Morality of a Hysterectomy (no medical advice please!)

[Convert_in_99]

Not to distract the thread however I do not believe such a teaching exists. One may certainly chose to be celibate as a precaution, however the fact is no documented loss of a baby through this means, none, never, not a one. All moral is tied to intent. Therapeutic intent is not immoral. For more or a deeper understanding read on ectopic pregnancies which are much more direct in loss of life.

I’m sorry to say that ABC does in fact kill preborn children by making it impossible for them to implant in their mother’s womb. The research is out there. It’s sad and heart wrenching to hear. :crying:

 

[Convert_in_99]

Here’s a few more practical questions.

When you have a hysterectomy you probably have to get your tubes closed off too, so that your eggs aren’t released into your body, right? Would this tubal ligation be morally permissible in this instance?

Would it still be morally permissible to have marital relations with this 0% chance of conception? Would the relations still be considered being open to life, even though the sperm don’t head towards anything reproductive? I think your vaginal canal would have to be closed off at the end, wouldn’t it?

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Not to distract the thread however I do not believe such a teaching exists. One may certainly chose to be celibate as a precaution, however the fact is no documented loss of a baby through this means, none, never, not a one. All moral is tied to intent. Therapeutic intent is not immoral. For more or a deeper understanding read on ectopic pregnancies which are much more direct in loss of life.

Artificial birth control can be abortifacient. It is part of the design of many of the methods.

The reason some theologians say a couple is allowed to participate in the marital embrace is the principle of double effect. When I get a chance, I will look it up for you. Some couples choose to participate in periodic continence anyways.

With the hysterectomy, if it was done because you had to do it medically to treat a diseased organ, not because the couple doesn’t want to have kids, then yes, you can resume marital relations like normal whenever medically ok.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Here’s a few more practical questions.

When you have a hysterectomy you probably have to get your tubes closed off too, so that your eggs aren’t released into your body, right? Would this tubal ligation be morally permissible in this instance?

Would it still be morally permissible to have marital relations with this 0% chance of conception? Would the relations still be considered being open to life, even though the sperm don’t head towards anything reproductive? I think your vaginal canal would have to be closed off at the end, wouldn’t it?

I’m not sure how they do the surgery. But you will be able to have relations, the same way infertile people can have relations. The Church doesn’t require us to stay ill, if the illness effects the reproductive system.

 

[Island_Oak]

Yes, I realize this. I said I believe that it is more moral to have the hysterectomy. This is why: When using ABC, even for a medical reason, innocent babies still die. When you have a hysterectomy no babies are conceived therefore none die. This is why I would choose a hysterectomy over ongoing use of ABC. Hopefully though I won’t have to make that choice and everything will work out for the Endometreosis sugery, and the first time at that.

Hmmmm. I think (and maybe someone more knowledgable on this subject can correct me if I’m wrong) that it’s only OK to use hormonal contraception for medical reasons *if *the woman taking it remainins abstinent while on that medication.

Here’s a few more practical questions.

When you have a hysterectomy you probably have to get your tubes closed off too, so that your eggs aren’t released into your body, right? Would this tubal ligation be morally permissible in this instance?

Would it still be morally permissible to have marital relations with this 0% chance of conception? Would the relations still be considered being open to life, even though the sperm don’t head towards anything reproductive? I think your vaginal canal would have to be closed off at the end, wouldn’t it?

Let me gently suggest there is a rash of misinformation being tossed about and speculated upon…both medically and spiritually. As someone who has had a procedure for medical reasons that is similar to the one you describe needing, let me assure you there is great potential for physical relief as well as freedom from any moral pitfalls. Clarify with BOTH your MD and a priest…preferably a priest who is even affiliated with a hospital and has some appreciation of the medical condition from which you suffer. More of the same is simply adding to your confusion. Best wishes for your restored health~my surgery made a huge impact on my quality of life and overall health!

