Morality of NFP to limit family size

[Xantippe]

Here’s a story of a home VBAC gone wrong, in which the woman’s uterus ruptured and the baby died.

“I am lucky to be here after the volume of blood I lost. Without the rapid transfer, I would have bled out. When my surgeon performed the emergency c-section I needed in order to deliver the dead baby, even he was shocked. My uterus was–in his words–“shredded.” Brody was lodged against my liver. I had insufficient blood volume for anything but general anesthesia to work.”

navelgazingmidwife.squarespace.com/navelgazing-midwife-blog/2014/4/7/annas-uterine-rupture-story.html

That’s a fairly extreme example because it was a home birth gone wrong, but it does give a flavor of how extraordinarily dangerous childbirth after c-section has the potential to be.

 

[pensmama87]

I don’t know about how much the Holy Father would know about this, but I know that in Brazil, for instance, the C-section rate is alarmingly high. The normal societal attitude is very anti-vaginal birth. I wonder if that attitude exists in other South American countries, and if that influenced his remarks.

If you live in a country where literally almost everyone gets C-sections, and they’re treated as no big deal, when they actually can very much be a big deal, and you live in a culture where men are lauded for making babies but not raising them, that’s a really dangerous situation for a woman who wants to remain faithful to Church teaching.

 

[PaulinVA]

I see 3 different approaches…

1. The family that uses NFP to control size-big or small-they use it as a tool and prayerfully discern each and every child. Family size is intentional and planned.

We used number 1 to build our family. I would say that in the back of our mind we had room for a fifth child, but did not seek to have a fifth. It would have been fine/tight/whatever.

We did not have an oops or “what the heck” baby in there because of our discipline and my wife’s cycles were predictable.

I see no problem with using God’s biology to prudently control what he is allowing us to control.

 

[fpt]

I don’t know about how much the Holy Father would know about this, but I know that in Brazil, for instance, the C-section rate is alarmingly high. The normal societal attitude is very anti-vaginal birth. I wonder if that attitude exists in other South American countries, and if that influenced his remarks.

If you live in a country where literally almost everyone gets C-sections, and they’re treated as no big deal, when they actually can very much be a big deal, and you live in a culture where men are lauded for making babies but not raising them, that’s a really dangerous situation for a woman who wants to remain faithful to Church teaching.

Do you know that there are*** two moral regimes of the refusal of the practice of the conjugal act?*** The *unilateral *moral regime of the refusal, and the bilateral moral regime of the refusal. The wife, under particular conditions, can invoke the unilateral moral regime of the refusal in order to agree with the fact of making love, only, during her infertile times. yes, yes, it is possible, it is her moral right of wife.

 

[fpt]

Do you know that there are*** two moral regimes of the refusal of the practice of the conjugal act?*** The *unilateral *moral regime of the refusal, and the bilateral moral regime of the refusal. The wife, under particular conditions, can invoke the unilateral moral regime of the refusal in order to agree with the fact of making love, only, during her infertile times. yes, yes, it is possible, it is her moral right of wife.

The same right for the husband is existing.

 

[Xantippe]

But you could have the same family doing all three approaches depending on where they are in their marriage and on other circumstances. A family does not pick one and necessarily stick with it during all of their childbearing years.
**
That’s quite right. Simcha Fisher talks about the changes in attitude even in the same person in her Sinner’s Guide to NFP.**

As far as education, of course everyone has different expectations and standards. I know that being able to assist with higher education is a priority for us with our kids, but that does not mean that I look down on those who choose differently. It’s just that in our family, people have been going to college and graduate school for many generations (long before it was considered “normal” to do so, including the women in my family, even if they were intending on staying home with the children) and our natural inclinations, talents and passions tend to fall within academics. I would like to be able to nurture that in my children.

Same here. My grandparents had at least a little college (my grandpa and all three of his siblings at least started college), my parents both have MAs, I have an MA, my husband is a professor, his parents both have doctorates, one of his grandpas was an MD in Eastern Europe–there’s a strong family tradition of supporting higher education. If we weren’t to do our best to help our kids with college, I’d feel like an intergenerational moocher. I want to give as least as good as I got.

