The Big C Word . . . Contraception

[tonyrey]

There is a vast difference because immune system suppressing drugs are used to treat an abnormal physical condition whereas ovulation suppressing drugs interfere with a normal physical function.

I didn’t equate them. I specified **an **abnormal physical condition…

 

[Wesrock]

The pope’s point sounds like the sort of argument you’d make if you were trying to argue that medicine constitutes thwarting the will of God. Of course medicine like antibiotics pretty exclusively targets foreign organisms, but other medicines (e.g. immunosuppressive drugs) pretty clearly inhibit natural processes so that we can do unnatural things (e.g. organ transplants.)

I would argue that if ovulation suppressing drugs (i.e. birth control medication) are inherently immoral, then so are immune system suppressing drugs.

No. Medicine is intended to restore healthy function as far as it is able. That is, it’s intent is to restore a human to it’s natural, “idealized” state, a recognition even of what is natural to being a “good” human. Almost, almost, a hint of the idea of some platonic ideal of what it means to be a human is buried in there.

We must be careful with how we use natural. “Glasses are unnatural and man-made and are therefore immoral!” is not what we are getting at. “Glasses restore eyesight to the healthy function they are ordered to and are therefore good!” is.

Even decorative glasses would not be immoral. They are more neutral. Whereas gouging out one’s eyes for no medical reason would be considered immoral.

 

[Tomdstone]

No. Medicine is intended to restore healthy function as far as it is able. That is, it’s intent is to restore a human to it’s natural, “idealized” state, a recognition even of what is natural to being a “good” human…

Well if intention is the deciding factor in determining whether something is immoral or not, you have to face the fact that both NFP when used to avoid children and the pill, - both are used with the same intention to avoid children.

 

[Tomdstone]

Of course medicine like antibiotics pretty exclusively targets foreign organisms, but other medicines (e.g. immunosuppressive drugs) pretty clearly inhibit natural processes so that we can do unnatural things (e.g. organ transplants.)

I would argue that if ovulation suppressing drugs (i.e. birth control medication) are inherently immoral, then so are immune system suppressing drugs.

The argument against the pill seems to be either that the intention in using it is wrong, or that it inhibits natural processes. But the intention in using NFP is the same, and the use of immunosuppressive drugs inhibits natural processes and is not wrong.

 

[Wesrock]

The argument against the pill seems to be either that the intention in using it is wrong, or that it inhibits natural processes. But the intention in using NFP is the same, and the use of immunosuppressive drugs inhibits natural processes and is not wrong.

There is no interference with the marital act by using NFP.

I feel like the point and the distinction is being lost, here.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no interference with the marital act by using NFP.

I feel like the point and the distinction is being lost, here.

You brought up the issue of intention, implying that it determined the morality of an action.

No. Medicine is intended to restore healthy function as far as it is able. That is, it’s intent is to restore a human to it’s natural, “idealized” state, a recognition even of what is natural to being a “good” human…

 

[Wesrock]

You brought up the issue of intention, implying that it determined the morality of an action.

Medicine restores natural function (maybe not perfectly, maybe some parts are compromised, but it is good to try to restore as much as that which makes a healthy human as possible). It is corrective.

Contraception inhibits the function of a healthy human.

NFP is neutral in that regard.

Intention does have something to do with it. If a medicine will restore a gravely ill person to greater health but will significantly reduce fertility, it is licit.

 

[Tomdstone]

Contraception inhibits the function of a healthy human…

Not necessarily. If a person has a heart defect, and the doctor says that she will die if she becomes pregnant, contraception can have the effect of saving her life. Also, contraception is allowed in the case of rape, according to what I read. The woman is allowed to flush out the sperm if she had been raped? Is it so?

 

[tonyrey]

Not necessarily. If a person has a heart defect, and the doctor says that she will die if she becomes pregnant, contraception can have the effect of saving her life. Also, contraception is allowed in the case of rape, according to what I read. The woman is allowed to flush out the sperm if she had been raped? Is it so?

It is a question of choosing the lesser evil…

If a woman becomes pregnant as the result of being raped she wouldn’t be justified in having an abortion because the unborn child has a right to life.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is a question of choosing the lesser evil…

If a woman becomes pregnant as the result of being raped she wouldn’t be justified in having an abortion because the unborn child has a right to life.

But if it were a question of contraception, but not abortion, would it not be allowed for her to flush out the male rapists sperm?

 

[tonyrey]

But if it were a question of contraception, but not abortion, would it not be allowed for her to flush out the male rapists sperm?

That would be a very difficult decision unless we could be sure the woman is not pregnant. If there is an unborn child surely its right to life should be taken into account. Why should it be killed just because its father has committed a heinous crime? I think many women would love their child in spite of having been raped but that is only my opinion from a man’s point of view. It would be interesting to know what the ladies think…

 

[inocente]

Contraception inhibits the function of a healthy human.

I live in a country where virtually everyone is raised Catholic, and yet there’s a range of condoms in every supermarket, next to the toothpastes and deodorants, and people buy them with the groceries.

So it seems the teaching is as baffling to many Catholics as it is to non-Catholics. Looked at logically, a woman has a potential for two million eggs and a man produces 500 billion sperm in a lifetime. So just for one married couple that’s one thousand million billion combinations, one thousand million billion potential persons who will never get born, with or without condoms.

Perhaps there’s a great explanation somewhere of why it’s morally good to not use condoms and so risk more children born with diseases such as Zika. The prohibition on contraception permanently inhibits the health of those babies, so why should inhibiting the function of a healthy adult be morally more important, or even rate a mention by comparison?

 

[ffg]

Being Catholic in and of itself doesn’t make someone understand or even know the teachings of the Church.

