New (to me) contraception argument

[Sure]

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.

Why is there such a profound distinction between a vitamin, a food and a pharmeceutical? I would think that abnormal timing would indicate physical dysfunction. Obviously, her body is not reacting the way it was designed to act. It was designed to remain infertile for a period of time following childbirth.

 

[Arrowood]

The difference is that a vitamin and food simply provide the body with the nutrients that is usually uses to function. Medication actually changes they body’s functioning.

I think we’re going to start arguing in circles here. The point that the NFP doctors were making is that variations in a woman’s cycle are normal. To say that a woman is designed to be infertile while breastfeeding is not really accurate. A woman’s fertility is suppressed by the pregnancy and then returns some time after childbirth. Breastfeeding can delay its return. But what is normal is the return to fertility. The timing can be variable.

 

[Sure]

The difference is that a vitamin and food simply provide the body with the nutrients that is usually uses to function. Medication actually changes they body’s functioning.

I think we’re going to start arguing in circles here. The point that the NFP doctors were making is that variations in a woman’s cycle are normal. To say that a woman is designed to be infertile while breastfeeding is not really accurate. A woman’s fertility is suppressed by the pregnancy and then returns some time after childbirth. Breastfeeding can delay its return. But what is normal is the return to fertility. The timing can be variable.

That’s a good point…and helpful.

I think it does hinge on whether a woman’s infertility while nursing is by natural design or not. I believe it is, but I understand your point as well. I realize it would be widely misunderstood - and probably widely abused - if the Church were to declare that, in this one particular situation, a woman could take medicine to supress her “unnatural” fertility.

Good conversation though…thank you.

 

[Arrowood]

It was a good question and I enjoyed thinking about it!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That’s a good point…and helpful.

I think it does hinge on whether a woman’s infertility while nursing is by natural design or not. I believe it is, but I understand your point as well. I realize it would be widely misunderstood - and probably widely abused - if the Church were to declare that, in this one particular situation, a woman could take medicine to supress her “unnatural” fertility.

Good conversation though…thank you.

Sure

I hope you’re clear it is hard to tell if you are asking questions or teaching! Your main question concerned intent not method, your last question is based on a false premise which is fertility could exist in an unnatural state. To accept this unnatural state of fertility would contradict the base of the Church teaching for all marriage/procreation issues. Hope that helps

 

[Sure]

Sure

I hope you’re clear it is hard to tell if you are asking questions or teaching! Your main question concerned intent not method, your last question is based on a false premise which is fertility could exist in an unnatural state. To accept this unnatural state of fertility would contradict the base of the Church teaching for all marriage/procreation issues. Hope that helps

Thanks for the reply. I think one could certainly make the case that a return of fertility in an ecologically breastfeeding mother 6 weeks after childbirth is not normal. Ecological breastfeeding supresses fertility for a period of time. When this suppression fails, and occurs “unnaturally”, it could (I think) be corrected licitly.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

DL82:

**Mosby’s Medical dictionary, 7th Edition, (c) 2006
**Conception (l, concipere, to take together), 1. The beginning of pregnancy, usually taken to be the instant that a spermatozoon enters an ovum and forms a viable zygote.
2. the act or process of fertilization (AUTHORS NOTE: The term “usually” mean usually, that is, commonly encountered or observed, or regularly and customarily used. )

Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 28th Edition, (c) 2006
Conception. 3. Fertilziation of oocyte by a sperm (latin conception; see concept) Pregnancy: The state of the female after conception and until the termination of the gestation.

Websters New World Medical Dictionary, Second Edition, (c) 2003
Conception: The union of a sperm and an egg to create the first cell of a new organism. The term Conception has also been used to imply implantation of the blastocyst, the formation of a viable zygote, and the onset of pregnancy.
Pregnancy: The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body.
Embryo: An organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to the beginning of the third month in humans.

WebMD uses Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
dictionary.webmd.com/terms/conception.xml

The Torah says I need 2 Witnesses - I just provided 3 different quotes from MEDICAL DICTIONARIES. Is that enough?

Historically, the medical community has accepted what was in those medical dictionaries - All of the textbooks and reference works on this subject said what these 3 Dictionaries still say. It’s only been in the last 40 years, as contraception and abortion on demand have become “Articles of Faith”, and those supporting them have supported them with religious fervor, that textbooks and reference works have been changed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[hasikelee]

Ok here is the short story. I heard from a person that the “pill” is acceptable because it does not violate the openess to life. THe argument was since it is not 100% effective there is still a chance of conception…meaning that a contracepting couple are leaving it up to God because it is still leaving the possibility of life (a small one at that)

By the way I don’t buy the argument and consider the “pill” an intrinsic evil. Not only because it blocks the transmission of life but also because of its occaisional abortifacient properties.

What with the medical technology we have today, shooting someone in the head is still open to life.

It is not 100% effective either.

Ah boo, everyone already used that analogy.

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.

You’re right about calling it “commonly accepted” because it wasn’t even a doctor with an M.D. who changed the definition. If I recall correctly, it was a male politician/activist who was assisting drug companies in making abortifacent birth control more acceptable to the public.

Just change the definition of pregnancy. Voila. I suppose if we decided “newborn” should be moved from the moment of birth to 12 weeks postpartum, then logically we could start killing them, too.