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Ok, I can’t remember where I read it, so here is a link from the apologists here on the subject of abstaining while on the pill: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let me gently suggest there is a rash of misinformation being tossed about and speculated upon…both medically and spiritually. As someone who has had a procedure for medical reasons that is similar to the one you describe needing, let me assure you there is great potential for physical relief as well as freedom from any moral pitfalls. Clarify with BOTH your MD and a priest…preferably a priest who is even affiliated with a hospital and has some appreciation of the medical condition from which you suffer. More of the same is simply adding to your confusion. Best wishes for your restored health~my surgery made a huge impact on my quality of life and overall health!

best post in the thread

Ok, I can’t remember where I read it, so here is a link from the apologists here on the subject of abstaining while on the pill: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756

So we agree no abstaining was ever required

Thanks for checking:wave:

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Artificial birth control can be abortifacient. It is part of the design of many of the methods.

The reason some theologians say a couple is allowed to participate in the marital embrace is the principle of double effect. When I get a chance, I will look it up for you. Some couples choose to participate in periodic continence anyways.

With the hysterectomy, if it was done because you had to do it medically to treat a diseased organ, not because the couple doesn’t want to have kids, then yes, you can resume marital relations like normal whenever medically ok.

The principle of double effect is so argued I hate to even address it however it seems appropriate.

The hysterectomy is a good example of double effect the good is therapeutic treatment, the bad is sterility. Both actions are paired. So is the intent good to neutral? Yes -if therapy is desired, No -if sterility is desired. Is a greater good served? Yes the healthy person lives on as opposed to continued pain and or suffering the potential death of the woman or fetus. So the famous double effect can be used.

Concerning the relations on the pill I see you are in the camp that believes the pill is abortifcient despite no direct evidence of that having ever existed. ***Let’s look at that point of view and continue ***. The good is therapy, the bad is abortions, and the two are believed to be linked. So is the greater good served? NO the relations would have to be deemed greater than the abortions. So it does not make sense to me even accepting the original premise to consider the principle of double effect in play

Hope that helps and I enjoyed your posts

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Concerning the relations on the pill I see you are in the camp that believes the pill is abortifcient despite no direct evidence of that having ever existed. ***Let’s look at that point of view and continue ***. The good is therapy, the bad is abortions, and the two are believed to be linked. So is the greater good served? NO the relations would have to be deemed greater than the abortions. So it does not make sense to me even accepting the original premise to consider the principle of double effect in play

Well, the pill can cause the uterus to be hostile to implantation, and a person on the pill can get pregnant, so there is a chance an egg could be fertilized and then not be able to implant. I know pharmaceuticals will not do any studies to prove this, but this does not mean it does not happen.
About the principle of double effect, there was a thread a while back on this topic and I was on the side that I didn’t understand why it was ok (lol, I still don’t, for the same reason you stated), but I know there are moral theologians that say it is (and I posted the link with the apologist here, and his post has another link with another apologist).

 

[Joan_M]

The principle of double effect is so argued I hate to even address it however it seems appropriate.

The hysterectomy is a good example of double effect the good is therapeutic treatment, the bad is sterility. Both actions are paired. So is the intent good to neutral? Yes -if therapy is desired, No -if sterility is desired. Is a greater good served? Yes the healthy person lives on as opposed to continued pain and or suffering the potential death of the woman or fetus. So the famous double effect can be used.

Concerning the relations on the pill I see you are in the camp that believes the pill is abortifcient **despite no direct evidence of that having ever existed. **Let’s look at that point of view and continue . The good is therapy, the bad is abortions, and the two are believed to be linked. So is the greater good served? NO the relations would have to be deemed greater than the abortions. So it does not make sense to me even accepting the original premise to consider the principle of double effect in play

Hope that helps and I enjoyed your posts

This (the bolded sentence above) is blatantly untrue! The literature supplied by the makers of the pill actually includes this information in every box of pills!

Of course, they do not state that it causes abortions - that would involve being fully truthful! They do state that one of the operations of the pill can alter the lining of the uterus. This alteration is what causes abortions, since the conceptus cannot implant in the thinner lining.