I’m kind of hoping the tuition bubble will burst, too, because it’s beyond ridiculous, because even though I really value post-secondary education I am not a fan of seeing it as job training, but hey, my kids are 14-15 years away from college on a regular track, so we’ll see what happens before then.

Do have a look at the current Kiplinger’s–they have an excellent piece on higher education and how the price structure works in practice.

It’s actually pretty hope-giving to those of us with no college savings yet.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t know about how much the Holy Father would know about this, but I know that in Brazil, for instance, the C-section rate is alarmingly high. The normal societal attitude is very anti-vaginal birth. I wonder if that attitude exists in other South American countries, and if that influenced his remarks.

If you live in a country where literally almost everyone gets C-sections, and they’re treated as no big deal, when they actually can very much be a big deal, and you live in a culture where men are lauded for making babies but not raising them, that’s a really dangerous situation for a woman who wants to remain faithful to Church teaching.

Brazil is the medal winner in that category, but I think the same is true for much of Latin America. As I recall, the c-section rate in Mexico is 50%.

 

[fpt]

Brazil is the medal winner in that category, but I think the same is true for much of Latin America. As I recall, the c-section rate in Mexico is 50%.

In my humble opinion, the rate of C-section is more and more important for different reasons:
The fear of law suits, in reason the american mentality about the mechanism of civil tort in link, with the childbirth;
The fact that it is a medical act, thus the obstetrician can ask more money, the more fees;
The will of protect the vaginal canal of wife for sex life: the C-section of comfort;

**Not be naive is my slogan
**
This phenomenon is almost everywhere on the " blue planet", it is sad.

 

[fpt]

Brazil is the medal winner in that category, but I think the same is true for much of Latin America. As I recall, the c-section rate in Mexico is 50%.

The same phenomenon for the episiotomy, another medical act, thus more fees. And, the point of suture for the husband, in order to tighten again the vaginal canal, for his sex life. One point of suture, in plus, not for medical reasons, per se , but for the sexual life of husband. The wife, does she agree with? Does she know that?

 

[Rau]

I see 3 different approaches…

1. The family that uses NFP to control size-big or small-they use it as a tool and prayerfully discern each and every child. Family size is intentional and planned.
2. The family that does not use NFP but is not trying to conceive a baby whenever they can. They just kind of let nature takes it course, and if they have a baby, great. If not, no big deal.
3. The family that has an almost evangelical outlook on procreation and decide that they should try to have a baby as soon as wife’s fertility returns. They want to have as many kids as they can.

All these discussions center on the first and last example. The middle example(2.) is getting lost or not addressed…can we talk about the middle example?

I can infer that Pope Francis may not approve of the middle example’s approach. To me, there is nothing wrong with just not thinking about it and letting it happen…and trusting God. But is that irresponsible? Or is it faithful?

Of course, extreme examples trump it all, but in the ordinary course of life, do we all need to use NFP to be responsible parents? That I don’t agree with…if you don’t want to use NFP, I think that is ok. If you want to just see what baby’s God sends…I don’t see that as irresponsible.

Letting nature takes its course would seem fine if the arrival of a new child remains consistent with responsible parenthood. For many, the time may come when it is not, and then a change of approach is required.

 

[Xantippe]

In my humble opinion, the rate of C-section is more and more important for different reasons:
The fear of law suits, in reason the american mentality about the mechanism of civil tort in link, with the childbirth;
The fact that it is a medical act, thus the obstetrician can ask more money, the more fees;
The will of protect the vaginal canal of wife for sex life: the C-section of comfort;

**Not be naive is my slogan
**
This phenomenon is almost everywhere on the " blue planet", it is sad.

I’ve seen some very good medical arguments for the US c-section rate from US medical bloggers, but the Latin American rate seems to be very much driven by social reasons.

"…all countries with high C-section rates have low levels of maternal and neonatal mortality EXCEPT Latin American countries (represented on the chart by open diamonds) with high C-section rates. The only conclusion that you can draw is that high C-section rates for medical indications are associated with low rates of maternal and neonatal mortality, and high C-section rates for social reasons (as in Latin America) do not lead to low rates of maternal and neonatal mortality.

