Oral contraceptives

  • Thread starter Thread starter samaritana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is true that the pill would make signs difficult to interpret. However, on a 28 day cycle of a married couple on the Birth Control pill, the reasonable days of abstinence would be more or less days 7 to 20. (This would be the probable days of a breakthrough ovulation if one does occur). The couple should talk to trained Couple to Couple teachers, Priests for life advocates and a knowledgeable priest of NFP.
It wouldn’t work. A woman on the pill has artificial hormones mimiking and masking her body’s symptoms. Break through ovulations often occur due to missed or delayed pills. The body would not give the usual clues.
 
It is true that the pill would make signs difficult to interpret. However, on a 28 day cycle of a married couple on the Birth Control pill, the reasonable days of abstinence would be more or less days 7 to 20. (This would be the probable days of a breakthrough ovulation if one does occur). The couple should talk to trained Couple to Couple teachers, Priests for life advocates and a knowledgeable priest of NFP.
Sure, assuming that ovulation would occur in the normal time frame (12 days before bleeding) The artificial hormones might delay it significantly so it might not happen until day 21 or 22.
 
Hence, the GRAVE reason to take seriously the abortifacient quality of the pill. Sexually active women who understand this will be extremely careful when it comes to intimacy knowing that if there is a break though ovulation, that baby would have a very tough chance attaching to the thinned uterus and a very real chance of being expelled with the monthly menses.
Sure, assuming that ovulation would occur in the normal time frame (12 days before bleeding) The artificial hormones might delay it significantly so it might not happen until day 21 or 22.
 
I am not promoting anyone. I am trying to reasonably show that a Catholic married couple MUST abstain from sexual relations while on the pill in order to avoid the possibility of killing newly conceived life.

I have called Couple to Couple League, Priest for Life, Pro-Life doctors and have received all the same information: abstinence must be adhered to. I have look onto EWTN, and various websites, and read Humanae Vitae, which all point to the inherent evil of contraception ESPECIALLY if it has abortifacient qualities.

My question is: if the pill has 2 evils, one being contraceptive in nature and the second being abortifacient in nature, why in the world is the married couple given carte blanche to have sex whenever without concerns for the GRAVER reason of the two, namely-- DEATH of AN INNOCENT BABY?

Respectfully,
elizabethofport
Elizabeth,

I didn’t mean to offend you; I simply wanted you to know that Ron Conte’s site ARE NOT reliable forms of information, theology, or resources for Catholics. That is the only thing I took issue with. You mentioned Couple to Couple League, Priests for Life, EWTN. Those are excellent resources, CatholicPlanet and it’s bogus “catechism” site are not and I wanted you and others reading this thread to be aware of the deceptive info on those sites!
 
I wasn’t offended. I just have been trying to get information from many websites, organizations etc. I came upon his website, read through a lot of info on married sexuality which is the same that I have heard from EWTN, Priests for Life and the Couple to Couple League. That’s why I included it.
Elizabeth,

I didn’t mean to offend you; I simply wanted you to know that Ron Conte’s site ARE NOT reliable forms of information, theology, or resources for Catholics. That is the only thing I took issue with. You mentioned Couple to Couple League, Priests for Life, EWTN. Those are excellent resources, CatholicPlanet and it’s bogus “catechism” site are not and I wanted you and others reading this thread to be aware of the deceptive info on those sites!
 
I wasn’t offended. I just have been trying to get information from many websites, organizations etc. I came upon his website, read through a lot of info on married sexuality which is the same that I have heard from EWTN, Priests for Life and the Couple to Couple League. That’s why I included it.
Just remember that it’s okay to enjoy marital intimacy with your spouse and that foreplay leading to actual intercourse with your spouse is perfectly acceptable…Mr Conte likes to teach otherwise 😉
 
A woman’s egg is viable for 24 hours. If she ovulates from both ovaries in a month, it is possible to fertilize two eggs within a 48 hour time frame. However, the woman’s body, in preparation to conceive, creates mucus about a week before the ovulation that is thinned and thereby easily maneuverable by sperm. That is why a woman is fertile for more than just 48 hours-- the sperm continue to live and move up into the fallopian tubes. This is why NFP (Natural Family Planning) teaches a woman about her “fertile” signs.