Fooling yourself about how the pill operates is hiding your head in the sand.

thepillkills.com/pillkillsbabies.php Have a look at this.

 

[CatholicSam]

Plus ABC has nasty side effects even when NOT married and sexually active. I was on them three months for this condition and it was just awful. Had no desire to touch the things ever again. :nope:

And that’s the thing. Lots of less-informed physicians are very Pill-happy. They’ll start prescribing the Pill for practically any “female” problem their patient has. It won’t treat the underlying condition, but sometimes it might mask the symptoms a bit.

You are one wise lady to stay away from that stuff!

I am surprised that some theologians think it’s OK to be on the Pill for medical reasons, even when you could be aborting a baby every month. I understand the morality of getting a hysterectomy for medical reasons, and I understand the morality of a tubal pregnancy being treated with removal of the tube + baby. But to keep using a “medication” that steals the lives of others on a monthly basis–when that medication isn’t even treating the underlying problem–is just beyond me. Guess that’s why I’m not a theologian, huh?

Oh, and Texas Roofer, you’d do well to check out the resource that Joan M posted. It is shocking, but hormonal contraception such as the Pill does cause very early abortions. It works by 1) altering the cervical mucus to keep sperm out, 2) suppressing ovulation, and 3) altering the lining of the uterus to make implantation of a fertilized egg impossible. Not all of these methods work all the time. Sometimes it’s the cervical mucus that prevents the pregnancy, sometimes the ovulation, and sometimes the very early abortion of the days-old baby human when mommy’s uterus does not allow it to implant and be nourished. :crying:

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This (the bolded sentence above) is blatantly untrue! The literature supplied by the makers of the pill actually includes this information in every box of pills!

Of course, they do not state that it causes abortions - that would involve being fully truthful! They do state that one of the operations of the pill can alter the lining of the uterus. This alteration is what causes abortions, since the conceptus cannot implant in the thinner lining.

Fooling yourself about how the pill operates is hiding your head in the sand.

thepillkills.com/pillkillsbabies.php Have a look at this.

Oh cool a Youtube video, again I do not wish to distract the thread, please post the data. it will be the first time the data has ever existed.

*btw- if the video is correct then no baby has ever been born to a mother on the pill - does that sound correct? *

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

And that’s the thing. Lots of less-informed physicians are very Pill-happy. They’ll start prescribing the Pill for practically any “female” problem their patient has. It won’t treat the underlying condition, but sometimes it might mask the symptoms a bit.

You are one wise lady to stay away from that stuff!

I am surprised that some theologians think it’s OK to be on the Pill for medical reasons, even when you could be aborting a baby every month. I understand the morality of getting a hysterectomy for medical reasons, and I understand the morality of a tubal pregnancy being treated with removal of the tube + baby. But to keep using a “medication” that steals the lives of others on a monthly basis–when that medication isn’t even treating the underlying problem–is just beyond me. Guess that’s why I’m not a theologian, huh?

Oh, and Texas Roofer, you’d do well to check out the resource that Joan M posted. It is shocking, but hormonal contraception such as the Pill does cause very early abortions. It works by 1) altering the cervical mucus to keep sperm out, 2) suppressing ovulation, and 3) altering the lining of the uterus to make implantation of a fertilized egg impossible. Not all of these methods work all the time. Sometimes it’s the cervical mucus that prevents the pregnancy, sometimes the ovulation, and sometimes the very early abortion of the days-old baby human when mommy’s uterus does not allow it to implant and be nourished. :crying:

Hi Sam, I am not a believer taking the Pill, I totally agree that the Pill could cause an embryo to not implant. But the pill basically works by suppressing ovulation. It wouldn’t be likely that the woman on the pill ovulates every month, conceives every month and miscarries every month. If the pill was not functioning to suppress *most *ovulation, than it wouldn’t be working at all. The embryo would have a higher chance of implanting and growing if that were the case.