If there is anything to know about the Church is that it is a hospital for sinners. Who come in all kinds related to knowledge and understanding.

With regard to your combination thoughts, you do know that a regular cycle releases 1 egg at a time right? And that In a normal event, only 1 sperm in the perfect environment meets and fertilizes that egg during fertility?

And when you are pregnant, you can’t get pregnant.( and give or take a bit of time when breast feeding, typically, but don’t assume there, pending desire with spouse)

I should correct this real fast in case someone thinks I skipped it out of some kind of truth, there are not millions of eggs. if you start your cycle around 12 and finish around 50 and there’s one a month you can do the math.

Women would never hit menopause with millions of eggs, there would be 99-year-olds getting pregnant.

 

[inocente]

you do know that a regular cycle releases 1 egg at a time right?

"Unlike men, who produce new sperm daily throughout most of their lifetime, women are born with all their eggs in one — okay, two baskets (ovaries). To be more precise, a woman is born with about one to two million immature eggs, or follicles, in her ovaries.

Throughout her life, the vast majority of follicles will die through a process known as atresia. Atresia begins at birth and continues throughout the course of the woman’s reproductive life. When a woman reaches puberty and starts to menstruate, only about 400,000 follicles remain. With each menstrual cycle, a thousand follicles are lost and only one lucky little follicle will actually mature into an ovum (egg), which is released into the fallopian tube, kicking off ovulation. That means that of the one to two million follicles, only about 400 will ever mature."

• goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/women-and-their-eggs-how-many-and-how-long

 

[Wesrock]

I live in a country where virtually everyone is raised Catholic, and yet there’s a range of condoms in every supermarket, next to the toothpastes and deodorants, and people buy them with the groceries.

So it seems the teaching is as baffling to many Catholics as it is to non-Catholics. Looked at logically, a woman has a potential for two million eggs and a man produces 500 billion sperm in a lifetime. So just for one married couple that’s one thousand million billion combinations, one thousand million billion potential persons who will never get born, with or without condoms.

Perhaps there’s a great explanation somewhere of why it’s morally good to not use condoms and so risk more children born with diseases such as Zika. The prohibition on contraception permanently inhibits the health of those babies, so why should inhibiting the function of a healthy adult be morally more important, or even rate a mention by comparison?

A morally evil choice to oppose a physical evil is not a valid alternative. Especially when there is a third, morally licit choice available.

 

[inocente]

A morally evil choice to oppose a physical evil is not a valid alternative. Especially when there is a third, morally licit choice available.

Telling me it’s morally evil because it’s morally evil because it’s morally evil is a tiny bit circular. As far as I can see there are no evil consequences in using a condom. None whatsoever.

Here’s a clear moral evil: that every minute of every day a child under the age of five dies painfully without dignity from diarrhea, due to contaminated water, because us rich folk have other priories than providing poor countries with good sanitation.

Do you think using a condom is morally more evil or less evil than that? Please help us non-Catholics relate your claimed moral evil of using a condom to cases where evil is clear and obvious.

 

[ffg]

"Unlike men, who produce new sperm daily throughout most of their lifetime, women are born with all their eggs in one — okay, two baskets (ovaries). To be more precise, a woman is born with about one to two million immature eggs, or follicles, in her ovaries.

Throughout her life, the vast majority of follicles will die through a process known as atresia. Atresia begins at birth and continues throughout the course of the woman’s reproductive life. When a woman reaches puberty and starts to menstruate, only about 400,000 follicles remain. With each menstrual cycle, a thousand follicles are lost and only one lucky little follicle will actually **mature into an ovum (egg), **which is released into the fallopian tube, kicking off ovulation. That means that of the one to two million follicles, only about 400 will ever mature."

• goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/women-and-their-eggs-how-many-and-how-long

It’s good to see it’s still about 400.

That was a number learned many moons ago.

Thanks for posting!

 

[ffg]

Telling me it’s morally evil because it’s morally evil because it’s morally evil is a tiny bit circular. **As far as I can see there are no evil consequences in using a condom. None whatsoever. **

If sex is reserved for married folks and has the purposes of Unity and Procreation…

If that is what God intends, you don’t see a problem with cutting off both purposes? (or even one)

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No. Medicine is intended to restore healthy function as far as it is able. That is, it’s intent is to restore a human to it’s natural, “idealized” state, a recognition even of what is natural to being a “good” human. Almost, almost, a hint of the idea of some platonic ideal of what it means to be a human is buried in there.

We must be careful with how we use natural. “Glasses are unnatural and man-made and are therefore immoral!” is not what we are getting at. “Glasses restore eyesight to the healthy function they are ordered to and are therefore good!” is.

Even decorative glasses would not be immoral. They are more neutral. Whereas gouging out one’s eyes for no medical reason would be considered immoral.

This is fine, but I will turn around and say that we must be careful about how we use “idealized.” After all, there are only two real answers to the question “who does the idealizing?” and they are:

1. Us
2. God

If we choose to believe #1, then we’ll need a different argument to explain what is inherently wrong with someone deciding that the idealized version of themselves is infertile. You might say that we get moral imperatives from our biology, but I would argue that this such a line of reasoning would tread awfully close to the is-ought problem.

If we choose #2, then all of this reasoning seems roundabout. All we have to really say is: “God forbids it.” Instead, we’ve taken this meandering path that goes like:

We should not seek to deviate from God’s idealized versions of ourselves.
Features of God’s idealized versions of ourselves can be known through biology.
We know from biology that God’s idealized versions of ourselves are fertile.
We should not seek to make ourselves infertile.

 

[Tomdstone]

A morally evil choice to oppose a physical evil is not a valid alternative. Especially when there is a third, morally licit choice available.

Is contraception morally acceptable in the case of rape or not?