Poll on contraception

[Pup7]

I don’t really see how contraceptive pills and cancer treatment can be compared. The user’s life depends on the one, and the other one is not really a personal life or death situation. Plus, I don’t think the pill itself is evil. Like I said, I used it when I had acne for about a year and a half. I only stopped it because it really made me feel pretty awful. It was the miraculous cure to my skin condition, which not even Accutane could fix so I am actually pretty darn grateful for the stuff. However, using it for the sake of not having a child or in a position where it closes a couple off from giving life, it is not morally okay.

Sure they can in that context, when someone is questioning if someone is judging someone for selecting a treatment that bars pregnancy as a consequence.

I used it for acne for a while, but I think this is only acceptable when the person is single and abstinent. If you have acne and are married, I don’t believe birth control is an acceptable treatment. I voted that it is acceptable in the most rare circumstances ( mainly skin conditions and other issues not related to conception and definitely not within the context of marriage and sexuality. In the context of marriage and sexuality it is NEVER acceptable).

So it’s okay if you’re married to deal with a condition easily treated - and safely treated (Accutane is not safe and medically opens up other cans of worms) with OCPs? Ever had severe endometriosis?

Holy Mother Church disagrees.

 

[Pup7]

The end of the act of the pill is contraceptive and abortive whether or not the person has good intentions.

I hope a wife of yours never has to choose between your position and personal comfort and freedom from a painful condition, then. Or your sister or mom.

Many are confused on the Church’s teaching of intrinsically evil acts. No circumstance or intention can justify an intrinsically evil act. Double effect doesn’t come into play with intrinsically evil acts. If we say that one can use contraception for medical purposes then we can say abortion is allowed to save the mother, which we know is false.

No, you’re very confused on the teaching of the Church in regards to using OCPs and other methods to treat a medical condition and not to prevent pregnancy.

 

[Catherine1]

I had never heard of it I’m sorry. I just Googled it and it sounds awful. I suffer from severe pain which the pills helped too. I think that in this situation, if there is absolutely nothing else that can be done, no other treatment that can help, then it would be wrong to put someone through the pain if there is a way to make it better. However, I do believe that all other options have to be exhausted first. And I agree! Accutane should not be allowed at all. The stuff is awful! But yeah, if there is absolutely no other way out, it would be okay I’m sure.

 

[LittleFlower378]

If my wife would go on the pill we would not have relations until she was off the pill. I would never risk the life of a child concieved by God for sexual relations, it’s not worth the risk of murder. There are many other medicines that can help different problems. Almost all of the time contraception is good for nothing.

 

[Pup7]

You’d be wrong to do so.

Actually, all of the medicines that help endometriosis also block conception. They’re all hormonal. OCPs are used because the dosing is easy and safe. There are no “alternative medications”.

The treatment for persistent, severe endometriosis is either endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. Endometrial ablation has a high rate of causing sterility, and of course hysterectomy’s effects are obvious.

I hope a loved one of yours is never faced with these types of decisions. I hope no women are, but it happens.

Trivia: most healthy, sexually active women have conceived multiple times in their lives. Most conceptions actually don’t end in pregnancy. Getting pregnant isn’t easy and it’s interesting how the deck is stacked against it, biologically speaking. Consider that sometimes.

 

[LittleFlower378]

If abortifacients were the only treatment (which I doubt)we would have to bear the cross of not having relations for the time on the pill.

It’s much different when the known act is contraceptive, non procreative, and abortive.

 

[Pup7]

Very charitable of you, actually. Even though you’re in the wrong.

 

[babochka]

If my wife would go on the pill we would not have relations until she was off the pill. I would never risk the life of a child concieved by God for sexual relations, it’s not worth the risk of murder. There are many other medicines that can help different problems. Almost all of the time contraception is good for nothing.

That would be your choice to make, but it is certainly not murder, any more than removal of a fallopian tube in an eptopic pregnancy is murder.