“What the data actually shows is this: The only countries with low rates of maternal and neonatal mortality have HIGH C-section rates (except Croatia and Kuwait). The average C-section rate for countries with low maternal and neonatal mortality is 22%, although rates as high as 36% are consistent with low rates of maternal and neonatal mortality.”

skepticalob.com/2009/07/whats-safest-c-section-rate-higher-than.html

In the US, women often fight like lionesses for vaginal birth, sometimes when they shouldn’t.

It certainly is a self-perpetuating cycle, though–if a woman has had a c-section, she’s very likely to get another, and it does put a cap on family size. (Of course, if she died while having a baby due to the lack of a c-section, or the baby died, that puts an even lower cap on family size than if she were able to have 4+ safe c-section births, as a lot of women seem to be able to do.)

 

[fpt]

Corrections and a plus.

In my humble opinion, the rate of C-section is more and more important for different reasons:
The fear of law suits, in reason the american mentality about the mechanism of civil tort in link, with the childbirth;
The fact that it is a medical act, thus the obstetrician can ask more money, more fees;
The will of **protecting **the vaginal canal of wife for sex life: the C-section of comfort;

**Not be naive is my slogan
**
This phenomenon is almost everywhere on the " blue planet", it is sad.

I want to say that, I am not against the sexual health and the reproductive health of women and wives( largo sensu), and of men and husbands ( largo sensu), if they are understood in the respect of the natural moral law that is developed by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, in the details with all the subtleties. Of course, a wife and a husband has the moral right to try to protect their sexual organs in order to have a normal sexual life. The medical doctors have to try to cure and to care the sexual problems in respecting the natural moral law. A couple has the moral right *to want to protect their sexual life and their sexual harmony via a good use of the modern medical sciences.
*

 

[Corki]

I see 3 different approaches…

1. The family that uses NFP to control size-big or small-they use it as a tool and prayerfully discern each and every child. Family size is intentional and planned.
2. The family that does not use NFP but is not trying to conceive a baby whenever they can. They just kind of let nature takes it course, and if they have a baby, great. If not, no big deal.
3. The family that has an almost evangelical outlook on procreation and decide that they should try to have a baby as soon as wife’s fertility returns. They want to have as many kids as they can.

All these discussions center on the first and last example. The middle example(2.) is getting lost or not addressed…can we talk about the middle example?

I can infer that Pope Francis may not approve of the middle example’s approach. To me, there is nothing wrong with just not thinking about it and letting it happen…and trusting God. But is that irresponsible? Or is it faithful?

Of course, extreme examples trump it all, but in the ordinary course of life, do we all need to use NFP to be responsible parents? That I don’t agree with…if you don’t want to use NFP, I think that is ok. If you want to just see what baby’s God sends…I don’t see that as irresponsible.

Good point. Catholic teaching is that #2 should be the 'default" with #1 used when there are good reasons present.

 

[Corki]

Do you know that there are*** two moral regimes of the refusal of the practice of the conjugal act?*** The *unilateral *moral regime of the refusal, and the bilateral moral regime of the refusal. The wife, under particular conditions, can invoke the unilateral moral regime of the refusal in order to agree with the fact of making love, only, during her infertile times. yes, yes, it is possible, it is her moral right of wife.

This is not Church teaching. It is the wife’s “moral right” to refuse to have sex except during infertile times ONLY if the couple has prayerfully discerned a moral reason to delay the birth of another child. Such a “right” cannot be invoked unilaterally and connote be invoked without a good/just/serious reason.

 

[Abu]

PaulinVA #230
Well, we know that women who get pregnant outside of wedlock and remain single moms are probably going to live in poverty, and sentence their children to living in poverty. Is that moral?

The probability of poverty is not the real problem here, but the immorality of fornication and the irresponsibility of the lack of a married father and mother for the welfare of the children is the problem.

As to your bible quote, I have no idea what you are trying to say with it.

Jesus of Nazareth commands us to do good and avoid evil by obeying His Commandments – “if you love Me keep My Commandments.” [Jn 14:15]. Since that is the mainstay of a worthwhile life it applies to all situations.

