The lesser of two "evils"?

[elts1956]

As you said, another ridiculous idea.

When are you going to get “something” straight? All artificial birth control methods are abortificants. It’s like playing russian roulette. Some get direct hits, other babies, due to the nature of human physiology, are not formed at all.

 

[ryecroft]

When are you going to get “something” straight? All artificial birth control methods are abortificants. It’s like playing russian roulette. Some get direct hits, other babies, due to the nature of human physiology, are not formed at all.

Elts - I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but not all artificial birth control is an abortifacient. In fact the more studying and chatting with my Catholic OBGYN, I’m finding that this whole abortifacient situation is getting out of proportion.

When the pill came out, it suppressed ovulation- period. Only as of late when the pill reduced the amount of estrogen and progesterone did it even have the possibility of becoming an “abortifacient”. It is in fact possible to still get your doctor to write you a prescription that can be compounded and get the higher estrogen dose if you’re really worried about it. But it seems that the word abortifacient is being viewed as this occurence that happens extremely often if someone is using the “pill” or and IUD or even depo provera (and remember there are other methods of abc than those) - when I was going through the NFP courses we were told that a break through ovulation was so very rare that we should not even worry about it. I asked two Catholic GYN’s about this and they were in agreement. And with all the studies I have read, when it is metnioned about the lining of the uterus being a “hostile” environment for the fertilized egg to be in when one is on the pill or IUD, there are obviously quite a few cases where it’s obviously NOT hostile enough to prevent implantation. And, the more that I read on this and ask questions of Doctors, I’m finding that research refuses to be done on this because of the fear of causing a fertilized egg not to implant- leaving the abortifacient value of the “pill” specifically to be more of a possibility than a proven fact. I am egarly awaiting some research that one of the OBGYN’s I spoke with has mentioned should be coming out. The reason I look forward to it is because she believes it will be put forward that generally anytime there is a “breakthrough ovulation” with the pill that this ovulation being so rare, it may well compromise much of the 1-3% of pregnancies that occur on the pill due to “breakthrough ovulation”. She said it may well compromise much because some of the pregnancies occur because of improper use of the pill-this also leads to some of the pregnancies that occur.

I am not trying to debate the morality of ABC here - I just think that before everyone goes ape over the pill and keeps implying that the pill is constantly causing aboritons in the women that are taking it (as this seems to be the case) there needs to be more research done on it. When certain people are trying to assert that this is something that happens all the time in women on the pill- I think they should be able to back it up with more concrete information than what is out there now. I also think that if someone is on birth control pills and is worried about it being an abortifacient, they should talk to their OBGYN and not just accept what is being said on here.

God Bless

Rye

 

[kage_ar]

I also think that if someone is on birth control pills and is worried about it being an abortifacient, they should talk to their OBGYN and not just accept what is being said on here.

Please post the brand name of one contraception pill that is not an abortifacient. I would be interested to know what it is.

If you claim that somehthing exists, it is proper to an honest debate to reveal what that is.

 

[choose_to_love]

Hey Rye,

I am not sure what your objection to the abortifacient capability of OC (oral contraception) being addressed is. Is it that you feel it is being oversold, so to speak, as a risk?

I would agree that it is confusing and imprecise to say all ABC is abortifacient. Condoms are not “abortifacient”, as the term is generally understood. I do think it is fair to say that all hormonal forms of ABC are potentially abortifacient, due to the effect on the endometrium.

I think it is fair to say that it is well understood as mechanism of how OC works that the endometrial lining is changed, making implantation more difficult. We also know that breakthrough ovulation occurs, by virtue of various ultrasonagraphy studies, I think, (I take it that you are starting to research that) and by the fact of a failure rate for OC. It is also fair to say that by virtue of the failure rate, implantation is not always prevented.

Is there any way to identify how many breakthrough ovulations result in conceptions that do not implant? Not that I am aware of. Even if you did identify a breakthrough ovulation and conception, how would you conclusively show that for a particular instance, the failure to implant was a result of the OC caused defect in the endometrium, and not some inherent defect in the baby? I am not aware of any method that would be capable of determining that.

With all that being said however, it does not minimize or negate the observed effect on the endometrium, nor does it negate the existence of breakthrough ovulation. It is a life that we are talking about, a child of God created in His image. One shouldn’t take a risk with someone’s life. To me that is easy to understand. It is only because the person is very small, weak, and we are not seeing that person’s demise, that this is even remotely viewed as tolerable.

With regard to ongoing research, isn’t the “fear of causing a fertilized egg not to implant” a very prudent and reasonable fear? If you do not agree that it is reasonable fear, why is it not, in your view?

Why was your NFP instructor discussing breakthrough ovulation? Just as part of going over ABC in general?

Also, it is my recollection that the very early, high dose estrogen pills resulted in fair number of deaths, I think due to clots/embolism or something like that.

