NFP, Birth Control and Choice

[limerick]

“In the case of NFP, they may have mischarted, they may have had mucus they did not detect, the sperm may have lived an extra day, they may have ovulated early/late. In the case of contraception, there was some mechanical defect or biological override that occurred”

**“Mechanical defect”? “Biological override”? If God is in charge, wouldn’t you say that this is His doing and not any method implementation failure on the part of the couple?

Look at how ineffective this method is, and by the admission of a Catholic, no less. By the time any of us women figure out how to make this thing work successfully we are post-menopausal with a house full of kids.

Parenthood shouldn’t have to be a crapshoot.

Limerick**

 

[PaulinVA]

My wife and I have been using the Symto-Thermal Method of NFP for over 19 years. We have conceived three children while try to achieve pregnancy.

We have just reasons to avoid. We abstain approx 14 days every cycle. It is hard, but it is right and it is effective.

As 1ke said - the normal consequence of intercourse is pregnancy - so don’t be surprised if you have intercourse and you become pregnant., whether you are a providentialist, use NFP, a barrier method, or the pill.

To ryecroft - I understand your desire to understand what some of the best theological minds across the centuries have thought (as evidenced in the CCC) but at some point you have to embrace a belief system and go all in - even if you can’t verify everything you’re asked to believe. To that end, I say this in all Christian charity (even though you did not want to talk about it), you need to address your abortion. I think being unrepentant for something like that is a big stumbling block when trying to draw closer to God and find the answers to your questions. I say that out of love, really.

 

[rotlex]

I do not completely agree with the church’s teaching on “spacing children”. I understand the teaching and agree with most of the teaching. Some parts I have problems with (as do many priests) if a married monogamous couple used sterilization after producing a reasonable number of children, or a married monogamous couple use condom I do not in my heart believe they have sinned. The reason is they have done their vocation well and now are preventing excessive children who they could only raise at best under strained conditions. So the Church teaches celibacy or timed celibacy is their only opinion until menopause. Menopause sterilizes the woman when nature declares her done as a child bearing mother. So if they (the couple) sterilize one partner after a couple of kids what is the difference? I say none. I fully understand that does not agree with the church teaching.

While I realize the above is NOT Church teaching, I am glad to see there are in fact others who feel as I do regarding this situation. It seems to be my biggest “stumbling block” if you will, in regards to, well, being in a constant state of “mortal sin”. I have come to the conclusion, after thinking about it endlessly, that I am in fact againest Church teaching on birth control for married couples. I do not condone abortificant methods, the pill, etc. etc., but I see absolutely nothing wrong with barrier methods, again, for a married couple. Yes, I know they are not 100% full proof, and if my wife became pregnant while either of us used them, we would lovingly accept the child.

I have two beautiful children. They were planned. They are God’s gift to me, and I think of them this way each time I look into there eyes, hold them, or simply be with them. The fact of the matter is, we are a single income family and cannot afford more children. Heck, I don’t even want to THINK about college tuition down the road. Again, I realize that barrier methods are not 100%, but, when used in conjunction with other methods, possibly NFP, I think odds are pretty good.

I guess the bottom line for me is I cannot believe that our all loving God and Saviour would look down upon a happily married couple using some form of birth control in order to maintain a decent lifestyle for their family and children, while still “enjoying” each other.

And yes, again, I too understand that this is 100% against Church teaching.

 

[Elizabeth502]

One thing people don’t understand about ovarian cysts – and I’ve had a long history of them, of every type except those arising from polycystic ovarian disease – is that the presence of cysts can totally throw your cycle off and make fertile periods unpredictable. Forget using a “method.” Ironically, also, they often (in my case) prevent ovulation itself (interfere with it).

 

[mapleoak]

The reason I am writting this post is not to get a feud going on here. I’m Catholic and consider myself to be pro choice (at least in some situations)-

One cannot be Catholic and at the same time pro-choice.

One of the problems I have with being Catholic is the whole teaching on Artificial Birth Control.

The choice is between being Catholic or believing artificial birth control is acceptable. Can’t do both.