There are many medical conditions and non-contraceptive medications that increase the risk of miscarriage. Do they also rule out sexual relations? Medications include Aleve, Ibuprofen, Celebrex and many others. Medical conditions include diabetes and PCOS. At age 45, approximately 80 of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. This does not count failed implantations. Given these statistics, should a couple not abstain from relations once the woman has reached a point at which she is at such a high risk of miscarriage?

 

[LittleFlower378]

St.Thomas forbid marital relations when women had their period because he believed it could hurt their offspring.

We have the full science that the pill can be abortive, it cannot just hurt the offspring but kill the offspring. How much more St.Thomas would have been against such an evil as abortifacient contraception when used by sexually active married couples.

 

[Canvas]

I have read that 50 to 80% of fertilized eggs fail to implant even in healthy women at normal fertlity levels naturally. It takes many couples years to have a baby, even if they keep track of when the fertile periods occur and try over and over again.

 

[joeybaggz]

A tangential thought. The Catholic Church does not consider an abortion evil (grievously sinful) when occurring as the unintended byproduct of a medical procedure necessary to save the life of the mother. This, I believe (and any Jewish scholar here is invited to correct me if I am wrong) mirrors much of Jewish law that considers extant life as sacred and paramount in importance.
If this Catholic position is considered valid by the Magisterium, why is contraception not considered the same when utilized to treat a medical condition not related to a fetus? Even if the byproduct is to prevent conception?
Logically, it should be.
Just askin’

 

[joeybaggz]

^
Humanae vitae 15

[T]he 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.

Seems like there are some posters arguing the opposite. And the question then arises, is someone who employs ABC for medical reasons unrelated to contraception, yet understands that it is contraceptive and thus willingly and enthusiastically employs the use of CC, on the right or the wrong side of this instance?

 

[Escabrosa]

Well, if it’s someone I’m close to I’ll chance crossing that line. There is after all a lot on the line.

 

[Pup7]

Which is what I posted earlier. :+1:t3::+1:t3:

 

[BlackFriar]

I have flagged this post as inappropriate sorry.

While charitable discussion of the theological and practical “contradictions” we all observe in particular cases seems acceptable this public poll is somewhat political and a step too far I suggest.

Polls with yes/no type answers leave little room for balanced discussion being vague and not anchored to a particular scenario which can be objectively analysed.

Nor is the question clear.

Does it refer to:
“contraceptive acts” OR
“medical contracepting”.

But that’s just me.

 

[Pup7]

St Thomas lived before we knew that a period is proof - with very few exceptions - pregnancy did not occur.

Clearly St Thomas isn’t an accurate source for physiology in 2018. Good grief.

And check your science on what a single birth control pill can do. It’s not abortive. It’s not even remotely powerful enough. It stops implantation, not pregnancy. And women are not by definition pregnant until implantation occurs. Your body doesn’t even know it’s pregnant until implantation happens.

Does it prevent pregnancy? Yes. Does that still make it wrong per the Church? Yes. But it is not an abortifacient. Go look it up.

 

[Escabrosa]

In cases where hormone therapy is the only effective treatment you would apply the double effect principle. I did a little reading and it seems to be necessary for some cases of endometriosis. Thanks for educating me on that.

However, the most common reasons given for medical use of the pill are menstrual pain, menstrual regulation and acne.

 

[Pup7]

I picked an extreme case deliberately. Because endometriosis was about the worst pain I could think of.

I was put on it to try and GET pregnant. No, it didn’t work, because of other issues.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Life starts at conception not implantation. At conception God infuses a brand new soul into a body, it’s when life starts, a new person enters this world.

Contraception does not and cannot consumate marriage. Why? Because contraception is not open to life which every marital act must have. It’s written in many Magesterial documents.

 

[LittleFlower378]

The pill is given for all sorts of minor ailments and prenatal babies are being killed. And since some posters believe the pill can be used (and marital relations can occur) under some circumstances than why not all, even minor ones, and believe me the contraception doctors are prescribing the pill “off the hook.”