Minor procedural suggestion: If you do not use the quote function (and that’s not a criticism - - I’ve never tried to figure it out) when referring to lines of a prior post, perhaps it would be easier to distinguish between your words and a prior poster’s if you put the prior poster’s words to which you are responding in italics, or underline them, or put a >> at the beginning of the prior poster’s words, etc. Sometimes I have a hard time initially in reading your posts because I am confused about who is saying what.

 

[Cricket123]

First of all, contraception is abortion.
…This is the Truth and the Church has always taught the Truth of Jesus Christ! It is difficult and unpopular, but still True!!!

The idea taken even at face value cannot be said to be a choice between the “lesser of two evils” since one is not forced to make a choice between either abortion or birth control.

That is a lovely “idea” - but I wasn’t asking about ideas - (well, not here anyway - in another thread, I asked if people could come up with any “new ideas” to help keep women from getting abortions - not comments about how it’s evil and it’s a choice between good and evil - but something like some of the anti abortion people came up with such as sidewalk counseling or showing the remains of a late term abortion- something that might actually have a chance of helping - God knows if we want abortion gone we need to come up with other ideas such as trying to get women on birth control and monitoring them with follow ups and having them use actual birth control instead of using abortion as birth control)

…those that are anti abortion need to come up with something else that will help - not just platitudes that to the women who are seeking abortions are no longer effective.
I wish it were as uncomplicated as saying that abortion is wrong don’t do it - but it just isn’t that simple.

 

[Trader]

And artifical birth control is allowed by the Church when medically necessary by double effect - even Fr. Serpa on here agrees with that:

This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

You may be misusing Father Serpa’s answer here. The Church does not approve of using the pill for contraception. Contraception is not the “medical reason” for using the pill. Artificial contraception cannot be the intended result. The medical reason would be to regulate the periods of a woman who has a medical problem, ie, excessive bleeding. For that legitimate medical reason, a medical treatment may be used even if it has a secondary effect of possibly causing an unintended miscarriage or temporary infertility.

The Church’s teaching has been consistent for almost 2000 years. Both artificial contraception and abortion are intrinsic evils. Neither can ever be the intended result of a moral act, because that intention would make the act immoral.

 

[ryecroft]

<<You may be misusing Father Serpa’s answer here. The Church does not approve of using the pill for contraception. Contraception is not the “medical reason” for using the pill. Artificial contraception cannot be the intended result. The medical reason would be to regulate the periods of a woman who has a medical problem, ie, excessive bleeding. For that legitimate medical reason, a medical treatment may be used even if it has a secondary effect of possibly causing an unintended miscarriage or temporary infertility.

The Church’s teaching has been consistent for almost 2000 years. Both artificial contraception and abortion are intrinsic evils. Neither can ever be the intended result of a moral act, because that intention would make the act immoral. >>

I understand exactly what Fr. Serpa said and I don’t believe I’ve ever said it differently. I currently use the pill because of excessive bleeding, ovarian cysts and uterine tumors - I used th pill before I ever got married or sexually active. The times that I’ve been off the pill were when wer were trying NFP with a Doctor who thought there might be a way for me to be off the pill, control the bleeding and possibly cysts. If I gave the idea that I was just using it to prevent pregnancy, I apologize.

 

[Trader]

I understand exactly what Fr. Serpa said and I don’t believe I’ve ever said it differently. I currently use the pill because of excessive bleeding, ovarian cysts and uterine tumors - I used th pill before I ever got married or sexually active. The times that I’ve been off the pill were when wer were trying NFP with a Doctor who thought there might be a way for me to be off the pill, control the bleeding and possibly cysts. If I gave the idea that I was just using it to prevent pregnancy, I apologize.

I am glad we agree on what the Church teaches. I changed my original post from “you are” to “you may” be misusing the quote from Father Serpa in hope that was true before I posted it… Your first sentence “And artifical birth control is allowed by the Church when medically necessary…” was the problem. It is not the hormones in the pill that are intrinsically evil, it is the intention to use them to bring about an immoral result. Almost any chemical can be used for an immoral purpose, like suicide, even water. I don’t think anyone would argue that we are baptised with an immoral chemical.

 

[bobzills]

When are you going to get “something” straight? All artificial birth control methods are abortificants.

Really?
I would like to see a supporting reference.

 

[kage_ar]

Really?
I would like to see a supporting reference.

Do you want to go brand by brand? Google for name brand and “package insert”.

fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/021690lbl.pdf

Start here, this is the 44 page document for Orthy-Cyclen, note page 2:

“ORAL CONTRACEPTION
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the
primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include
changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus)
and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).”

 

[bobzills]

Do you want to go brand by brand? Google for name brand and “package insert”.

fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/021690lbl.pdf

Start here, this is the 44 page document for Orthy-Cyclen, note page 2:

“ORAL CONTRACEPTION
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the
primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include
changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus)
and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).”