I have been to NFP classes with my husband when we thought that might be a possibility and if it was, we would more than likely be doing that (because of health reasons it’s not). But the Church teaches that NFP is the only acceptable method of spacing children - I have two Catholic friends - each of whom were staunchly on NFP (one on Billings I believe) - each got pregnant(one twice - now she’s on the pill and hasn’t had any more unexpected pregnancies occur). When one of them spoke to her Parish Priest about this he said that God must have really wanted her to have this child so He “over ruled” her decision. This seems to be the basic consensus and answer about and for people getting pregnant who are using NFP. I also have a number of friends who are Catholic and on Artificial Birth Control - be it the pill or an IUD or whatever. While religiously taking the ABC, one of them got pregnant. I know she wasn’t happy about the timing and she got some similar response from the Priest in her parish “well it’s not your decision when to get pregnant now is it - it’s God’s!” Now if God can intervene whenever he chooses to do so than what should it matter whether or not one is using NFP or artificial birth control?

The mistake here is that there is rejection of the fact that God’s Will will be done regardless if one chooses to cooperate or not. By choosing not to cooperate, one is going against the Will of God and therefore is ultimately rejecting God, His Church and its Authority. By not cooperating however, does not change God’s Will, rather it violently separates one from Him and His procreative plan. It has the effect of removing that person from the grace of God.

It seems that if God wants you to be pregnant than one way or another -be you on NFP or ABC it’s going to happen.

Yes, ultimately God’s will prevails, whether you choose to be a part of it or not. God asks that you be a part of it. To do otherwise is to sin.

This is some of the confusion I feel about being Catholic and dealing with all of the stuff going on with ABC and Abortion. I wish there was another option besides NFP for those of us that do not want to get pregnant “whenever” and can not do NFP - and please don’t say that “well you can abstain” because I just don’t see that happening with any of my friends-also I believe being conjugally available to your spouse is part of the whole Catholic Marriage thing.

There is no ‘whole Catholic Marriage thing’. Marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Through the sacrament of marriage men and women are blessed with the opportunity to cooperate with God through the use of the conjugal act. When at such times as God wills to bring children into the world, and when the couple freely cooperates with His plan, they are participating in the Procreation of another human being(s) with Him. These acts must always be open to regeneration as well as being unitive in nature. Anything other than that represents a separation from the Will of God and His plan. What God may choose to do in spite of ones ill intentions does not remove culpability for rejecting God.

 

[JanetF]

I agree with Mapleoak, at the same time I do have compassion for Ryecroft for what she and her husband have gone through.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Now if God can intervene whenever he chooses to do so than what should it matter whether or not one is using NFP or artificial birth control? It seems that if God wants you to be pregnant than one way or another -be you on NFP or ABC it’s going to happen. This is some of the confusion I feel about being Catholic and dealing with all of the stuff going on with ABC and Abortion.

The difference is that w/ NFP you are using what God gave you - namely infertile times during the woman’s natural cycle. Whereas w/ ABC you are excluding and ‘controlling’ your God-given gift of fertility. Even if you don’t believe in the abortifacient effects of hormonal bc, the taking away of control from God is the key issue. ABC basically rejects God’s design of the body by attempting to control it (many times this is actually more harmful to the woman than pregnancy would be). However, NFP uses God’s design to space children while also calling upon the couple to be self-sacrificing, self-disciplined, and aware of God’s gifts to them. Also, since we’re imperfect humans trying to control a God-given gift - we’re bound to fail at least occasionally. When the failure is w/ ABC many times the effect is much more dramatic (ABC practicers generally believe they won’t get pregnant ever), than w/ NFP. That’s b/c w/ NFP, the couple is using God’s creation to their own advantage (for just reasons), but they still ultimately accept that God is the creator and author of life.

