Pregnancy and healthy body functioning

[Atlantic]

I’m having a conversation with someone online about the reasons that the Church opposes sterilisation. I have already pointed out the general prohibition against mutilating the body except for therapeutic medical reasons. The other person has pointed out that even the healthiest pregnancy has unpleasant “health negatives” like morning sickness, backache, bladder issues and labour itself, and (she says) therefore someone who is volutarily sterilised is choosing a “healthier” functioning body, ie without the “health negatives” associated with pregnancy.

Aside from the fact that there are moral ways to not be pregnant and avoid those “health negatives” if one wishes, and of course the negative side effects of sterilisation, I’d like to address her overall point. My thoughts here are that her position (a) would mean that infertility is intrinsically healthy and pregnancy is intrinsically unhealthy, which is absurd; (b) since we live in a fallen world there are indeed sometimes unpleasant side effects to overall healthy functioning - e.g. teething, growing pains, serious physical exertion, etc.

Can anyone here correct this if necessary, help me with any other reasons, and/or suggest any more examples of health side effects to overall healthy physical functioning?

 

[tjm190]

Ever gotten heartburn? Eating is a perfectly normal function, but sometimes carries that side effect. However, eating is vital to the survival of our species so a person with heartburn eats anyway, but they may take meds to quell that effect.

 

[Atlantic]

Heartburn? Maybe. The thing is, it’s perfecty possible to eat without have unpleasant side effects, but not pregnancy. I’m looking for normal, healthy processes that have pretty-much unavoidable unpleasant risks and/or side effects.

Now that I think of it, there’s life itself: the healthiest life has unavoidable negative health effects.

More help? Please?

 

[gardenswithkids]

Ever gotten heartburn? …

Funny you should ask. Yes, quite frequently but only during pregnancy. Uncomfortable pregnant woman here to respond to the original post.

I’m having a conversation with someone online about the reasons that the Church opposes sterilisation. I have already pointed out the general prohibition against mutilating the body except for therapeutic medical reasons. The other person has pointed out that even the healthiest pregnancy has unpleasant “health negatives” like morning sickness, backache, bladder issues and labour itself, and (she says) therefore someone who is volutarily sterilised is choosing a “healthier” functioning body, ie without the “health negatives” associated with pregnancy.

Aside from the fact that there are moral ways to not be pregnant and avoid those “health negatives” if one wishes, and of course the negative side effects of sterilisation, I’d like to address her overall point. My thoughts here are that her position (a) would mean that infertility is intrinsically healthy and pregnancy is intrinsically unhealthy, which is absurd; (b) since we live in a fallen world there are indeed sometimes unpleasant side effects to overall healthy functioning - e.g. teething, growing pains, serious physical exertion, etc.

Can anyone here correct this if necessary, help me with any other reasons, and/or suggest any more examples of health side effects to overall healthy physical functioning?

I think your points are sound. Plus, as you also noted, she neglects the negative health consequences of sterilization in her argument. If she’s Catholic (or Christian or Jewish) maybe scripture like Genesis 3:16 might be worth siting in your point b. “Pangs in childbearing” resulted from the Fall.

You might also add some secular exercise quotes like “no pain, no gain.” If one is unhappy with flabby arms, the answer is certainaly not amputation. It is ridiculous to expect a healthy body to never feel pain or discomfort. Normal, healthy bodies feel pain under certain situations, and pain and discomfortant are not neccesarily bad. Choosing a healthier functioning body frequently means we must exercise our body. Pregnancy is a nine month, intensive, total body work-out.

And finally if she’s Catholic, perhaps remind her that Catholic theology includes ideas like “Redemptive Suffering”–one of the more difficult theological concepts to embrace.

 

[Atlantic]

You might also add some secular exercise quotes like “no pain, no gain.” If one is unhappy with flabby arms, the answer is certainaly not amputation. It is ridiculous to expect a healthy body to never feel pain or discomfort. Normal, healthy bodies feel pain under certain situations, and pain and discomfortant are not neccesarily bad. Choosing a healthier functioning body frequently means we must exercise our body. Pregnancy is a nine month, intensive, total body work-out.

I’m pretty sure she’s atheist/agnostic - super points above! Thank you!

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m having a conversation with someone online about the reasons that the Church opposes sterilisation. I have already pointed out the general prohibition against mutilating the body except for therapeutic medical reasons. The other person has pointed out that even the healthiest pregnancy has unpleasant “health negatives” like morning sickness, backache, bladder issues and labour itself, and (she says) therefore someone who is volutarily sterilised is choosing a “healthier” functioning body, ie without the “health negatives” associated with pregnancy.