I don;t see where this proves that all artificial birth control methods are abortificants?

 

[kage_ar]

I don;t see where this proves that all artificial birth control methods are abortificants?

This shows this method is. What you need to do is the same research that I and many people have done. You look up each and every name brand of chemical birth control or IUD, and you check the package insert.

You have to be an INFORMED person, and either you take the word of those of us who have done the hours of research or you do the research yourself.

The information is all available on line. You take each brand name and google it along with the words “package insert”. You then read each package insert.

 

[limerick]

“An independent, non pro-life study at Harvard has proven that the aggressive promotion of condom use in every African country has resulted in increased AIDS. People are not perfect and they become “overconfident” and have unprotected sex, or more sex, feeling they are safe.”
**
The increase in the number of HIV cases throughout Africa is not due to condom use, nor can it be attributed to the “aggressive promotion of condom use”. It is due to “overconfidence”, likely on the part of the African men. They then have UNprotected sex and participate in spreading the disease. This is a clear demonstration that the African people have little or no understanding of the transmission of the disease; a comprehension of the details would likely raise compliance, but because it is true that people are not perfect, failures will occur.

If it is possible for women to practice NFP with satisfactory results (i.e., no conceptions), then why is it IMpossible for African men - or couples - or couples in any country - to practice safe, routine, uninterrupted condom use in the interest of curtailing the spread of HIV?

More than overconfidence, I think the failure of any HIV program which suggests condom use is brutal self-interest, and it is not found solely among African men or African couples. It also appears that many on this forum would applaud the “failure rate” of condom use, because that would support the agenda that any barrier method is sinful. I submit that exposing one’s partner to HIV because use of a condom reduces male sensation and pleasure is far more sinful than using a condom for any reason.

Limerick**

 

[mapleoak]

If it is possible for women to practice NFP with satisfactory results (i.e., no conceptions), then why is it IMpossible for African men - or couples - or couples in any country - to practice safe, routine, uninterrupted condom use in the interest of curtailing the spread of HIV?
Limerick

As Catholics we are concerned with the spiritual well being of our fellow man. We do not condone nor support either of the following:

• Safe, routine, uniterrupted condom use in the interest of curtailing the spread of HIV;
• Dangerous, nonroutine, interrupted condom-less promiscuity with disregard for the spread of HIV.

Both are wrong.

 

[limerick]

As Catholics we are concerned with the spiritual well being of our fellow man. We do not condone nor support either of the following:

• Safe, routine, uniterrupted condom use in the interest of curtailing the spread of HIV;
• Dangerous, nonroutine, interrupted condom-less promiscuity with disregard for the spread of HIV.

Both are wrong.

**How successful has the Catholic missionary effort been in educating African nations as to the transmission of and exponential growth of HIV/AIDS in their countries? How successful have you been in propping up their spiritual well being so that they can transcend the base act of intercourse, protected or not, within the bounds of commitment or not?

Are you saying the most you can do for them is pray for them? That is tantamount to relegating them and the entire HIV/AIDS dilemma to the bowels of the collective Catholic mind. “Well, as long as them heathens keep it in Africa it ain’t no skin off my nose.”

If charity begins at home, you have no home.

Limerick**

 

[mapleoak]

**How successful has the Catholic missionary effort been in educating African nations as to the transmission of and exponential growth of HIV/AIDS in their countries? How successful have you been in propping up their spiritual well being so that they can transcend the base act of intercourse, protected or not, within the bounds of commitment or not?

Are you saying the most you can do for them is pray for them? That is tantamount to relegating them and the entire HIV/AIDS dilemma to the bowels of the collective Catholic mind. “Well, as long as them heathens keep it in Africa it ain’t no skin off my nose.”

If charity begins at home, you have no home.

Limerick**

It sounds like you’re saying: If you do nothing but pray for people in African nations, then it becomes morally acceptable to encourage birth control contrary to Church teaching".
Tell me I am mistaken.

 

[limerick]

It sounds like you’re saying: If you do nothing but pray for people in African nations, then it becomes morally acceptable to encourage birth control contrary to Church teaching".
Tell me I am mistaken.

**
What do your prayers sound like? Let’s eliminate the cute references to encouraging birth control contrary to Church teaching for a moment. Do you pray that God will enlighten the native Africans and show them the Truth as presented by the Roman Catholic Church? Do you pray that enough of them will succumb to HIV/AIDS that the others might have an “ah-ha moment”? What specifically do you ask of God, or do you just say, “Thy will be done” and then go have a sandwich?

The disease is already here. It is killing people. Elsewhere on these threads it has been claimed that under certain conditions women may take the pill if it will help to correct or alleviate a health problem. Why would it be a sin, then, for a couple to use a condom to prevent the spread of a killer virus?