While its true that God can (and sometimes does) intervene in some instances, for the most part he gives us free-will to do as we wish. I’m sure most victims & their families of violent crimes wish God had intervened, but it just doesn’t happen that often. God doesn’t necessarily want this or that person to be murdered/raped, but he allows it b/c of free-will. However, there are consequences for the murderer/rapist both in this world (hopefully a long prison term) and in the next (damnation most likely). However, that’s not to say that sometimes a fortuitious stranger doesn’t save someone from being murdered/raped. In this instance that stranger’s free will interefered w/ the murderer/rapists free will and the two clashed.

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[ryecroft]

To ryecroft - I understand your desire to understand what some of the best theological minds across the centuries have thought (as evidenced in the CCC) but at some point you have to embrace a belief system and go all in - even if you can’t verify everything you’re asked to believe. To that end, I say this in all Christian charity (even though you did not want to talk about it), you need to address your abortion. I think being unrepentant for something like that is a big stumbling block when trying to draw closer to God and find the answers to your questions. I say that out of love, really.

I guess I need to respond to this on here especially with the PM’s I"m getting. I have addressed the abortion - I’ve dealt with it and that’s it - I’ve done everything I need to do. I don’t have night mares - I don’t have this huge guilt - like I said it was sad but I’m glad I’m still alive and I won’t feel guilty for wanting to live and doing everything I could to live. Other’s may have this huge guilt or problem with what they did but that’s them, not me. In all honesty I don’t believe that I did anything to be guilty about. I’m glad I’m still here and physically whole enough to try again when the doctor gives the o.k. Also, if I was put in the same situation, I can’t say I wouldn’t want the same thing done. As I mentioned, I have talked to a priest and the only reason it was brought up here was so I could try to get some understanding. I know some of you don’t agree with what the priest said and that’s you’re right. If you feel differently about what was done than that’s your right as well and also your opinion but to feel that I did something wrong would be saying that I’m sorry I chose life -my life.

 

[Listener]

The Church has always said that you could go on the pill for medical reasons. The person who started this post certainly has a serious medical reason to go on the pill. I grew up in the 1950’s. After the pill came out in the early 1960’s, the priests always said they could be used for medical reasons. Then Pope Paul VI came out with Humane Vitae, which said the same thing. If you look at the “Ask and Apologist” section on this forum, you will see that Father Serpa says that women can use birth control pills for medical reasons. Your priest is correct when he says that it is okay.

Now, some people think that the pills are dangerous - that you might get blood clots or cancer or something. While this is a valid concern, almost any pill you take for any reason has a possibilty of dangerous side effect, such as liver damage from taking statin drugs.

Some people say you must find a Catholic doctor who believes in natural medicine. I say fine, if it helps, but a lot of women can take vitamins and change their diet drastically and still have the same medical problems.

Another alternative would be hysterectomy or uterine ablation. At least the pill keeps you open to the possibility that you could stop it and get pregnant sometime in the future if that’s what you want.

I think people should listen to their priests rather than people on a forum like this who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. Priests are representatives of Christ, and they have a direct line back to the apostles. If we can’t believe in their advice, who can we believe?

 

[mapleoak]

I have addressed the abortion - I’ve dealt with it and that’s it - I’ve done everything I need to do. I don’t have night mares - I don’t have this huge guilt - like I said it was sad but I’m glad I’m still alive and I won’t feel guilty for wanting to live and doing everything I could to live.

Feelings are a poor indicator of the state of ones soul. Not feeling guilty does not equate with any of the following: penitence, need for repentance, sorrow, or humility. Those transgressions which are against God and those which are against man neither need to bring feelings of guilt nor shame in order to be wrong. In the same manner, one does not need to feel holy in order to grow in holiness. Emotions can be a help or a hinderance. Just because it doesn’t feel wrong, does not make it right.

Other’s may have this huge guilt or problem with what they did but that’s them, not me. In all honesty I don’t believe that I did anything to be guilty about.

But if one knows what the Church teaches and chooses to persist in rejecting it even though it doesn’t feel wrong nor bring pangs of guilt, would nonetheless be grave matter. Choosing to kill ones unborn child or killing anyone for that matter, is always grave matter, regardless of ones feelings.

 

[OchsFam]

The Church has always said that you could go on the pill for medical reasons. The person who started this post certainly has a serious medical reason to go on the pill.