Do we have an obligation to the children we bring into the world? If so, what is it?

What the Church commands.

 

[Xantippe]

This is not Church teaching. It is the wife’s “moral right” to refuse to have sex except during infertile times ONLY if the couple has prayerfully discerned a moral reason to delay the birth of another child. Such a “right” cannot be invoked unilaterally and connote be invoked without a good/just/serious reason.

fpt said “under particular conditions”–presumably that’s exactly what he means.

 

[babochka]

In the US, women often fight like lionesses for vaginal birth, sometimes when they shouldn’t.

I’ve certainly been one of those. I’m scheduled for my 5th c-section in a few weeks. This is the first time that I’ve gone into it resigned to a c-section. It has certainly not been for lack of trying on my part.

It certainly is a self-perpetuating cycle, though–if a woman has had a c-section, she’s very likely to get another, and it does put a cap on family size. (Of course, if she died while having a baby due to the lack of a c-section, or the baby died, that puts an even lower cap on family size than if she were able to have 4+ safe c-section births, as a lot of women seem to be able to do.)

The safety of a large number of c-sections is an individual matter, though many doctors do not treat it as such and prefer to tell a woman that she should have no more than 3 c-sections. I don’t blame a woman for following the advice of her doctor, but many doctors have an attitude that 3 children is plenty, regardless. I was lucky enough to have doctors who looked at me and my individual circumstances. I asked each of the last 2 doctors, prior to my surgery, if they would give me their opinions about the safety of another c-section. Each of them told me, during the surgery itself, that I have healed well and have very little scar tissue. That is most likely due in part to the fact that I have labored with each of my prior babies and completely dilated each time. (Because the part of the uterus that needs to be cut is extremely thin at this point.) Neither doctor was opposed to contraception or sterilization. Bottom line, each woman is different and deserves that her situation be looked at individually, in order to assist her in making the most prudent decision possible.

 

[babochka]

Of course there are some reasons that will never change. Advanced maternal age or a life-threatening health condition are examples.

I don’t think that advanced maternal age is necessarily an example of a reason that is serious for each and every couple. I am 45 and expecting my 6th child. My last 3 children have been born after I hit that magic number that gets one labeled as “advanced maternal age”. All of my children have been born while I was in my 30s and 40s. After I had my last child (at 41), I felt pretty “done”, but I didn’t know if my reasons were “serious”. My husband and I talked about it and I discussed it with my confessor. He led me to my own understanding that I did not have sufficiently serious reasons to avoid another pregnancy. He never told me what to do, though. (He never does; that’s not his style.) Anyway, this baby that I’m having in a few weeks was a bit of a surprise, but not an unwelcome one. We just had come to the conclusion that God wasn’t going to send us anymore. This has not been an easy pregnancy, but it also has not been particularly dangerous. We are both healthy and everybody in the family is eagerly anticipating her imminent arrival.

 

[fpt]

fpt said “under particular conditions”–presumably that’s exactly what he means.

There are:

The moral regime of the* bilateral refusal *of practicing the conjugal act during the fertile times of wife and for making love, only, during infertile times of the wife, for a good/just/serious reason, or for good/just/serious reasons;

The moral regime of the unilateral refusal of practicing the conjugal act for a good/just/serious reason, or for good/just/serious reasons, whatever the moment;

The moral regime of the *unilateral refusal *of practicing the conjugal during the fertile times of wife and for making love, only, during infertile times of the wife , for a good/just/serious reason or for good/just/serious reasons;

Under very particular conditions (for a good/just/serious reason or for good/just/serious reasons), a spouse can refuse unilaterally, morally speaking, the marital request coming from the other. Thus, a spouse can agree with the fact of making love only, during the infertile times of the wife, under very particular conditions.

The moral right to the body of the other is not absolute, the rules of reason, of the moderation, of the balance, of the reasonability and of catholic rationality are important and helpful. Each spouse is not an automatic machine to say yes for the conjugal sex.

 

[fpt]

fpt said “under particular conditions”–presumably that’s exactly what he means.

You understand me correctly