Newly wed contraception disagreement

[thewanderer]

I get your point, and I agree, regardless of the intentions while creating the compound, the effects are what matter. I was trying to explain that the manufacturer is stating that the effect is there, and that it is supposed to work to avoid pregnancy, it is a mechanism that is part of their product. ** There is a difference between using a product that was designed to act in a certain way if fertilization occurs (and this is why I brought up intention, because I am guessing that if the manufacturers say something works that way, then my guess is that they expect for it to work that way), vs using a product that was not designed to cause this effect. **
To use an example, say we are talking about an herb that can cause a miscarriage if taken in high dosage. The herb is naturally grown, obviously God did not create it for us to try to use it to abort a baby, but it would still be something that we cannot consume and say it is ok for us to consume it if we are doing it for nutritional purposes and not with the direct intention of aborting our child. Let’s take another herb that does not have these properties (or at least there is no reason to believe it does). Then we can consume it. With the pill, if in the next years it can be shown that there is no loss of life because of mechanisms in the pill, then yes, the gravity lessens and women can take this into account. The problem is at this point in time there is no conclusive evidence that the inserts are wrong. There are theories left and right either way. The difference between the combination pill and the good herb is that there is no reason to believe that the good herb can cause a loss of life, while with the combination pill we know eggs can be fertilized despite the suppression of ovulation, and we know that manufacturers and other medical sources mention the mechanism lowering the chances for a fertilized egg to implant, so a pregnancy that could have survived could be terminated because of the pill. This is why these effects do need to be taken into consideration. Now, I think it would be wonderful if this never happens like some people suggest, and then it would be closer to the good herb (we would still need to take into consideration the fact that the pill causes temporary sterility, but that is not as grave as the possibility of it having an abortifacient effect).

Again, with respect to the bolded, the only difference is that in the case of something that was designed for a sinful puprose is that person who designed it behaved immorally.That does not in any way shape or form affect the morality of using that substance in non-sinful ways. The sinfulness of the designer does not make the use of the product more or less sinful, that just is not how morality works. So, even if it is true that when designing the pill they specifically tweaked the hormones used to ensure that there was an added effect that would not have otherwise been there of thinning the uterine lining (which I somewhat doubt) that would not affect even one jot the morality of using that particular compound for legitimate medical reasons if it is the best/only solution available. The added sinfulness is entirely on the shoulders of the manufacturer and not at all on the shoulders of the person using the pill for legitimate reasons. In other words, if the pill were to be discovered naturally somewhere there would be no moral difference in using the naturally discovered pill versus the manmade pill for legitimate medical uses. Period.

 

[thewanderer]

**Basically I disagree with the notion that if pill A just causes temporary infertility (contraceptive) and pill B causes temporary infertility AND can cause a miscarriage that they have equal gravity because miscarriages happen anyways. **I just wanted to point out that when a medication includes a mechanism to cause abortions, even if the abortion is not intended, that effect has to be taken into account when deciding the gravity. The abortion/miscarriage is not intended, and neither is the sterility, but in order to include an effect in the evaluation it does not have to be intended, in fact, if an evil effect was intended then the person could not use the principle of double effect to justify doing it.

It looks like I responded before you added this to your post. Nobody on this thread is claiming the bolded. So if that is what you disagree with, then please understand that we are all on the same page with respect to that point.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Again, with respect to the bolded, the only difference is that in the case of something that was designed for a sinful puprose is that person who designed it behaved immorally.That does not in any way shape or form affect the morality of using that substance in non-sinful ways. The sinfulness of the designer does not make the use of the product more or less sinful, that just is not how morality works. So, even if it is true that when designing the pill they specifically tweaked the hormones used to ensure that there was an added effect that would not have otherwise been there of thinning the uterine lining (which I somewhat doubt) that would not affect even one jot the morality of using that particular compound for legitimate medical reasons if it is the best/only solution available. The added sinfulness is entirely on the shoulders of the manufacturer and not at all on the shoulders of the person using the pill for legitimate reasons. In other words, if the pill were to be discovered naturally somewhere there would be no moral difference in using the naturally discovered pill versus the manmade pill for legitimate medical uses. Period.

I didn’t say anything about adding sinfulness to anyone, all I am saying is that it adds gravity (not the intentions of the manufacturer, but the effects of the product, if you reread what I wrote I am saying the intentions of the manufacturer can be used in evaluating the effects), when evaluating whether or not the principle of double effect can be used.
It boils down to this:
Pill A: Only causes temporary sterilization
Pill B: Causes temporary sterilization and has a mechanism to cause an abortion/miscarriage if an egg is fertilized.

When evaluating the gravity of the evil, pill B has more “gravity”. That is all I wanted to get to.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

It looks like I responded before you added this to your post. Nobody on this thread is claiming the bolded. So if that is what you disagree with, then please understand that we are all on the same page with respect to that point.

That is all I have been trying to say lol!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

My point is simply that for woman that use “standard” BCPs, the rate of non-implantation is not going to increase over that which occurs naturally; effectively nothing changes in this regard. If one is still concerned, simply practice NFP at the same time for your own comfort, though this certainly is not a requirement.

 

[thewanderer]

That is all I have been trying to say lol!

And all I have been trying to do is distance the language of abortion from this discussion and instead have people turn to the more accurate (for those speaking commonly and morally, not medically) term of risk of miscarriage. Abortion or the intention to end a childs life is not even in the picture in the scenario we have been discussing. Also, the fact that some substance was originally designed for an immoral purpose does not make it anymore questionably moral to use for a moral purpose than a substance just found in nature.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

And all I have been trying to do is distance the language of abortion from this discussion and instead have people turn to the more accurate (for those speaking commonly and morally, not medically) term of risk of miscarriage. Abortion or the intention to end a childs life is not even in the picture in the scenario we have been discussing. Also, the fact that some substance was originally designed for an immoral purpose does not make it anymore questionably moral to use for a moral purpose than a substance just found in nature.