While this is true, this is not the reason the OP is using ABC. In the event the BCP was needed medically for some condition, of course the Church would not prevent this. They would, however, say not to have intercourse so there is no potential destruction of human life. The OP is using the BCP for preventing pregnancy which the Church has always said is not okay. I understand the OP has some serious medical conditions, but I am fairly certain the Church would ask that they abstain while they are on the pill because they would be potentially destroying a human life. I can not begin to know the OP’s situation, but that does not make using the BCP to avoid pregnancy an option.

 

[ryecroft]

While this is true, this is not the reason the OP is using ABC. In the event the BCP was needed medically for some condition, of course the Church would not prevent this. They would, however, say not to have intercourse so there is no potential destruction of human life. The OP is using the BCP for preventing pregnancy which the Church has always said is not okay. I understand the OP has some serious medical conditions, but I am fairly certain the Church would ask that they abstain while they are on the pill because they would be potentially destroying a human life. I can not begin to know the OP’s situation, but that does not make using the BCP to avoid pregnancy an option.

Before you make a statement that I am not on the pill for medical reasons, you had better re read the posts. I have been on and off BCP since I was 13 - one of the times I was off was because we were trying to get a baseline to TRY NFP and while we were trying NFP, both times. I’ve gone back on them because of medical reasons - if I were no married or sexually active - I would be on the pill - yes, I will admit that it makes things easier that it prevents pregnancy but the 1st reason I am on the pill is to aid with problems with bleeding so I don’t have to get transfusions as often and to also make the ovarian cysts smaller. Yes, it is helpful that it prevents pregnancy but as I said, I would be on it even if I wern’t sexually active.
And yes I have gotten an o.k. from a priest on this - as I said it has more than one purpose for me but the first and main purpose is to prevent excessive bleeding and hemmoraging and to hopefully diminish ovarian cysts and tumors so that I don’t have to have surgeries to get them out. The church doesn’t say I can’t be happy that taking the pill helps with another situation - some on here seem to think if you’re using the pill for medical reasons that you can’t be happy that it helps out with other situations - ie pregnancy- Osch Farms you made a comment that if we were to use the BCP that we would also be told to abstain while on it - as far as out Catholic Doctor has told us, the pill he has us on is not KNOWN to be an abortifacient. Also our priest never said anything about abstaining - in fact he made it clear that we should be able to “enjoy each other” as long as I felt well enough-I am not about to believe you over our Priest - you seem to asume that every BCP is an abortifacient - some are, some they are not sure of and then there are some that are not abortifacients - you also made another comment earlier in these posts - something like I’d like to know what medical issues makes it impossible for one to use NFP or something like that - I did make a response - perhaps you should read it before stating something that isn’t true.-Make sure of what you say (or ask about something) before you state it as truth.
Thank you

 

[ryecroft]

Above I needed to change something - the first line - I am on the pill for medical reasons -

 

[OchsFam]

Before you make a statement that I am not on the pill for medical reasons, you had better re read the posts. I have been on and off BCP since I was 13 - one of the times I was off was because we were trying to get a baseline to TRY NFP and while we were trying NFP, both times. I’ve gone back on them because of medical reasons - if I were no married or sexually active - I would be on the pill - yes, I will admit that it makes things easier that it prevents pregnancy but the 1st reason I am on the pill is to aid with problems with bleeding so I don’t have to get transfusions as often and to also make the ovarian cysts smaller. Yes, it is helpful that it prevents pregnancy but as I said, I would be on it even if I wern’t sexually active.
And yes I have gotten an o.k. from a priest on this - as I said it has more than one purpose for me but the first and main purpose is to prevent excessive bleeding and hemmoraging and to hopefully diminish ovarian cysts and tumors so that I don’t have to have surgeries to get them out. The church doesn’t say I can’t be happy that taking the pill helps with another situation - some on here seem to think if you’re using the pill for medical reasons that you can’t be happy that it helps out with other situations - ie pregnancy- Osch Farms you made a comment earlier in this post - something like I’d like to know what medical issues makes it impossible for one to use NFP or something like that - I did make a response - perhaps you should read it before stating something that isn’t true.-Make sure of what you say (or ask about something) before you state it as truth.
Thank you

I apologize for apparently misreading your posts. I was under the impression you were utilizing the BCP for prevention of pregnancy. I did not realize you were solely using the pill for medical reasons. In your other posts, you seemed to be saying you were using it for actual birth control which would have meant you were destroying human life and the Church would not condone that.