If a couple have a grave reason to avoid a pregnancy, they should abstain during the fertile phase (which can vary, but usually is about 7 to 14 days out of a month). If a married woman is taking the pill, she should abstain during the days that she is normally fertile in order to avoid an early abortion.
As Mary Gail pointed out, practicing NFP while on the pill is pointless. The “days she is normally fertile” are meaningless, because any number of things could cause a breakthrough ovulation at any point in the cycle- not taking the pills correctly, an illness that changes hormone levels, etc. Has nothing to do with the days she would “normally be fertile”.

So, you are contradicting yourself. First you said that women taking the pill should abstain, then you said she only has to abstain during the time she would “normally be fertile”, which doesn’t make any sense since if she’s going to ovulate, it could happen at any time. So which is it?
 
When I was referring to abstinence in my prior responses I assumed the normally abstinence that takes place in an NFP couple who is avoiding pregnancy for grave reasons. (usually 7 to 14 days a month).
So, in my posts I never assumed complete abstinence forever. I assumed people understood what I meant.

However, you bring up an amazing point. And an even greater reason for married couple’s not to risk taking the pill. Who would want to be responsible for loss of life knowing that using the pill this could happen?
As Mary Gail pointed out, practicing NFP while on the pill is pointless. The “days she is normally fertile” are meaningless, because any number of things could cause a breakthrough ovulation at any point in the cycle- not taking the pills correctly, an illness that changes hormone levels, etc. Has nothing to do with the days she would “normally be fertile”.

So, you are contradicting yourself. First you said that women taking the pill should abstain, then you said she only has to abstain during the time she would “normally be fertile”, which doesn’t make any sense since if she’s going to ovulate, it could happen at any time. So which is it?
 
When I was referring to abstinence in my prior responses I assumed the normally abstinence that takes place in an NFP couple who is avoiding pregnancy for grave reasons. (usually 7 to 14 days a month).
So, in my posts I never assumed complete abstinence forever. I assumed people understood what I meant.
People don’t understand this because you have an erroneous assumption- that NFP can be used with the pill. But this doesn’t work or make any sense in conjunction with use of the pill. So, if the pill is being used for medical reasons, and you are going to say she should abstain, then what you are really saying is that she needs to abstain for the entire time she is on the pill. There is no use of NFP with the pill. Either she abstains completely, or doesn’t. So my question is- do you believe that a woman on the pill for medical reasons should abstain completely for the length of time she is on the pill?
 
This is an answer from EWTN:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=486356&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

Here is one from Priests for Life:
priestsforlife.org/qa/question.aspx?id=305

I agree with these 2 answers above.
People don’t understand this because you have an erroneous assumption- that NFP can be used with the pill. But this doesn’t work or make any sense in conjunction with use of the pill. So, if the pill is being used for medical reasons, and you are going to say she should abstain, then what you are really saying is that she needs to abstain for the entire time she is on the pill. There is no use of NFP with the pill. Either she abstains completely, or doesn’t. So my question is- do you believe that a woman on the pill for medical reasons should abstain completely for the length of time she is on the pill?
 
This is an answer from EWTN:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=486356&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

Here is one from Priests for Life:
priestsforlife.org/qa/question.aspx?id=305

I agree with these 2 answers above.
That’s fine that you agree, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I noted that the first link, it says they would “do best” to abstain, and the second says they “should” anstain. Neither say that the CC mandates that they MUST abstain.
 
either the pill is an abortifacient or it is not. You can’t have it both ways.
 
either the pill is an abortifacient or it is not. You can’t have it both ways.
You might just as well say, ‘Either walking out into the road gets you killed by the traffic or it does not, You can’t have it both ways’. Err, yes you can have it both ways, in fact. It’s not so simple.

The truth is, it’s not so black and white. Some types of Pill are abortifacient, some are not so much. Some women might conceive using them, some might not. Some of these conceptions might be affected by the Pill, some might not. We just don’t know.

The questions at issue are how much of a risk is it, and is a couple willing to take the risk, if any, for the sake of their marriage.
 
The questions at issue are how much of a risk is it, and is a couple willing to take the risk, if any, for the sake of their marriage.
I can’t understand how any serious Catholic couple can decide to have sex while on the pill if there is a high probability that any new life created between them will be killed. That goes directly against the wedding vows the couple has made to eachother, not to mention I dont understand how any parent would selfishly put any child of theirs at such risk.
 