The mechanism can cause a pregnancy to be lost. Morally speaking it does make a difference.
Would it be ok to refer to it as an abortion if we are talking to a woman who is considering using the pill for contraceptive reasons, without any other medical issues? I get what you are saying, and I agree that although the manufacturer may have had the loss of the fertilized egg in mind, the woman using the product for other reasons does not.
What about if a method of contraception is documented to function mostly by preventing implantation. Let’s say there is a device that can be used to treat an irregularity in the female reproductive system that has a 80% chance of causing a fertilized egg to not implant. Would it be incorrect to say it has a good chance of causing an abortion? Should we say it has an increased chance of causing a miscarriage to not scare the woman away from using this to treat her problem?
How about methotrexate, which is used to induce abortions (although there are now newer medications), and can also treat psoriasis. Would it be wrong to mention it causes abortions, to not discourage the usage of the medication for psoriasis? I know these are just semantics, but I don’t think it is wrong to say it can cause an abortion. It can cause a pregnancy that would have naturally not miscarried to be lost. That isn’t the same as saying I am willing an abortion by using it, but it does make me realize the gravity of the situation.

I still agree with you about the intention of the design not mattering if the effect is the same …once again I was just using it to explain that if there is an intention to cause an effect, a statement that it can cause the effect (for example in the insert for the pill if it says it has a mechanism to lessen the chances of a fertilized egg implanting) as opposed to the manufacturer not stating that the product has this effect (the label of a snickers bar) then the possibility of the effect should be taken into account when deciding whether to use the product. I never said that, for example, attempting an abortion with a naturally abortive substance was better morally than using a substance manufactured for that purpose. I was just pointing out that the mechanism can’t be as readily dismissed since the manufacturer is stating the mechanism is there.

 

[Debora123]

What about if a method of contraception is documented to function mostly by preventing implantation. Let’s say there is a device that can be used to treat an irregularity in the female reproductive system that has a 80% chance of causing a fertilized egg to not implant. Would it be incorrect to say it has a good chance of causing an abortion? Should we say it has an increased chance of causing a miscarriage to not scare the woman away from using this to treat her problem?
How about methotrexate, which is used to induce abortions (although there are now newer medications), and can also treat psoriasis. Would it be wrong to mention it causes abortions, to not discourage the usage of the medication for psoriasis? I know these are just semantics, but I don’t think it is wrong to say it can cause an abortion. It can cause a pregnancy that would have naturally not miscarried to be lost. That isn’t the same as saying I am willing an abortion by using it, but it does make me realize the gravity of the situation.

If a woman is taking a drug with the intent of it killing a fertilized egg, yes, that can be called an abortion.

But If a woman is taking a certain medication for health reasons, I would not call any loss of life that may come as a result, an abortion. It is best to call it a miscarriage or use the medical term - spontaneous abortion.

I don’t think we should throw around the word “abortion” when it happens to someone who did not intend for it to happen, regardless of what the drug taken was initially formulated to do.

This discussion continues to go in circles, and perhaps it is time to agree to disagree. Some may think that it is ok to refer to a failure of implantation as a result of a drug that was taken for legitimate medical reasons as an “abortion,” while other think it may be more accurate and correct to call it a miscarriage.

I don’t see this is going anywhere else.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Should we say it has an increased chance of causing a miscarriage to not scare the woman away from using this to treat her problem?

This is not correct according to any study I’ve seen. If you have a study indicating otherwise I would like to see it (by study I mean medical research; not an opinion piece).

Would it be incorrect to say it has a good chance of causing an abortion?

Abortion in the Catholic sense = “intentional murder.” It is improper to use “abortion” in the context of the principle of double effect. If any of these side effects were actually an abortion as the Catholic Church defines an abortion, these medications would NEVER be permitted…period…as abortion is never allowed.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

This is not correct according to any study I’ve seen. If you have a study indicating otherwise I would like to see it (by study I mean medical research; not an opinion piece).

I’m not sure what you mean, I said "Let’s say there is a device that has an 80% chance… Should we say it has an increased chance of causing a miscarriage to not scare the woman away from using this to treat her problem? " I was not saying that there is a device that has this chance that causes miscarriages, I was asking if there was one that had a high likelihood, should we call it as miscarriage as well?

I then gave an example of a medication used specifically to cause abortions, methotrexate, that can be used for treating conditions like psoriasis… whether it would be incorrect to say the medication can cause abortions.

I agree with Deborah about the circles, I think we may just disagree on this.

 

[Debora123]

Abortion in the Catholic sense = “intentional murder.” It is improper to use “abortion” in the context of the principle of double effect. If any of these side effects were actually an abortion as the Catholic Church defines an abortion, these medications would NEVER be permitted…period…as abortion is never allowed.

Precisely.

 

[Rence]

This is not correct according to any study I’ve seen. If you have a study indicating otherwise I would like to see it (by study I mean medical research; not an opinion piece).

Abortion in the Catholic sense = “intentional murder.” It is improper to use “abortion” in the context of the principle of double effect. If any of these side effects were actually an abortion as the Catholic Church defines an abortion, these medications would NEVER be permitted…period…as abortion is never allowed.

Exactly I think folks are better off sticking to the facts instead of hypotheticals and maybe’s. The reason why the Church forbids artificial birth control (all kinds) is because the Church requires the unitive property (not present when ABCs are used) and the procreative property be present at all times when having sex. It’s as simple as that. Period. End of subject. No need to add or subtract from what the Church teaches. The same teaching applies to unmarried couples, and homosexual couples. No unitive property AND procreative property then No sex.