I am happy you have consent of a priest, but that does not make him right. I have heard some priests say things that are not in line with Church teachings. It is sad, but it happens everywhere including our Church. There is a priest in KC saying the barrier method is acceptable.

I cannot begin to put myself in your position, but understand that I am not trying to attack you. If you feel like I am, I apologize. I was responding to a post stating that you were on the pill for purely medical reasons and from reading your posts this did not seem like the case. You cannot use the BCP for birth control and be in line with Church teachings under any circumstance. It is the destruction of a human life.

What I am saying is based on the teachings in the Catechism.
2366 … So the Church, which is “on the side of life” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”
2370 … In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:…
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."169

I just want to reiterate that I am not speaking against your medical reasons for being on the BCP, only in regards to using it to prevent pregnancy.

Please visit OMSoul to find a NFP only doctor in your area that may be able to provide an alternative for your situation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What I am saying is based on the teachings in the Catechism.
2366 …
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."169

I guess it’s too much for posters to respect ryecroft as equally a child of God, with a right to be respected as a person from the moment of her conception, as well – unless any of you (plural) view her as only a means to an end – a means to the birthing of another child, after which supposedly her life is “less” important than her child’s, or less useful, perhaps, in the procreative scheme of things.

It was her survival, and only her survival, that was ever the fundamental concept and actuality here – not her convenience, not her comfort, but her life on the most elemental and essential level.

 

[Listener]

While this is true, this is not the reason the OP is using ABC. In the event the BCP was needed medically for some condition, of course the Church would not prevent this. They would, however, say not to have intercourse so there is no potential destruction of human life. The OP is using the BCP for preventing pregnancy which the Church has always said is not okay. I understand the OP has some serious medical conditions, but I am fairly certain the Church would ask that they abstain while they are on the pill because they would be potentially destroying a human life. I can not begin to know the OP’s situation, but that does not make using the BCP to avoid pregnancy an option.

This thing about trying to practice NFP while you’re on the pill is nonsense. If you read Father Serpa’s answers, you will see that abstinence is not required. Since the pill prevents ovulation maybe 95% of the time, how on earth would you practice NFP while on the pill for medical reasons? Your wouldn’t have any of the symptoms or temperature changes used by people practicing NFP.

Of course, if you felt some symptoms like you were having “breakthrough ovulation,” you would probably want to abstain so you wouldn get pregnant!

 

[mapleoak]

I guess it’s too much for posters to respect ryecroft as equally a child of God, with a right to be respected as a person from the moment of her conception, as well

An example of a poster who did this?

– unless any of you (plural) view her as only a means to an end – a means to the birthing of another child, after which supposedly her life is “less” important than her child’s, or less useful, perhaps, in the procreative scheme of things.

Would you illustrate how pointing out that the Church’s teaching that abortion is unacceptable in all circumstances, and that life is to respected from conception to natural death equates to viewing the O.P. as a means to an end?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Just to reference the issue at hand:

*Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

(19) See Pius XII, Address to 26th Congress of Italian Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].*

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

The real questions here involve the affects of therapeutic treatment, not the desire to avoid children. When reading the posts if the poster desired to avoid children the situation would be simple, a therapeutic sterilization. However the OP wants children which requires a delay until other therapeutic treatments can be employed to fruition. I have already said my piece on “spacing children”. I would ask other posters to stay on subject and not confer to normal conditions of marriage. The Op has indicated she does not wish to use celibacy while under therapeutic treatment. ***So the only real question seems to be what options does a married woman who cannot carry a pregnancy have to provide the unity aspect of marriage? ***

