Real life philosophical Zika situation

  • Thread starter Thread starter mbbeaubi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mbbeaubi

Guest
Hi, first post here. I’m in a situation that got me thinking about church teaching on contraception and the thought process led me down an interesting path so thought I’d post here and see the reactions.

I have to travel sometimes for work, about 2-3 times per year to countries that have Zika. In fact I am in one now.

My wife is currently pregnant.

The official recommended of the CDC is that when I return we either abstain from sex or use condoms for the remainder of the pregnancy.

Abstinence for the next 6 months isn’t likely to happen so that leaves condoms as the best option according to the CDC.

I understand the requirement that the marital act be open to new life, but since she’s already pregnant that shouldn’t be an issue. In fact I’d say that if the baby were to die from Zika contracted because we didn’t use condoms that having sex without a condom is the less open to life option.

So here’s my questions:
  1. If using a condom is okay under these circumstances why not other forms of sex? Mutual masterbation for instance? I think a lot of people would argue that condoms are okay in this circumstance because the intention isn’t to prevent pregnancy but rather to prevent disease. So then isn’t masterbation the safest option?
  2. If condoms are never okay, then what about if you are taking a drug that has a side effect of lessening your fertility? Should these people abstain from sex? If so what is the percent of infertility that a drug can cause before you should abstain? We do things everyday that impact our fertility.
  3. If you said no condoms ever for 1, but still think a woman who had her uterus removed due to cancer should still be able to have sex, please explain the difference between preventing your child from getting Zika and not dying of cancer.
  4. If you at least partially agree with 1, if my wife wasn’t pregnant does that change your answer? Why is it morally different to prevent an existing child from getting Zika vs conceiving one that might have it? The result is the same.
(As a side note, this is mainly just a thought experiment, the country I’m in right now has had only 2 reported cases of mosquito born Zika, the cases were in a different part of the country, I’m staying in the city where they spray, I wear bug spray everyday, and stay mostly in doors. I’d estimate my chances of getting Zika are significantly less then the baby just naturally having a birth defect of some kind)

Thanks in advance!
 
I was once present when someone asked a very similar question to a Bishop. He said that he isn’t aware of an answer to that particular question, but that the church’s moral history would seem to imply the answer is “no”.

As a side note, I don’t think “this is a hard thing to do” ever makes it ok to sin. That seems like what your post boils down to. It’s a sin to deny Christ even if someone has a gun in your face. Sin is sin.

As a follow up since I can also quickly answer 3. The woman who has her uterus removed is still practicing sex that is open to life. So it’s a different thing. For God all things are possible. He gave children to lots of infertile women in the Bible.
 
Last edited:
“Abstinence for the next six months is not likely to happen”

Therein lies your difficulty: mastery of the self and its passions.

Love:
  1. Desires the good of the other.
  2. Does not count the cost.
  3. Re-read 1 and 2 as needed.
 
Seems like 2 votes for abstinence. That’s what I would do if I tested positive for Zika, condoms can fail after all.

However, I’m asking why I should not follow the CDC recommendation out of an abundance of caution? There’s an extremely small chance that I never have symptoms, don’t test positive yet still carry the virus. It seems like a cop out to just refuse to use a condom because the church says so, even though reason dictates otherwise and even church leaders are confused on it.

If you think condoms are never an option no matter what, please explain why this case is different then a women taking a necessary medication or having a necessary medical procedure done that renders her infertile? If God can cause a women who has had her uterus removed to conceive then I guess he can poke a hole in the condom that I’m using to prevent Zika transmission and also cause my wife to get double pregnant right? (I don’t think she’s appreciate that)
 
By your logic someone with a genetic anomaly is also justified in using condoms.

The medical advice for you is clearly abstinence.
 
By the logic of this formum a woman shouldn’t have a hysterectomy to cure cancer or should abstain afterwards. What’s the difference between a permanent procedure to prevent dying of cancer vs a temporary one to prevent your baby from getting Zika?

I haven’t heard any good arguments other then the church says so.

And yes, a couple who has a significant chance of conceiving a child with a serious genetic disease probably should use NFP at the very least. To do otherwise would be irrisponsible. Condom usage in that scenario wouldn’t be a mortal sin and I’d be surprised if you could send me a link to a church leader who discusses that scenario and says otherwise.
 
mbbeaubi said:
By the logic of this formum a woman shouldn’t have a hysterectomy to cure cancer or should abstain afterwards. What’s the difference between a permanent procedure to prevent dying of cancer vs a temporary one to prevent your baby from getting Zika?
Click to expand...
I have no clue what you are trying to say.

A hysterectomy is highly appropriate for treatment, just as is removal of the tube around an *ectopic pregnancy. Both affect fertility and are A-OK with the Church.
 
