New (to me) contraception argument

[DL82]

If making use of medical technology to test when a woman is of low fertility (NFP) is permitted as a form of contraception, then is making use of ‘natural’ means for reducing fertility also allowed. Certain foods and herbs are known to increase or decrease fertility, would avoiding certain foods and eating more of others with the intent of lowering fertility be allowed? What if you then took the active ingredient in those ‘natural’ foods, synthesised them into a vitamin supplement, without any of the negative side-effects, and took that instead? If that’s allowed, then how is it different from the Pill?

Please note, I’m not arguing in favour of contraception, just trying to understand where the boundaries lie?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That’s not the commonly accepted meaning of ‘conception’. Conception requires three factors, the egg, the sperm and implantation in the womb. It is a perfect mirror of the trinity, and the zygote is a mirror of the incarnation.

What the paragraph quoted above describes is ‘fertilization’.

This is a point about medical terminology, so if you disagree, please provide quotes from medical (not theological) sources.

Often pregnancy is defined as implantation of a fertilized egg or zygote if you would like. Conception and fertilization are often considered the same.

If making use of medical technology to test when a woman is of low fertility (NFP) is permitted as a form of contraception, then is making use of ‘natural’ means for reducing fertility also allowed. Certain foods and herbs are known to increase or decrease fertility, would avoiding certain foods and eating more of others with the intent of lowering fertility be allowed? What if you then took the active ingredient in those ‘natural’ foods, synthesised them into a vitamin supplement, without any of the negative side-effects, and took that instead? If that’s allowed, then how is it different from the Pill?

Please note, I’m not arguing in favour of contraception, just trying to understand where the boundaries lie?

The boundary lies in actions intended to interrupt the natural design of relations. Your question restated is:" As many things affect pregnancy rates are all considered sins?" It is a good question and the standard is those intended to interrupt the natural course of relations are sins. The exact same action intended for another means does not constitute sin. So refining products out of food with the intent to prevent pregnancy would constitute sin. Similarly restricting a diet to foods designed to prevent pregnancy would constitute sin. Yet eating the same food for nourishment is not sin.

Hope that helps

 

[Fergal]

That’s not the commonly accepted meaning of ‘conception’. Conception requires three factors, the egg, the sperm and implantation in the womb. It is a perfect mirror of the trinity, and the zygote is a mirror of the incarnation.

What the paragraph quoted above describes is ‘fertilization’.

This is a point about medical terminology, so if you disagree, please provide quotes from medical (not theological) sources.

For loyal Catholics, fertilisation marks the moment of conception and no other definition is necessary since this has been the teaching of the Church for over 2000 years.

Medicine is still out on where life begins simply because they wish not to offend those who contracept or choose to have an abortion.

All those who hold the ‘commonly accepted’ fact that conception requires implantation simply use this erroneous interpretation to justify a moral evil.

Fertilization = Conception. Look it up in any decent dictionary and see for yourself without the theology or medicine.

By the way your comparison of the Holy Trinity to egg sperm and implantation is ming warping. I simply do not see where the analogy lies. I’d love to hear the connection!

 

[DL82]

By the way your comparison of the Holy Trinity to egg sperm and implantation is ming warping. I simply do not see where the analogy lies. I’d love to hear the connection!

The Holy Trinity is co-equal, eternally proceeding. The Source and Origin, the Father, eternally gives Himself in the act of eternally begetting the Son, and with the Son eternally begetting the Holy Spirit, which is the Person of the Love between the Father and the Son.

The womb is the environment, the source of all the nutrition and care the developing zygote will require. The womb gives itself to be a home to the egg, which proceeds only from itself. Without Love, the egg stays where it is until the lining of the womb and the egg itself are removed in mensturation. When the egg and the sperm unite together, the Spirit of God also plays His part, creating an immortal soul in the person of the united sperm, egg and womb.

That’s one level of analogy. I could go on. The idea of the womb as the source is key though. A fertilized egg outside the womb is not conceived, it is not triune so to speak, because it has no source from which to grow, divide, develop into a human life, it’s just a single stem-cell. That’s why it’s against God’s plan for that fertilization to happen outside of the marital act, because the source of the person (egg & sperm forming unique DNA) is separated from the source of life (the womb), like the Son without the Father.

 

[Harmony1988]

That’s like playing russian roulette.