 

[Elizabeth502]

Response to Post 37:

To Question #1, If the shoe fits, wear it. (It applies to everyone who keeps replying off-topic to the OP’s questions. Rather than address the real. underlying question, which is: *Why should the mother’s life – read, survival, not pleasurable choices – be absolutely considered inferior at all moments to the life of her unborn fetus, except for when said mother was similarly in her own mother’s womb? * Because you do believe that. You conveniently imply that you don’t believe that by repeatedly ignoring the medical reality of two lives in the balance and the need to make an educated judgment based on the immediate medical, extraordinary realities of the moment.

And if you believe the italicized question, you also believe that a woman’s only significant role in the eyes of God is to make babies, and that once she has begun making babies, her life has by definition less intrinsic value than that of any possible life–within-her and life-to-be within her. Because of course, you are indeed playing God by deciding to end her life on her behalf, by deciding that you know for a fact that the as yet unborn life which in her case may or may not have even survived the emergency room trauma, is more precious than ryecroft in the eyes of God. I am not willing to say that (to play God), because I assume that ryecroft is a precious, beautiful person in the eyes of God, though I have never met her. I am required to view her life as precious and equal to all other human life by the command of God.

Sacrifice is a beautiful and noble thing. The world is full of many saints, live and deceased. Firefighters who have gone into houses to rescue – not just infants – but just as often, adults of all ages. Many of these firefighters have died in the process so that others might live. People who have no official ‘duty’ by profession to sacrifice or attempt rescues have done so; some of these have even been children risking their own lives. But there have also been cases of mothers of young children who have not risked their own lives to save another innocent life – i.e., they’ve brought out all the life they could from their own house or another’s burning house, but missed one because there was no time to bring every life out without mortal danger to their own when the chance of their own survival was between slim and none. They had to decide – on the slim chance they could retrieve the last one, and the virtual certainty that they would die in the process – whether it was a moral and life-giving choice to commit suicide with such long odds.

And of course you do realize that by so playing God, you have also decided for God, and for ryecroft and her husband, that ryecroft will never be a baby-carrier again, because she will cease to exist. Doesn’t matter whether a medical advance might have occurred the following year or several years after that event, to allow her to carry (finally) to term, safely, by suppressing or bypassing or otherwise thwarting the morbid medical condition which caused this crisis in the first place.

Sacrifice of our very lives is above what God asks us to do. He only asks that we protect as best we can, to our finite human judgment, all the lives we are responsible for, including our own life. (The Two Greatest Commandments include, “Love Your Neighbor As Yourself,” not more than yourself.)

Those who choose to make the ultimate sacrifice to save – or hope against odds to save (often not succeeding in that) – have a special place in Heaven, no doubt. But that does not mean that those who choose not to commit certain suicide in a sacrificial context have a special place in Hell, or any place in Hell.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Rather than address the real. underlying question, which is: Why should the mother’s life – read, survival, not pleasurable choices – be absolutely considered inferior at all moments to the life of her unborn fetus, except for when said mother was similarly in her own mother’s womb? Because you do believe that. You conveniently imply that you don’t believe that by repeatedly ignoring the medical reality of two lives in the balance and the need to make an educated judgment based on the immediate medical, extraordinary realities of the moment.

And if you believe the italicized question, you also believe that a woman’s only significant role in the eyes of God is to make babies, and that once she has begun making babies, her life has by definition less intrinsic value than that of any possible life–within-her and life-to-be within her.

The mother’s life is not inferior to the life of her unborn baby - ever. However, the mother has options available to her to avoid this life/death situation - even if these choices do not seem immediately evident or easy. The unborn baby on the other hand is dependant & vulnerable to the mother’s choices. Motherhood is about sacrifice from the very beginning - biologically as well as morally. Both mother & child have an innate right to life. The child has its rights dictated by the mother, however, b/c it is wholly dependent on her. Therefore, the actions of the mother must always consider not only her rights, but also those of her child. God loves each of them as individuals and entrusts the child to the mother’s care.