pregnancy, removal of the uterus to prevent pregnancy would be contraceptive.

I agree, but I was basing my question on something he (Bonbar) said about her having to have emergency surgery on her uterus in one of his posts. If there is damage to the uterus itself, it would be licit to have it removed. He also mentioned something about ovarian blood clots, so again, that could be medical reason enough to have a morally sound hysterectomy to my knowledge. Having one simply for contraceptive purposes is morally unsound. However, having a hysterectomy for a moral medical reason and being somewhat (secretly?) pleased that there are no more pregnancy worries, is not morally wrong.

I can’t cite Catechism or Vatican documents to prove (or disprove) this statement. However, I do know that my mom had a radical hysterectomy at age 32 when she was counseled by a genetic/oncologist to do it for prophylactic reasons (her mom was battling her 2nd bout of ovarian/breast cancer). My mom is very upright & moral. She regrets it b/c she actually wishes she’d had more kids, but morally speaking she’s convinced she was on good grounds. My aunt (mom’s sister) recently had a hysterectomy b/c she was bleeding heavily even between periods and had very painful recurring fibroids in her uterus. My mom and she both had adequate medical and moral reasoning for their hysterectomies. It doesn’t negate the moral acceptablility that they (my mom at the time) were also glad of the side effect of no more pregnancies. That was not a primary or even secondary consideration for the procedure. If the lump in my breast turns out to be breast cancer & I test positive for the breast/ovarian cancer genes I will probably have a bilateral mastectomy and a radical hysterectomy to prevent/reduce my cancer risks. I will have moral and medical grounds to do so. It will also be in my best interest to do so. I will regret not being able to have children, but a part of me will be glad that I will not have any more miscarriages (not to mention no more painful & heavy periods).

 

[Bonbar]

I was kind of hoping that too!

How is conception not procreation? Are all my miscarried babies non-existant to people that think conception isn’t procreation? Aren’t those babies just as much a piece of my husband and me as my birthed son?

To beget offspring implies that the child has the potential to live on its own.

That is the norm.

We live our lives outside the womb. We interact with God and our fellow men outside the womb.

If a woman has a condition where a fertilized egg will never implant on the uterus, we call her infertile… She is infertile not because she can’t conceive. Rather, she is infertile because she will never beget offspring.

This distinction in no way justifies abortion: when it comes to murder, the fertilized egg is a human. But, this does not mean that a women who can merely conceive is fertile in the same since as a woman who can give birth.

Say I sold you a cow. I explicitly tell you she procreates like clock-work. You can expect to have many many calves, I tell you with a wink.
Would you not be a bit miffed if you later found out the cow, while great at conceiving, could never give birth?
I would expect that you might sue me for fraud.

Reproduction is all about the birth.
The Angels did not appear to shepherds heralding the conception of Jesus…

 

[Bonbar]

Assuming the problem is pregnancy, removal of the uterus to prevent pregnancy would be contraceptive.

That’s pretty extreme.

To the extent my wife and I are one flesh, it would seem to me that OUR parts should be considered as a single unit. That is, one could say that OUR uterus is causing problems. But, couldn’t one also say OUR vas deferens is causing problems? It would seem that if we – as a couple – were to consider some sort of ‘mutilation’ for health reasons, it would be best to obtain a vasectomy as it is generally reversible and doesn’t forever preclude having children in the way that a hysterectomy does.

 

[Bonbar]

Know that this is something the Church is not squishy on, in spite of the emotional answer that well meaning Christians and even the occasional Priest or two will give you, the Chuch is clear on this subject.

It really isn’t.

This is a very difficult issue, and the subtle variations of different bizarre situations are not all explicitly addressed in an authoritative manner in the written church documents.

There have been some pretty strange convoluted arguments to justify or prohibit different aspects of sexuality throughout the past 2,000 years…
(Keep in mind that there was a time when the castration of choir boys was considered moral in Rome.)

The general premise is clear enough: don’t go out of your way to eliminate the purpose of procreation from sex.

But, once you start applying this premise to things like medical hysterectomies, post-menopausal sex, the intentional avoidance of procreation through NFP, knowingly marrying someone who is infertile (once forbidden), utilizing in vitro fertilization, etc., etc., things become very unclear very quickly.

That’s not to say that one can’t make good arguments for or against items in that list (and the hundreds of other odd issues that are out there…) But, making a good argument is not the same as saying the Church is CLEAR on all these issues.

But, maybe I’m wrong… If so, direct me to where I can find a CLEAR and direct answer to my question promulgated by the Church. Saying, “You oughta study the Theology of the Body,” or “It’s all in Scott Hahn’s book…” does not suffice. If it is CLEAR, point me to the answer.