 

[Arrowood]

If making use of medical technology to test when a woman is of low fertility (NFP) is permitted as a form of contraception, then is making use of ‘natural’ means for reducing fertility also allowed. Certain foods and herbs are known to increase or decrease fertility, would avoiding certain foods and eating more of others with the intent of lowering fertility be allowed? What if you then took the active ingredient in those ‘natural’ foods, synthesised them into a vitamin supplement, without any of the negative side-effects, and took that instead? If that’s allowed, then how is it different from the Pill?

Please note, I’m not arguing in favour of contraception, just trying to understand where the boundaries lie?

The line is not between “natural” and “artificial,” though those terms are very commonly used in discussions on contraception and Natural Family Planning. Contraception is morally wrong for very specific reasons. Barrier methods destroy the complete mutual self-giving and life-giving love that conjugal love is meant to convey. Chemical contraceptives shut down a healthy bodily system (opposed to the principle of totality and integrity of the body). Some contraceptives are abortifacients.

Openness to life is a general theme of Humanae Vitae that goes more against the contraceptive mentality that is born out of secular materialism than out of the specific method of family planning being used. This mentality sees children as a luxury liability (like buying a fancy car that depreciates in value). Having children absorbs money and time that could otherwise be used to find material satisfaction through career and possessions. Contraception naturally falls into this mentality by making it easy to remove the natural consequence (and the natural meaning) of sex. Natural family planning can also be used in ways that are not open to life, though the necessity of periodic abstinence makes the utilitarian attitude of the secular humanist less likely (why go through all that when you can just take a pill or slip on a condom and get the same result?). Married couples are called to be generously open to life. However, when they do have serious reason to limit the number of children or to postpone having another child, they must use morally acceptable means of doing so.

Openness to life refers to the “end” of marriage. NFP vs. contraception refers to the “means” of family planning. Eating “natural” herbs or foods to suppress fertility would be to fall into the same sin as taking the Pill (willfully suppressing a healthy bodily system

Can it be said that contraceptive methods are inherently not open to life in a way that NFP is not? The use of contraception is the choice to actively render the sexual act sterile. NFP does not make this choice, but uses the natural occurrence of cyclical fertility. The difference is important, even if it is not clear to most people.

 

[Sure]

If I may, I’d like to present a similar question to the OP. For reference, I agree 100% with the Church’s teaching on contraception.

First a few points…

We know that women normally have several months (14 months or so on average) of infertility while breastfeeding a new child. This is the design of Nature for spacing children.

We also know that medicine rightly exists to “do that which Nature cannot do for herself.” That is to say, medicine to intended to remedy those situations in which Nature does NOT work as intended.

Now, what of the woman who, for some reason, does not physically function according to Nature’s plan, and has fertility return 2 months after childbirth. Could she morally use a medicine (NOT the pill, but in this hypothetical case, a non-abortifiacient, hormonal pill - which may or may not exist, let’s not get hung up there) that would cause her body to do what it’s supposed to do, namely remain infertile following childbirth. Of course, she could only take this medicine for an ordinary amount of time (say, to space her children 2 or 3 years apart) that would correspond with the natural infertility that she should be experiencing, but for some reason, is not.

Would such an action be “contraception”? Or would such an action be a legitimate moral action of taking a medicine to remedy a physical defect?

I’d love to hear what you all think on this…Thanks!

 

[NPC]

If I may, I’d like to present a similar question to the OP. For reference, I agree 100% with the Church’s teaching on contraception.

First a few points…

We know that women normally have several months (14 months or so on average) of infertility while breastfeeding a new child. This is the design of Nature for spacing children.

We also know that medicine rightly exists to “do that which Nature cannot do for herself.” That is to say, medicine to intended to remedy those situations in which Nature does NOT work as intended.

Now, what of the woman who, for some reason, does not physically function according to Nature’s plan, and has fertility return 2 months after childbirth. Could she morally use a medicine (NOT the pill, but in this hypothetical case, a non-abortifiacient, hormonal pill - which may or may not exist, let’s not get hung up there) that would cause her body to do what it’s supposed to do, namely remain infertile following childbirth. Of course, she could only take this medicine for an ordinary amount of time (say, to space her children 2 or 3 years apart) that would correspond with the natural infertility that she should be experiencing, but for some reason, is not.

Would such an action be “contraception”? Or would such an action be a legitimate moral action of taking a medicine to remedy a physical defect?

I’d love to hear what you all think on this…Thanks!

Would looking after the newborn not be contraception enough!?

On a serious note, although I don’t know for certain, I don’t think it would be justifiable even in this case. Surely if one believes that becoming pregnant and bearing a child is part of God’s plan, then they must accept the ‘next stage’ (i.e. another child) in this plan whether it comes 5 months or 5 years after the previous pregnancy.