I know what’s coming. I just have to see it for myself.

Limerick**

 

[Trader]

**
What do your prayers sound like? Let’s eliminate the cute references to encouraging birth control contrary to Church teaching for a moment. Do you pray that God will enlighten the native Africans and show them the Truth as presented by the Roman Catholic Church? Do you pray that enough of them will succumb to HIV/AIDS that the others might have an “ah-ha moment”? What specifically do you ask of God, or do you just say, “Thy will be done” and then go have a sandwich?

The disease is already here. It is killing people. Elsewhere on these threads it has been claimed that under certain conditions women may take the pill if it will help to correct or alleviate a health problem. Why would it be a sin, then, for a couple to use a condom to prevent the spread of a killer virus?

I know what’s coming. I just have to see it for myself.

Limerick**

For a significant number of cases of condoms and AIDS prevention (the majority in the US), you are considering cases of sodomy. Is sodomy with a condom worse than sodomy without a condom? The church would not bother to argue that one. It is important to provide truthful information about the “safety” provided by a condom. If the people promoting irresponsible behavior with condoms are lying about that safety, what else are they lying about? If those couples are overconfident enough increase their sexual encounters because of condoms, then the actual risk of becoming infected is actually increased rather than decreased.

If a couple knows that one of them is infected, or is likely to be infected because of many previous partners, using a condom is like playing Russian Roulette with one bullet and claiming it carries only half the risk of using two bullets. The only prudent course of action would be to abstain from relations with an infected partner, even in marriage.

To use a condom to prevent pregnancy is contrary to Church teaching. To count on a condom to prevent AIDS is just plain stupid and reckless. That is not theology, it is a conclusion based on empirical medical research, most recently by Harvard University.

 

[limerick]

For a significant number of cases of condoms and AIDS prevention (the majority in the US), you are considering cases of sodomy. Is sodomy with a condom worse than sodomy without a condom? The church would not bother to argue that one. It is important to provide truthful information about the “safety” provided by a condom. If the people promoting irresponsible behavior with condoms are lying about that safety, what else are they lying about? If those couples are overconfident enough increase their sexual encounters because of condoms, then the actual risk of becoming infected is actually increased rather than decreased.

If a couple knows that one of them is infected, or is likely to be infected because of many previous partners, using a condom is like playing Russian Roulette with one bullet and claiming it carries only half the risk of using two bullets. The only prudent course of action would be to abstain from relations with an infected partner, even in marriage.

To use a condom to prevent pregnancy is contrary to Church teaching. To count on a condom to prevent AIDS is just plain stupid and reckless. That is not theology, it is a conclusion based on empirical medical research, most recently by Harvard University.

**My questions pertained primarily to the HIV/AIDS epidemic throughout Africa and not in the U.S., but since you brought it up I will say, no, I am not considering cases of sodomy. I am considering conventional methods of intercourse between male and female. It is unfortunate that, in the face of everything we know about HIV, there are still individuals who live for the moment, seeking instant gratification. Many suffer for their indiscretions and some will die from them. But culturally speaking, those of us living in the U.S. have no excuse to be unaware of the facts surrounding HIV. Those in sub-Saharan Africa are not so lucky.

Although use of a condom to prevent pregnancy is contrary to Church teaching, the focus of condom use with regard to primary HIV/AIDS infection lands, instead, on prevention of transmission. Just because some couples are careless or believe they are invincible to infection does not render the use of condoms for this purpose “just plain stupid and reckless”. This assessment is particularly egregious given the only option offered is total abstinence for unmarried and married alike. That is impractical and impracticable among an entire population of poverty-stricken people whose only relief from daily suffering might be the sex act.

Who are the “people promoting irresponsible behavior with condoms”? Why would someone promote irresponsible behavior? What are you trying to say here? That you believe condoms are 100% ineffective at protecting sexual partners from HIV infection? What about mother-to-fetus or newborn transmission? What to do about that? Or is HIV problematic only insofar as the sex act is involved, and then it loses its appeal as a cause when the trickle-down begins?

Limerick **

 

[Trader]

**

Who are the “people promoting irresponsible behavior with condoms”? Why would someone promote irresponsible behavior? What are you trying to say here? That you believe condoms are 100% ineffective at protecting sexual partners from HIV infection? What about mother-to-fetus or newborn transmission? What to do about that? Or is HIV problematic only insofar as the sex act is involved, and then it loses its appeal as a cause when the trickle-down begins?

Limerick **

When Planned Parenthood hands out condoms like cheap Halloween candy to children too young to even legally consent to sex, they are promoting irresponsible behavior. Motive? The increase of pregnancies in children not able to raise children means more abortion business for them. I know that is an oversimplification, but PP’s history of subverting parental notification laws and evading mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse shows that they have no problem breaking even minimal restrictons on their main business of providing abortions.