Aside from the fact that there are moral ways to not be pregnant and avoid those “health negatives” if one wishes, and of course the negative side effects of sterilisation, I’d like to address her overall point. My thoughts here are that her position (a) would mean that infertility is intrinsically healthy and pregnancy is intrinsically unhealthy, which is absurd; (b) since we live in a fallen world there are indeed sometimes unpleasant side effects to overall healthy functioning - e.g. teething, growing pains, serious physical exertion, etc.

Can anyone here correct this if necessary, help me with any other reasons, and/or suggest any more examples of health side effects to overall healthy physical functioning?

These things are actually part of a normal, healthy pregnancy. Though occasionally I have wondered why God couldn’t have designed a better system!

 

[rwillenborg]

I’m having a conversation with someone online about the reasons that the Church opposes sterilisation. I have already pointed out the general prohibition against mutilating the body except for therapeutic medical reasons. The other person has pointed out that even the healthiest pregnancy has unpleasant “health negatives” like morning sickness, backache, bladder issues and labour itself, and (she says) therefore someone who is volutarily sterilised is choosing a “healthier” functioning body, ie without the “health negatives” associated with pregnancy.

Aside from the fact that there are moral ways to not be pregnant and avoid those “health negatives” if one wishes, and of course the negative side effects of sterilisation, I’d like to address her overall point. My thoughts here are that her position (a) would mean that infertility is intrinsically healthy and pregnancy is intrinsically unhealthy, which is absurd; (b) since we live in a fallen world there are indeed sometimes unpleasant side effects to overall healthy functioning - e.g. teething, growing pains, serious physical exertion, etc.

Can anyone here correct this if necessary, help me with any other reasons, and/or suggest any more examples of health side effects to overall healthy physical functioning?

I fail to see how breaking a major, healthy, functioning part of your body is ever a good idea. Really.
This would also mean that if I were able to render my nervous system non-functioning, I should. After all, if I want to avoid feeling pain, the best way to do so would be to deaden my nerve endings, right? That should take care of that right quick - just ‘break’ the nervous system. There are some people actually who are ‘blessed’ with such a condition. It’s called Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIPA), is incredibly rare and those who have it rarely live to see 25. This brings me to my next point, which Catholics know all too well, but for some reason the general population seems to forget.
Pain has a purpose.
When a pregnant woman is not feeling well, her body is TELLING HER SOMETHING. And usually the something is ‘Sit your ***** down, and rest a while, I’m working here’
Seriously. Since a person can’t see, touch, or hear what’s going on inside, the only way a person’s body can tell the brain to CUT IT OUT (whatever it is) is to send pain signals to the brain. I think it’s a fairly brilliant concept.
I, for one, am GRATEFUL, yeah, you heard me GRATEFUL for the abdominal cramps I felt while I was pregnant. It caused me to rush to the doctor, who told me I needed to rest of these babies would be coming out early. How else would I have known that, except through pain? Fax, maybe? Email?
My point is that a life without pain is not ‘healthier’. It is more convenient, certainly, but it is not healthier.
You’ve already touched on the health side effects of sterilization, but I think it’s important to also show why the church is opposed to this procedure, in particular.
Even if she isn’t Catholic, actually ESPECIALLY if she isn’t Catholic, she needs to understand some basic points about Catholic theology before she can understand the ban on sterilization.
Here goes.

1. You are perfect. God created you in His image and likeness. And He didn’t screw up. You are not allowed to ‘break’ it, as it were. Now, let’s say you were born with poor vision. The Church certainly doesn’t have a ban on Lasik, so, what’s the difference? The difference is that Lasik will return your eyes to their normal, healthy state of 20/20. Infertility in a person who should otherwise be fertile (ie is of child-bearing age) is neither normal, nor healthy.
   So, improving health is a good thing. Aping that you are improving health is not.
2. Each and every human being has inherent dignity. It doesn’t even matter if they think so, they have it. And, as a being with inherent dignity, that person has a RIGHT not to be mutilated, even by themselves.
3. Your body is a gift. An agnostic/atheist would not agree that it is a gift from God, but certainly it fits all of the qualifications of a gift - it was given to you freely, no strings attached, and you didn’t do anything to earn it. At the very least, one should treat things that they were freely given with some respect, and, again, mutilating major, functioning organs is NOT respectful.
4. The Church demands that you live your life with hope. Even when you are on a life raft, and it’s sinking, and you’re surrounded by sharks, the Church says that you should hope for the best. So, let’s look at WHY people choose to sterilize themselves. It is fair to say that voluntary sterilization is very often a lifestyle choice. For whatever reason - financial, medical, whatever, a person decides that additional children would diminish from, not add to their lifestyle. This does two things which the Church disapproves of. ALL life is considered sacred, wonderful, and a gift from God. To approach the idea of fertility with a mindset of children being a burden not a gift is, well, unkind to say the least. Furthermore, it denies that a person’s life might change. Which is certainly imprudent, and definitely not hopeful.