I can’t understand how any serious Catholic couple can decide to have sex while on the pill if there is a high probability that any new life created between them will be killed. That goes directly against the wedding vows the couple has made to eachother, not to mention I dont understand how any parent would selfishly put any child of theirs at such risk.
Any thoughtful Catholic can see the truth. 100% agree with you.👍
 
The truth is, it’s not so black and white. Some types of Pill are abortifacient, some are not so much. Some women might conceive using them, some might not. Some of these conceptions might be affected by the Pill, some might not. We just don’t know.

The questions at issue are how much of a risk is it, and is a couple willing to take the risk, if any, for the sake of their marriage.
I did a little reading of the scientific literature and opinions by specialists and I found that this is what is being claimed:
  • early contraceptive pills (1960s) had breaktrough ovulation rates of 4-10%
  • modern low-dose combined contraceptive pills (1980s and later) have breakthrough ovulation rates of 30% (13 to 50% range)
  • single-component pills (progestogen-only pills, mini-pills) fail to prevent ovulation 60-81% of the time
  • implanted and injectable depot formulations have breakthrough ovulation rates in the 40-65% range
I think, with these numbers, the question starts to look like, “would we send our children to a school trip if the likelihood of their transportation vehicle suffering a fatal collision/accident killing our children was 30%, 40%, or 60%?”

Everything would look different if the risk of a breakthrough ovulation and pregnancy aborted by the pill would be 1 : 100,000 or 1 : 10,000, i.e. if it would be a truly low risk - but this is not the case.

See here:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/08/birth-control-pill-can-and-too-often.html

socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/08/birth-control-pill-can-and-too-often.html

drwalt.com/blog/?p=468

drwalt.com/blog/?p=4101

epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/22/growing-debate-about-abortifacient-effect-birth-co/

epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/29/it-possible-tell-pill-when-breakthrough-ovulation-/

prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

epm.org/resources/2010/Jan/7/does-patch-cause-abortions-and-where-can-i-find/

vitalsignsministries.org/index.php/articles/the-new-abortionists/
 
What is the church’s position on women using oral contraceptives to alleviate/correct medical conditions?
As I’ve always understood it, if you have a medical reason, you can take birth control pills and you aren’t bound to abstain.

However, I was prescribed the pill a few months ago (thank goodness I found an NFP doctor who took me off and explained that the pill NEVER would have helped with my situation, would have actually only made it worse since I had bleeding from having retained placental tissue for three months, and that the doctor was actually using it as a placebo since he didn’t believe me… so I am of the “be cautious when they prescribe it to ‘fix’ something” camp). And I can say that both DH and I agreed that we could not possibly feel right about the marriage act, knowing that a life could be created and destroyed by failing to implant as a result of the pill. It wouldn’t have been our purpose, but we knew it was a real possibility and so we waited. We abstained until we found a doctor that could really help us (in this case surgery).

Because of the links of the pill to cancer and the fact that it’s been categorized as group one a carcinogen, which also made me very wary of taking it, which was yet another reason I searched for other answers when my doctor told me it was the only option.
 
As I’ve always understood it, if you have a medical reason, you can take birth control pills and you aren’t bound to abstain.

However, I was prescribed the pill a few months ago (thank goodness I found an NFP doctor who took me off and explained that the pill NEVER would have helped with my situation, would have actually only made it worse since I had bleeding from having retained placental tissue for three months, and that the doctor was actually using it as a placebo since he didn’t believe me… so I am of the “be cautious when they prescribe it to ‘fix’ something” camp). And I can say that both DH and I agreed that we could not possibly feel right about the marriage act, knowing that a life could be created and destroyed by failing to implant as a result of the pill. It wouldn’t have been our purpose, but we knew it was a real possibility and so we waited. We abstained until we found a doctor that could really help us (in this case surgery).

Because of the links of the pill to cancer and the fact that it’s been categorized as group one a carcinogen, which also made me very wary of taking it, which was yet another reason I searched for other answers when my doctor told me it was the only option.
I’m sorry your doctor was so inconsiderate 😦 The pill helped me for a very finite amount of time with my PCOS and PMDD, but I found much more relief through holistic means. Yay - no more hormones or weight gain 🙂 Good luck TTC! I was afraid that after getting off of implanon, my fertility would take a really long time to come back, but we conceived less than 4 months later.