 

[Sure]

Would looking after the newborn not be contraception enough!?

On a serious note, although I don’t know for certain, I don’t think it would be justifiable even in this case. Surely if one believes that becoming pregnant and bearing a child is part of God’s plan, then they must accept the ‘next stage’ (i.e. another child) in this plan whether it comes 5 months or 5 years after the previous pregnancy.

But when Nature does not act as designed, we remedy it through medicine. A woman’s body is designed to be infertile for a significant period of time following birth. When, for some reason, that doesn’t work, why can’t we remedy that with medicine to make it as it ought to be?

 

[NPC]

But when Nature does not act as designed, we remedy it through medicine. A woman’s body is designed to be infertile for a significant period of time following birth. When, for some reason, that doesn’t work, why can’t we remedy that with medicine to make it as it ought to be?

I suppose one would have to consider what would be the greater ‘tragedy’ or the greater good - whether the woman may become pregnant again shortly after giving birth, or whether the possibility of bringing forth new life (albeit sooner than nature may have intended) would be intentionally blocked by artificial means. I would suggest that God’s plan should win out - even over nature. In addition to this, there are illnesses which can afflict a woman ( I can’t remember specific names off-hand) so that if she were to become pregnant her life would be in danger. However, to my knowledge, artificial contraception is not even permitted in such cases - abstinence must be practiced, and of course this is the only completely effective way of avoiding pregnancy. In the case of the example you gave, this is an option for such a couple too, or at least some form of NFP - which is permitted by the Church, but if used properly is just as effective as artificial contraception - should be employed as an effective and moral solution.

 

[Sure]

I suppose one would have to consider what would be the greater ‘tragedy’ or the greater good - whether the woman may become pregnant again shortly after giving birth, or whether the possibility of bringing forth new life (albeit sooner than nature may have intended) would be intentionally blocked by artificial means. I would suggest that God’s plan should win out - even over nature. In addition to this, there are illnesses which can afflict a woman ( I can’t remember specific names off-hand) so that if she were to become pregnant her life would be in danger. However, to my knowledge, artificial contraception is not even permitted in such cases - abstinence must be practiced, and of course this is the only completely effective way of avoiding pregnancy. In the case of the example you gave, this is an option for such a couple too, or at least some form of NFP - which is permitted by the Church, but if used properly is just as effective as artificial contraception - should be employed as an effective and moral solution.

God’s plan IS Nature. God’s plan is that women should have infertility for a time after giving birth. Due to our fallen world, sometimes this just doesn’t work. If a medicine were found to be able to remedy this, it would seem to be moral to use it.

The example of where a pregnancy would be life-threatening is different. If the medicine removed the cause of the life-threatening condition that would be fine. But if the medicine merely prevented conception, that would be wrong as the medicine would not be a remedy for the actual condition. A couple in that circumstance would need to abstain or practice NFP.

I cannot think of how my first example could be considered immoral. After all, all that is being done is using a medicinal remedy to make a woman’s body do what it is designed to do. This is not a case of going against Nature, but rather using medicine to be in accord with Nature.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If I may, I’d like to present a similar question to the OP. For reference, I agree 100% with the Church’s teaching on contraception.

First a few points…

We know that women normally have several months (14 months or so on average) of infertility while breastfeeding a new child. This is the design of Nature for spacing children.

We also know that medicine rightly exists to “do that which Nature cannot do for herself.” That is to say, medicine to intended to remedy those situations in which Nature does NOT work as intended.

Now, what of the woman who, for some reason, does not physically function according to Nature’s plan, and has fertility return 2 months after childbirth. Could she morally use a medicine (NOT the pill, but in this hypothetical case, a non-abortifiacient, hormonal pill - which may or may not exist, let’s not get hung up there) that would cause her body to do what it’s supposed to do, namely remain infertile following childbirth. Of course, she could only take this medicine for an ordinary amount of time (say, to space her children 2 or 3 years apart) that would correspond with the natural infertility that she should be experiencing, but for some reason, is not.

Would such an action be “contraception”? Or would such an action be a legitimate moral action of taking a medicine to remedy a physical defect?

I’d love to hear what you all think on this…Thanks!

My older brother is 386 days older, luckly you were not there for me! My younger brother is 344 days younger I guess he was luck to!

 

[Sure]

My older brother is 386 days older, luckly you were not there for me! My younger brother is 344 days younger I guess he was luck to!

Your family is blessed.