I’ve been on the pill years ago to shrink an ovarian cyst. Our priest who has a Ph.D, in theology said we could use it for that reason and did not say we had to abstain. The cyst was causing me infertility at that point anyway, instead of releasing the egg, the cyst would just get larger. In retrospect, I should have looked for a better option…I shouldn’t have been on the pill because of a heart defect.

 

[kage_ar]

Oh cool a Youtube video, again I do not wish to distract the thread, please post the data. it will be the first time the data has ever existed.

Pick your favorite name brand of Birth Control Pill, google it.

You will then get a web site. Somewhere will be the full product information

Here is the site for ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN® LO norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol

thepill.com/thepill/full.html

Here is the product information

thepill.com/thepill/shared/pi/Tri-Cyclen_Lo_PI.pdf#zoom=100

Right on page one if the 8 page document you will see (bold mine)

**CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Oral Contraception
**Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical
mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which
reduce the likelihood of implantation).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Pick your favorite name brand of Birth Control Pill, google it.

You will then get a web site. Somewhere will be the full product information

Here is the site for ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN® LO norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol

thepill.com/thepill/full.html

Here is the product information

thepill.com/thepill/shared/pi/Tri-Cyclen_Lo_PI.pdf#zoom=100

Right on page one if the 8 page document you will see (bold mine)

**CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Oral Contraception
**Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical
mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which
reduce the likelihood of implantation).

I think you forgot the data, no data, none, that is the difference I do not mix data with my opinions. Never a documented case; none, ever, not one. I have no problem with anyone being against use of the pill. It is unfortunate that the facts are not represented. Remember the original comment was one must abstain if using the pill, that too was misleading, the church has not taught that.

 

[kage_ar]

I think you forgot the data, no data, none, that is the difference I do not mix data with my opinions. Never a documented case; none, ever, not one. I have no problem with anyone being against use of the pill. It is unfortunate that the facts are not represented…

I’m not a scientist or drug developer, but, I cannot think that whomever is responsible for determining how a drug works just pulled this out of their ear and stuck it in the product information to look cool.

The drug company said this is one way the pill works. I choose to take them at their word.

Remember the original comment was one must abstain if using the pill, that too was misleading, the church has not taught that.

I’ve yet to be convinced that the pill can be used for all the “treatments” it is dispensed for today. It does not cure any disease, only treats symptoms. The document is clear, the word is cure.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

HV actually says:

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases,

 

[wanner47]

Texas Roofer - um, how is posting information from the Pill manufacturer constitute an “opinion”? In the real world, that’s known as a “fact.”

Convert - have you checked out Marilyn Shannon’s book?

 

[Convert_in_99]

Texas Roofer - um, how is posting information from the Pill manufacturer constitute an “opinion”? In the real world, that’s known as a “fact.”

Convert - have you checked out Marilyn Shannon’s book?

Who’s she? Is that the cycles and nutrition book?

 

[wanner47]

Who’s she? Is that the cycles and nutrition book?

Yup - “Fertility, Cycles and Nutrition.” She just came out with a 2009 edition.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m not a scientist or drug developer, but, I cannot think that whomever is responsible for determining how a drug works just pulled this out of their ear and stuck it in the product information to look cool.

The drug company said this is one way the pill works. I choose to take them at their word.

Believe what you want but the fact is no data exists to show a single abortion, none, not one, not ever.

I’ve yet to be convinced that the pill can be used for all the “treatments” it is dispensed for today. It does not cure any disease, only treats symptoms. The document is clear, the word is cure.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

HV actually says:

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases,

I assume you are not posting this for me, as I have only posted consistant with church teaching. I have no idea why this reference is posted as that issue has already been repeated

Texas Roofer - um, how is posting information from the Pill manufacturer constitute an “opinion”? In the real world, that’s known as a “fact.”

careful now which part is fact? Thinner linings can be documented, abortions have never been documented not one, not ever.

Convert - have you checked out Marilyn Shannon’s book?

Hey, could she give you data to show the pill causes abortions?