The cancer and stroke statistics are very frightening, especially with pills that contain estrogen and progesterone.
 
The cancer and stroke statistics are very frightening, especially with pills that contain estrogen and progesterone.
I’m not married, so this topic is of a scientific and medical, rather than daily life interest to me, but I’m always fascinated and frankly a little scared with the stories I learn (such as yours, themeginthemoon, and that of RedSoxWife). It looks like hormonal contraceptives are way too often prescribed, when the diseases and problems could be treated with less dangerous drugs and procedures.

Recently my niece (currently attending last year of medical school) told me that many of her peers are on hormonal contraceptives, often prescribed for various medical conditions, including really benign problems like acne and hirsutism (facial hair growth). And these are medical students, professionals who should know better than to take carcinogens for acne and hirsutism! :eek:

According to a large metastudy of the epidemiological evidence, published in 2009 (researchers from the Univ. of Seattle and the NIH), combined oral hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of triple-negative breast cancer 4.2-fold. TNBC, which makes up 10-20% of all breast cancer cases, is one nasty cancer with a bad prognosis, since it’s aggressive, and lacks the receptors for estrogen, progesterone and HER2, thus it can’t be treated with otherwise successful and effective drugs (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, trastuzumab/Herceptin). Also, for people who are carriers of predisposing BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, the use of these contraceptives turns the already high “baseline” risk for breast cancer into a virtual assurance that they will get breast cancer (the incidence of breast cancer in women who are carriers of these mutations AND take combined oral hormonal contraceptives, was found to be 100% in a small study - every single one of these women got breast cancer). Even in the population-at-large, contraceptive use increases the incidence of breast cancer (all forms of breast cancer combined) more than 2-fold.

But I bet young women, even professionals, are either woefully uninformed, or willingly take the risk for the sake of “sexual liberation”, treating themselves to drugs that will cause breast cancer (and other problems - stroke, deep vein thrombosis). For those who are uninformed, we need to inform them - do you really want to take a carcinogen that will more than quadruple your risk of triple-negative breast cancer, in order to treat your acne or hirsutism??? And for those who think the risks are worth the license to have sex without consequences (without babies) - unfortunately there’s not too much we can do for them. The consequences will eventually hit many of these women, not in the form of pregnancies, but in the form of serious and often deadly diseases such as breast cancer and stroke. Really young women who have never carried a pregnancy to full term, are at especially high risk - their breast tissue reacts differently than those of women who carried a pregnancy to full term - meaning that these young women (often girls, teenagers) are at an increased risk of contracting breast cancer. In addition, I’ve heard a RN say that really young women with stroke is a new phenomenon. Stroke used to be old people’s disease, but now they are seeing young women in their IC units all the time, women who suffered a stroke - and these women have invariably been on contraceptives.

Something to think about. And the crazy thing is, many doctors will fail to inform their patients regarding the risks, not only because the doctors themselves may be uninformed, but also because many are of the mindset that “free sex” is so important that all women are willing, or should be willing, to take the risks anyway that go with the contraceptives. In other words, “yes, the Pill may cause cancer and stroke and thrombosis and whatnot, but you are surely not trying to tell me that you are willing to give up ‘free sex’ and a life free of the worries of getting yourself pregnant, now are you?”
 
Here’s a scenario:
A mother is confined to bedrest as she is at risk of miscarriage. She is home but has an accident that results in a fire. She rushes to extinguish the fire and save herself but the stress and activity cause her to miscarry. Knowing that her activity could result in a chance of miscarriage but not having the intent of miscarriage…does this mean this woman is guilty of sin?

According to the apologist on this website she would not be guilty as her intention was not to cause a miscarriage which is the same scenario as using the pill for medical purposes and not abstaining from sex.

However, it seems that the flip side presented in this thread would be that her having the knowledge that these actions could endanger a pregnancy would mean she is guilty of sin, or NOT abstaining from sex while using the pill for medical purposes as it could cause a pregnancy to terminate.

How would some people view miscarriages then? Miscarriages are also unintended pregnancy terminations.

God knows what is in one’s heart…we cannot escape that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top