I am not advocating this action nor do I even think such a medicine currently exists. But this is an academic question that I find interesting, namely, contraception is going “against” Nature, but what of those times when, according to Nature, one ought to be infertile and not fertile.

 

[NPC]

God’s plan IS Nature. God’s plan is that women should have infertility for a time after giving birth. Due to our fallen world, sometimes this just doesn’t work. If a medicine were found to be able to remedy this, it would seem to be moral to use it.
I cannot think of how my first example could be considered immoral. After all, all that is being done is using a medicinal remedy to make a woman’s body do what it is designed to do. This is not a case of going against Nature, but rather using medicine to be in accord with Nature.

Or is it that nature is God’s plan?! - That might be making it a bit philosophical, but the thing is that nature is not static nor does nature have a uniform set of rules that may be applied to all persons and circumstances - indeed there is a broad set of rules that usually work, but don’t we believe that God has a specific plan for everybody? This is a difficult thing to argue, because one could ask then why we should treat illnesses if it is God’s plan for them to suffer illness, but I think it is a different situation when it comes to the case you have outlined because such treatments would deliberately interfere with the possibility of bearing a child - again, surely the ‘greater good’ for those who trust in God’s plan is to accept new life even if this life comes at a time when the woman’s body (in terms of fertility) is at odds with ‘normal’ biological processes. In relation to my original reply to your question where I asked jokingly if looking after the newborn would be contraception enough - surely abstinence isn’t such an unrealistic solution if the woman is worried about becoming pregnant soon after giving birth - given how occupied both parents would be with the baby (not to mention how tired), this seems to me to be one of the most likely times that a couple could practice abstinence! On a point of information - if you haven’t guessed - I’m not a doctor, nor am I a parent. I’m just giving what I think are logical observations, but as always I am happy to be corrected by one who is more enlightened than I!!

 

[Sure]

Or is it that nature is God’s plan?! - That might be making it a bit philosophical, but the thing is that nature is not static nor does nature have a uniform set of rules that may be applied to all persons and circumstances - indeed there is a broad set of rules that usually work, but don’t we believe that God has a specific plan for everybody? This is a difficult thing to argue, because one could ask then why we should treat illnesses if it is God’s plan for them to suffer illness, but I think it is a different situation when it comes to the case you have outlined because such treatments would deliberately interfere with the possibility of bearing a child - again, surely the ‘greater good’ for those who trust in God’s plan is to accept new life even if this life comes at a time when the woman’s body (in terms of fertility) is at odds with ‘normal’ biological processes. In relation to my original reply to your question where I asked jokingly if looking after the newborn would be contraception enough - surely abstinence isn’t such an unrealistic solution if the woman is worried about becoming pregnant soon after giving birth - given how occupied both parents would be with the baby (not to mention how tired), this seems to me to be one of the most likely times that a couple could practice abstinence! On a point of information - if you haven’t guessed - I’m not a doctor, nor am I a parent. I’m just giving what I think are logical observations, but as always I am happy to be corrected by one who is more enlightened than I!!

First let me be clear, I am totally opposed to contraception and view this as an academic discussion. This is the only instance that I think any medical suppression of fertility would be moral. Also, of course, a couple could use NFP and there is much abstinence after the birth of a child.

When I speak of God’s plan in Nature, I mean that we can discern what God intended in his creation. For instance, we know babies should have 2 eyes, 2 functioning ears, etc. When a baby is born deaf, we know that is not normal (it occurs in nature, but is not according to Nature). We seek to correct these defects when we find them. It is obvious that the Creator planned for woman to be infertile for a time after giving birth. It seems to me that, if that does not occur, due to some defect, we would be within morality to cause it to occur, as it should have.

To use another example, we know God designed woman to nourish her child at her breast. If for some reason a woman cannot do this naturally, it is good and right for the doctor to intervene and attempt to correct that which ought to be. If, in this case, there was a hormonal pill that would cause the woman to begin producing milk, that would be a good act. It would be a good act because it would be attempting to do what was intended by God the Creator.

 

[Pug]

Now, what of the woman who, for some reason, does not physically function according to Nature’s plan, and has fertility return 2 months after childbirth.

Being different from average is not a defect in need of treatment. For example, not all women begin to menstruate at the same age. It is quite varied. Each body and physical system is operating on its plan, not some general scheme. It is not a sign of dis-health to operate on your own body’s plan. What your body is doing may be very healthful from it’s perspective.

So, is this state of her hormones causing damage to the body of the mother? Is that damage sufficient that it is a good idea to use medical treatment on a woman whose husband is on a tour of duty in another country (you know)? If it is, then use it even if her husband is not on a tour of duty, if the couple deems that is the correct course.