I hope these answers can be somewhat helpful in your attempts to explain this all to your friend. I know, this is one of the toughest pills of catholicism to swallow.

One last thing - Catholic love is fundamentally DIFFERENT than what society defines as love. When a Catholic couple loes eachother they are to love eachother ENTIRELY. Love is really a giving of oneself - fully and completely. Not love on Tuesdays, not I love you except for this one little part, no ALL of me must love ALL of you. And I must give ALL of myself to you, and you to me. To give you everything but my fertility would be disingenuous.
oh geez, I have one MORE thing to say (shut me up already!) and it is that Catholics are instructed not to lie. To have sex while denying your partner your fertility is to tell a lie with your body.
You can tell a lie with your body - people do it all the time. Give a hug to someone and talk smack about them after they’ve left. Offer a handshake of forgiveness while holding onto the idea of vengeance. See? It happens all the time - a lie with your body. And to engage in sex and hold back your fertility is to tell a lie with your body. The act of sex is one of FULL and total self-giving, so to hold back any of yourself is to fake it.
I don’t know about your friend, but when it comes to sex, I NEVER fake it.
Have a good night!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Having major surgery and its attendant complications isn’t a problem for this woman?

Even a laparoscopic procedure is going to involve many risks. . .anesthesia, risk of bowel or bladder perforation, risk of sepsis, risk of wound infection etc.

Also, those ‘health negatives’ can crop up in the ‘healthiest appearing’ woman. Imagine a woman having her uterus removed so she never has to get icky things like heartburn. . . and finding out she has celiac sprue so has to go gluten-free. Or developing diverticulitis (inflammation of the colon) and having to get a colostomy. How about women who develop pernicious and unexplained cyclic vomiting? Gastroesophageal ulcers? Cancers?

None of the above is going to be stopped by the removal of the uterus. And of course, as I said, the procedure has its own risks as any major surgery does. . .and it’s not even as though the uterus needed to be removed in the first place.

Silly. . .and expensive too (it being an elective surgery). I hate to sound anti-elitist but this woman must be fairly financially ‘comfortable’ to even consider this sort of thing. The rest of us poor working stiffs are usually trying to AVOID non-necessary hospital procedures.

 

[mark_a]

I’m having a conversation with someone online about the reasons that the Church opposes sterilisation. I have already pointed out the general prohibition against mutilating the body except for therapeutic medical reasons. The other person has pointed out that even the healthiest pregnancy has unpleasant “health negatives” like morning sickness, backache, bladder issues and labour itself, and (she says) therefore someone who is volutarily sterilised is choosing a “healthier” functioning body, ie without the “health negatives” associated with pregnancy.

Aside from the fact that there are moral ways to not be pregnant and avoid those “health negatives” if one wishes, and of course the negative side effects of sterilisation, I’d like to address her overall point. My thoughts here are that her position (a) would mean that infertility is intrinsically healthy and pregnancy is intrinsically unhealthy, which is absurd; (b) since we live in a fallen world there are indeed sometimes unpleasant side effects to overall healthy functioning - e.g. teething, growing pains, serious physical exertion, etc.

Can anyone here correct this if necessary, help me with any other reasons, and/or suggest any more examples of health side effects to overall healthy physical functioning?

From the other side of the sterilization coin, men are at risk of developing dementia caused by sperm antibodies after a vasectomy.

physorg.com/news90503863.html

 

[survive]

Women who have three or more live births live longer than women who have no live births. The healthiest age for a first birth is 20. The healthiest interval is two-and-a-half to four years. Leaving this norm in either direction is relatively bad for a woman’s health – sterilization is surgery, and inherently dangerous beyond that.
Anyway, morning sickness is not really a health problem so much as a dietary adjustment signal. It’s the body’s way of saying be careful what you eat right now. In only a few cases does it become damaging to the mother’s long-term health. Uncomfortable, yes, but so is exercising or dieting, which, like pregnacy, can prolong one’s life considerably. Pregnancy is usually healthy.