The pill to regularize cycles

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hi,

Our priest has given my wife permission to use the pill to regularize her cycles.

Based on my understanding, the mini-pill is out of the question because

1-It does not regularize cycles.
2-Its primary function is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

IUDs are also out of the question for the same reasons.

It seems as though there is no available options out there for breastfeeding women to use to regularize their cycles. Is this true?

Obviously I am not asking for medical opinions here, but anecdotal information we can bring to our own doctor, who is not pro-life, and has not offered any morally acceptable alternatives.

Note: I am pretty sure that the regular estrogen/progesteron pill would be acceptable given her needs, but would also have the side effect of drying up her milk supply.

God bless,
Ut

Your wife is breastfeeding? How old is the baby?

The hormones of the pill do pass into the breastmilk. Normally prolactin, supresses estrogen and progesterone, causing the absence of periods. Sometimes that does not happen, and causes periods to be irregular.

You mentioned having an NFP only doctor? Great. Work with your doctor, I am sure he/she has seen this problem before, and can treat it in an ethical way. Sometimes you just might need to wait and see for your wife’s hormone levels to regulate. It might just be a few cycles.

 

[kage_ar]

This is the section including the lawful therapeutic use clause.

I guess the question is whether the method use is directly intending an abortion. From what I understand, this would not be our intention at all. We would be using this to regulate our cycles.

God bless,
Ut

Key word there is to “cure” bodily diseases. Does your wife have a disease and will a course of this pill cure that disease OR does he have normal irregular cycles and this pill will give her a withdrawl bleed that looks like a cycle?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

From HV, the word “abortion” is used exactly ONE time (emphasis mine):

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Yes you cannot use it to “regulate” however as pointed out below and in numberous other places therapy methods are allowed, i would suggest you read on etopic pregnancies

This is the section including the lawful therapeutic use clause.

I guess the question is whether the method use is directly intending an abortion. From what I understand, this would not be our intention at all. We would be using this to regulate our cycles.

God bless,
Ut

Given an abortion has never been recorded through such method it would seem to be illogical to conclude that abortion is intented. I would doubt the doctor would be thinking abortion is an objective in this plan.

 

[theengel]

Both posts are greatly errored

Well that clears everything up for me.

The document quoted states that the pill is to be

absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.

I believe the question is not whether to use it as a mean to regulate children, but whether to use it to regulate cycles (women bleed more when their cycles are out of control, so the two have nothing to do with each other).

As for the section on “Lawful Therapeutic Means”, we’re not just talking about foreseeable impediment to procreation. We’re talking about abortion. Preventing pregnancy is an impediment–ending pregnancy is something different.

 

[kage_ar]

Yes you cannot use it to “regulate” however as pointed out below and in numberous other places therapy methods are allowed, i would suggest you read on etopic pregnancies

.

Direct abortion is ALWALS gravely sinful. Every one of the Church documents on the topic backs this up.

Removal of a damaged or about to burst tube is not a direct abortion.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Key word there is to “cure” bodily diseases. Does your wife have a disease and will a course of this pill cure that disease OR does he have normal irregular cycles and this pill will give her a withdrawl bleed that looks like a cycle?

I am waiting for the “disease” and “cure” on the etopic pregnancy, will it be the baby? How about the morning after pill allowed in rape causes what is the “disease” and “cure” there?

 

[theengel]

Direct abortion is ALWALS gravely sinful. Every one of the Church documents on the topic backs this up.

Removal of a damaged or about to burst tube is not a direct abortion.

In the case of the pill, it is not a direct abortion. A baby hasn’t even been conceived yet (as far as the participating couple would know). But the pill might cause abortion in a baby that would be conceived in the future.

 

[utunumsint]

Well that clears everything up for me.

The document quoted states that the pill is to be

I believe the question is not whether to use it as a mean to regulate children, but whether to use it to regulate cycles (women bleed more when their cycles are out of control, so the two have nothing to do with each other).

As for the section on “Lawful Therapeutic Means”, we’re not just talking about foreseeable impediment to procreation. We’re talking about abortion. Preventing pregnancy is an impediment–ending pregnancy is something different.

There is the possibility that the estrogen/progesterone pill could have this effect, but it is not guaranteed. Implantation can and does occure.