If it is only the temporary presence or absence of the woman’s husband that is making her seek the treatment or not, then it isn’t really about her physical health. Just abstain for a temporary time if the couple deems this is needed for the family.

That’s my off the cuff overall call on this.

 

[Arrowood]

Sure’s question is a fair one. One guideline for the proper use of a drug is that it restores the body to its proper mode of functioning. Abuse of a drug would be to force the body into a condition outside of its proper function (for example, making you high or suppressing the normal cycling of a healthy fertility system).

Here’s my take on it. If a woman’s fertility returns due a hormonal imbalance, it would be morally acceptable to correct the imbalance. If the drug suppressed fertility by some other mode I do not think it would be morally acceptable. The goal is not just to suppress fertility because fertility is usually suppressed. The goal is to return the body to a normal healthy state. Even if accepting such a treatment is morally acceptable, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it would be the best prudential choice. Depends on the nature and cause of the problem (is it temporary, will it cause other complications, etc), periodic abstinence may still be the better choice.

Practically speaking, in the use of NFP, only “intensive breastfeeding” is a reliable method for avoiding pregnancy, and only for a short period of time. Breastfeeding does have enough of an effect to be a sort of natural spacer, but it’s not really consistent. Fertility can return at any time and women who are using NFP post-partum to space their children are taught to keep charting and to be observant for signs of returning fertility. So, the comment that outside of the norm is not the same as defective would apply here.

 

[Arrowood]

I passed this question on to a few of my NFP-trained medical professional friends. Their response was pretty unanimous.

The return to fertility after childbirth is never considered abnormal. The time to the return to fertility varies greatly from pregnancy to pregnancy. Unless there is a major and problematic hormonal imbalance, medical intervention would not be justified due to an early post-partum return to fertility. An “abnormally” early return to fertility does not necessarily indicate that there is something wrong with the body, since a return to fertility is the natural course after childbirth. The time that it takes for the woman’s body to return to fertility varies naturally.

They emphasized that normal female fertility is characterized by cycling between fertile and infertile periods, and by variations. Our director of the Office of Natural Family Planning even stated, “I think it is within God’s plan to have the range of
variations found in the female persona. Thus, we should stop trying to normalize everyone - whatever normal is.”

 

[Sure]

I passed this question on to a few of my NFP-trained medical professional friends. Their response was pretty unanimous.

The return to fertility after childbirth is never considered abnormal. The time to the return to fertility varies greatly from pregnancy to pregnancy. Unless there is a major and problematic hormonal imbalance, medical intervention would not be justified due to an early post-partum return to fertility. An “abnormally” early return to fertility does not necessarily indicate that there is something wrong with the body, since a return to fertility is the natural course after childbirth. The time that it takes for the woman’s body to return to fertility varies naturally.

They emphasized that normal female fertility is characterized by cycling between fertile and infertile periods, and by variations. Our director of the Office of Natural Family Planning even stated, “I think it is within God’s plan to have the range of
variations found in the female persona. Thus, we should stop trying to normalize everyone - whatever normal is.”

Good posts, thanks.

I think that fertility returning 6-8 weeks after childbirth, despite the fact that the woman is following the design of nature and breastfeeding, is definitely not normal. Normally, her body would be suppressing fertility, yet it is not. Why can she not remedy that?

Would there be any doubt here if the remedy was changing her diet? Or making sure she has proper darkness and light during the day? What if she just took vitamins to make her body go back to normal infertility? What if she started co-sleeping with her baby (she should be anyway) in order to aid the return of her natural infertility? If she can do all of the above actions, why can she not take a medicine that would cause her body to function normally and suppress fertility?

Thanks!

 

[Arrowood]

Good posts, thanks.

I think that fertility returning 6-8 weeks after childbirth, despite the fact that the woman is following the design of nature and breastfeeding, is definitely not normal. Normally, her body would be suppressing fertility, yet it is not. Why can she not remedy that?

Would there be any doubt here if the remedy was changing her diet? Or making sure she has proper darkness and light during the day? What if she just took vitamins to make her body go back to normal infertility? What if she started co-sleeping with her baby (she should be anyway) in order to aid the return of her natural infertility? If she can do all of the above actions, why can she not take a medicine that would cause her body to function normally and suppress fertility?

Thanks!

My understanding is that the abnormal timing does not mean physical dysfunction. The use of drugs needs to correct a bodily dysfunction. These other remedies are not pharmaceutical in nature, so they do not fall under the same moral principles.