Last edited:
Axsenex said:
I don’t allow my Church to determine my health options.
Click to expand...
How about your God, then, who gave you the Divine Law and the Church who helps you understand it?
mbbeaubi said:
What’s the difference between a permanent procedure to prevent dying of cancer vs a temporary one to prevent your baby from getting Zika?
Click to expand...
The difference is that your solution is not the only one: continence, for six measly months for crying out loud (!), is another.

It seems your question is “should I risk killing my wife and child just so that I can have sex?”… 🤷‍♂️

But, it’s an interesting question, especially the “open to life angle”. Yet, the Church doesn’t require that every act of intercourse result in conception – just that every act is integral in its purpose and methods, which means that openness to life (rather then expectation of conception) seems to be in play.
mbbeaubi said:
Condom usage in that scenario wouldn’t be a mortal sin
Click to expand...
Umm… says who?
 
I feel like I’m too tired to try to explain this now, but the purpose of drugs to treat a medical condition are to treat the medical condition. The sterility isn’t the intended treatment, it’s accidental to the legitimate medical treatment. Likewise with a hysterectomy in the case of cancer, the person isn’t having it done with the intention of causing sterility but about restoring other functions of health. It’s not a perfect restoration, to be sure, but the sterilization is accidental to the medical treatment.

Condom use literally creates a barrier in the marital union. That’s it’s primary purpose: to have one’s cake and eat it too. The marital union becomes disordered and inconsistent with the form it’s naturally ordered towards.

It’s similar, in some respects, to medical treatments that result in the loss of a pregnancy. Treating the embryo as a disease to be excised is always morally wrong. However, if the death of the embryo is accidental to the medical treatment, say, the removal of inflamed tissue or the treatment of cancer, it can be morally permissible.

Using condoms doesn’t restore function or treat disease. It circumvents the natural ordering of the marital act, putting barriers between husband and wife. The only licit action here is abstinence.
 
She uses the pill and we use condoms because of that. I witnessed my parents bury 2 children out of 4 we aren’t playing the odds with gentics since my family has already lost that one.
 
Yes,there is a blood test.
And the Zika incubation period is between 3 to 12 days after the bite.
So at most it means 12 days since one takes the plane back home assuming one has been bitten the day before to check for symptoms.
And there is repellent, long sleeves, and recommendations to avoid being stung.
 
Last edited:
mbbeaubi said:
So here’s my questions:
  1. If using a condom is okay under these circumstances why not other forms of sex? Mutual masterbation for instance? I think a lot of people would argue that condoms are okay in this circumstance because the intention isn’t to prevent pregnancy but rather to prevent disease. So then isn’t masterbation the safest option?
  2. If condoms are never okay, then what about if you are taking a drug that has a side effect of lessening your fertility? Should these people abstain from sex? If so what is the percent of infertility that a drug can cause before you should abstain? We do things everyday that impact our fertility.
  3. If you said no condoms ever for 1, but still think a woman who had her uterus removed due to cancer should still be able to have sex, please explain the difference between preventing your child from getting Zika and not dying of cancer.
  4. If you at least partially agree with 1, if my wife wasn’t pregnant does that change your answer? Why is it morally different to prevent an existing child from getting Zika vs conceiving one that might have it? The result is the same.
Click to expand...
Friend This REALLY ought to be discussed with a Informed Traditional Catholic Priest; not so much a FORUM.

May God Bless you and your wife and baby,
Patrick
 
Or why not have wife visit her mom for two weeks…After all moms do miss their grown up " children" too!:hugs:
 
Last edited:
That’s the point I’m trying to make. My wife is already pregnant. She can’t get double pregnant. I’m not trying to have cake, the purpose of the condom is to prevent Zika transmission, I’m obviously not gaining any contraceptive benefit from it.

To the people saying just get a blood test. I’m not sure why the CDC doesn’t agree with your recommendation, but I’m going to take medical advice from them and not the catholic answer forum. The two options the CDC recommends are abstain or use a condom.

Thirdly, to be clear, I’m posting in the philosophy section because it’s an interesting debate. Obviously I’m not going to base any real life decisions on what random strangers say on the internet. Personally, I don’t think we’ll use a condom because in my case the risk is very low, but if I thought the risk was higher we’d consider it. Not that it should make any difference, but I already did ask my conservative priest and he said it was okay because she was already pregnant so the intention wasn’t contraceptive.
 
More interesting questions for people against condoms:
  1. If there was a Zika vaccine but it had a contraceptive side effect, would it be permissible?
  2. What about a drug a woman could take that would prevent Zika transmission to the fetus, however if used when not pregnant had a contraceptive side effect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top