Just so that you know, smoking, alcohol, some antibiotics, and aspirine can all cause misscarriages. Should people abstain from using these substances when having maritale relations? A week after my wife consceived our third, she got a urinary tract infection. The doctore gave her medicine. Afterwards she found out and we were terrified that this could have affected the pregnancy. The doctor said that luckily, he did not perscribe the one that could have cause a misscarriage.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Texas_Roofer]

-]/-]

Well that clears everything up for me.

I am glad for you

The document quoted states that the pill is to be

I believe the question is not whether to use it as a mean to regulate children, but whether to use it to regulate cycles (women bleed more when their cycles are out of control, so the two have nothing to do with each other).

both are therapeutic so they are directly related, please remember HV only can up as a source because you asked for it. There are thousands of other sources

As for the section on “Lawful Therapeutic Means”, we’re not just talking about foreseeable impediment to procreation. We’re talking about abortion. Preventing pregnancy is an impediment–ending pregnancy is something different.

Yes that is correct the full depth of the teaching always needs to be understood.

Direct abortion is ALWA[Y]S gravely sinful. Every one of the Church documents on the topic backs this up.

Removal of a damaged or about to burst tube is not a direct abortion.

Actually *Removal of a damaged or about to burst tube is -]not/-] a direct abortion *It is not an intended abortion. The therapy is intended to save one of the two lives. The side affect is the loss of one life. The full depth of the teaching always needs to be understood

 

[theengel]

-]/-] both are therapeutic so they are directly related

They might be related, but they are not the same. The quoted paragraph is addressing regulation of children and not regulation of cycles.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

They might be related, but they are not the same. The quoted paragraph is addressing regulation of children and not regulation of cycles.

It would seem you have something to hide?

 

[theengel]

It would seem you have something to hide?

What would I be hiding? I’ve stated who I am and why I’m asking the questions.

 

[theengel]

There is the possibility that the estrogen/progesterone pill could have this effect, but it is not guaranteed. Implantation can and does occure.

Just so that you know, smoking, alcohol, some antibiotics, and aspirine can all cause misscarriages. Should people abstain from using these substances when having maritale relations? A week after my wife consceived our third, she got a urinary tract infection. The doctore gave her medicine. Afterwards she found out and we were terrified that this could have affected the pregnancy. The doctor said that luckily, he did not perscribe the one that could have cause a misscarriage.

God bless,
Ut

I guess this makes sense.

I wonder if there are any statistics available on the likelihood of implantation when using this drug.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Here is a very good medical description of Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding. I highly suggest you read the whole article…
healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/408/530.html

It suggests there are MANY causes of this medical issue and there can be many methods of treating it - one being using birth control pills to manage the bleeding.
However, unless we are INFORMED PATIENTS and have this information in hand we cannot make educated decisions. These days, many OB/GYN’s have been tending to just “manage the symptoms” by prescribing the pill. It’s easy and effective - done.

BE INFORMED of the possibilities that are the CAUSE of these issues.
You can, morally, use birth control pills to manage these symptoms, yes…
BUT, is there a BETTER method that totally ELIMINATES the unintended abortifacient side effect of the pill? QUITE POSSIBLY. It only takes *INFORMATION *and the *STRENGTH *to actually question your doctor and pursue these other routes.

 

[utunumsint]

Here is a very good medical description of Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding. I highly suggest you read the whole article…
healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/408/530.html

It suggests there are MANY causes of this medical issue and there can be many methods of treating it - one being using birth control pills to manage the bleeding.
However, unless we are INFORMED PATIENTS and have this information in hand we cannot make educated decisions. These days, many OB/GYN’s have been tending to just “manage the symptoms” by prescribing the pill. It’s easy and effective - done.

BE INFORMED of the possibilities that are the CAUSE of these issues.
You can, morally, use birth control pills to manage these symptoms, yes…
BUT, is there a BETTER method that totally ELIMINATES the unintended abortifacient side effect of the pill? QUITE POSSIBLY. It only takes *INFORMATION *and the *STRENGTH *to actually question your doctor and pursue these other routes.

Agreed. The problem is exactly as you have stated. Our OB/GYN even lied to us when we asked the direct question about whether the progesterone pill prevents fertilization.

Our NFP only doctor should be able to give us more accurate and morally acceptable advice. But he may end up prescribing the pill as well. Who knows…

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I guess this makes sense.

I wonder if there are any statistics available on the likelihood of implantation when using this drug.

I believe that such statistics are impossible to gather because you would have to somehow be able to tell exactly when a microscopic fertilized egg would drop into the uterus, and attempt to implant. In order to do this, you would have to be constantly monitoring women using some device that could visible see what was going on at this microscopic level.

On the other hand, it would be possible to detect how many women ovulate using the pill and from that, extrapolate on the number of misscarriages it causes. If anyone has that kind of evidence, I would very much like to see it.

I’ve been able to determine that progesterone only pills do not prevent ovulation in 50% of women. I’m pretty sure that for estrogen/progesterone pills, the possibility of ovulation is much lower. But I’m not sure how much lower.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What would I be hiding? I’ve stated who I am and why I’m asking the questions.

Let be specific exactly what question(s) are you asking?

I guess this makes sense.

I wonder if there are any statistics available on the likelihood of implantation when using this drug.

No reasonable statistics exist todate and here is why too many convoluted factors. Maybe over time this can be pieced out but no reasonable public data so far. Athletics, common steriods, and all other health factors play in, a large degree of natural variation with humans also will factor in, additional factors include estimates 50+% of all pregnancies are aborted in nature with no knowledge of the female. So it is a difficult project to determine if natural abortion rates changed from xx.xxx% to xx.xxx+0.05 under current conditions.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I wonder if there are any statistics available on the likelihood of implantation when using this drug.
utunumsint;5761742:

I believe that such statistics are impossible to gather because you would have to somehow be able to tell exactly when a microscopic fertilized egg would drop into the uterus, and attempt to implant. In order to do this, you would have to be constantly monitoring women using some device that could visible see what was going on at this microscopic level.

God bless,
Ut

Yes, I agree with Ut… I have read articles on this as well.

It is understood that *both *the regular combination pill and the mini-pill will affect the endometrium lining of the uterus - but to what extent in each and every case is unknown. The potential is there for a conceived human to be aborted. Because that potential is there (no matter how small), intent must be considered as well as the risk/benefit analysis of using it as medication vs trying other methods.

 

[Tosk]

Yes, I agree with Ut… I have read articles on this as well.

It is understood that *both *the regular combination pill and the mini-pill will affect the endometrium lining of the uterus - but to what extent in each and every case is unknown. The potential is there for a conceived human to be aborted. Because that potential is there (no matter how small), intent must be considered as well as the risk/benefit analysis of using it as medication vs trying other methods.

What really confuses me is, we don’t know if smoking, drinking coffee, or drinking alcohol increases the miscarriage rate from say 50.5% to 50.55%. I mean it is highly unlikely that any of those increase the rate of miscarriage but you can’t be 100% sure. What is a reasonable burden to put on sexually active women concerning what they eat, drink, or take for medicine?

 

[utunumsint]

What really confuses me is, we don’t know if smoking, drinking coffee, or drinking alcohol increases the miscarriage rate from say 50.5% to 50.55%. I mean it is highly unlikely that any of those increase the rate of miscarriage but you can’t be 100% sure. What is a reasonable burden to put on sexually active women concerning what they eat, drink, or take for medicine?

Interesting article on this subject.

merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch259/ch259a.html

I suppose if you are on any of these drugs, and you are open to having another child, you may want to avoid the more dangerous ones, for example, those drugs in category C, D, and X.

About the other issues, this articles has this to say about early fetal development.

How a drug affects a fetus depends on the fetus’s stage of development and the strength and dose of the drug. Certain drugs taken early in pregnancy (within 20 days after fertilization) may act in an all-or-nothing fashion, killing the fetus or not affecting it at all. **During this early stage, the fetus is highly resistant to birth defects. **However, the fetus is particularly vulnerable to birth defects between the 3rd and the 8th week after fertilization, when its organs are developing. Drugs reaching the fetus during this stage may have no effect, or they may cause a miscarriage, an obvious birth defect, or a permanent but subtle defect that is noticed later in life. Drugs taken after organ development is complete are unlikely to cause obvious birth defects, but they may alter the growth and function of normally formed organs and tissues.

So if this is true, then you would have a window of opportunity to discontinue any dangerous activities (smoking, alcohol, heroin use, the pill

God bless,
Ut