The pill to regularize cycles

[Em_in_FL]

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?

You’re right - we don’t. But again - just like I mentioned before regarding the pill, intent must be considered as well as the risk/benefit analysis of using it. We always have to question whether or not a better alternative exists…

 

[pnewton]

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.

I would added, however, that abstinence may not be required in this situation, if the period is short enough, it would be a devout practice worthy of consideration, subject to the limitations St. Paul put on such practices, of course.

And thank you for the quote. I know I had read it before, thus confirming what I was saying about double effect. One is still free to disagree with Fr. Serpa, but at least I’m not going mad.

 

[utunumsint]

I would added, however, that abstinence may not be required in this situation, if the period is short enough, it would be a devout practice worthy of consideration, subject to the limitations St. Paul put on such practices, of course.

And thank you for the quote. I know I had read it before, thus confirming what I was saying about double effect. One is still free to disagree with Fr. Serpa, but at least I’m not going mad.

Father Serpa said abstinence was not required… So did my parish preist / canon lawyer.

God bless,
Ut

 

[pnewton]

Father Serpa said abstinence was not required… So did my parish preist / canon lawyer.

God bless,
Ut

I understood that. That is why I said the same thing. And quoted it.

 

[kage_ar]

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?

The tube is diseased, it has or will rupture. Removing the tube from the body saves the life of the mother.

The morning after pill is only allowed if it can be determined that ovulation has NOT occurred, so, there is no chance of an abortion.

 

[theengel]

It’s my understanding that a woman on any kind of birth control pill has a very good chance of miscarrying if she does conceive–due to the affects of the pill. As a matter of fact, that’s specifically what the pills were designed for… to prevent pregnancy, and to miscarry in the event of pregnancy.

I’m not sure how this could compare to taking antibiotics or smoking or any other activity.

Smoking isn’t used to prevent pregnancy or to cause death of a child. Birth control pills are. If a woman is on birth control, she has a very good chance of miscarrying (again–as far as my understanding goes).

How could the ‘intent’ matter, when a person knows the probable outcome will kill someone?

Perhaps another way to look at this is:

Exactly what is risked when a woman’s cycles AREN’T regulated? Can she die? If so, then wouldn’t it make more sense to use a more drastic measure like an operation?

I guess we could get pretty well tied up in medical discussion on those points, and it’s not necessarily what I’m trying to find out (although, I realize I can’t just sidestep the medical aspect).

 

[theengel]

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.

I would also like to know here:

Is it that the Church “allows” it or is it just that the Church hasn’t formally condemned it?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

It’s my understanding that a woman on any kind of birth control pill has a very good chance of miscarrying if she does conceive–due to the affects of the pill. As a matter of fact, that’s specifically what the pills were designed for… to prevent pregnancy, and to miscarry in the event of pregnancy.

This is not true of all hormonal treatments. There are many “birth control” pills that do not increase your chance of a micarriage by any significant number, and work simply by preventing ovulation and thinning the endometrium slightly. You are as likely to get pregnant if conception occurs as you are off the pill. This isn’t me speaking, it’s the 3 doctors I’ve seen on this subject when I had to be put on hormonal treatments.

 

[Sure]

The Church has always taught that one can take medication even if the medication has bad side effects. So, even if the medicine can also cause you to be less fertile, or infertile, or cause a miscarriage, this is morally permissible.

A woman who finds that she has cancer can undergo a hysterectomy even if she knows it renders her infertile. A woman who is pregnant and has cancer can take medication to kill the cancer even if that medicine is extremely likely to cause a miscarriage. A woman who has a tubal pregnancy can have the tube removed even though there is a baby inside who will die from the procedure.

 

[theengel]

Here’s the thing about statements from doctors and priests: they don’t mean anything. I mean I could find a quote from a priest (or doctor) that will give evidence to just about any idea I want to support.

In the case of doctors, the problem this creates is much worse because we have no final authority to turn to when we want to dig further. When a priest is wrong about something, we need only to look at what the Church teaches (if it’s defined anywhere) and we know what the truth is. But with doctors, we can search around all day and still never be any closer to the truth.

Furthermore, the official authority for anything medical changes over time. Even if every doctor in the world agreed on something, that wouldn’t necessarily make them right.

I hear people (including doctors) say that the pill does not cause abortion, or only cause a very slight risk of abortion. Then I see some well grounded and well referenced pieces like this one:

epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

So what’s a body to believe?

 

[theengel]

The Church has always taught that one can take medication even if the medication has bad side effects. So, even if the medicine can also cause you to be less fertile, or infertile, or cause a miscarriage, this is morally permissible.

Where does the Church teach this, in the case of a medicine that is specifically created to stop pregnancy, and abort in the case of pregnancy? Especially if the medicine is not used to help a life-threatening situation.

 

[kage_ar]

I hear people (including doctors) say that the pill does not cause abortion, or only cause a very slight risk of abortion. Then I see some well grounded and well referenced pieces like this one:

epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

So what’s a body to believe?

Believe the body that does not make a $$ off perscribing the pill.

 

[Sure]

Here’s the thing about statements from doctors and priests: they don’t mean anything. I mean I could find a quote from a priest (or doctor) that will give evidence to just about any idea I want to support.

In the case of doctors, the problem this creates is much worse because we have no final authority to turn to when we want to dig further. When a priest is wrong about something, we need only to look at what the Church teaches (if it’s defined anywhere) and we know what the truth is. But with doctors, we can search around all day and still never be any closer to the truth.

Furthermore, the official authority for anything medical changes over time. Even if every doctor in the world agreed on something, that wouldn’t necessarily make them right.

I hear people (including doctors) say that the pill does not cause abortion, or only cause a very slight risk of abortion. Then I see some well grounded and well referenced pieces like this one:

epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

So what’s a body to believe?

Even if we know that a particular medicine will nearly always cause a miscarriage or some other evil side effect, it can still be moral to use that particular medicine for a legitimate therapeutic reason.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Even if we know that a particular medicine will nearly always cause a miscarriage or some other evil side effect, it can still be moral to use that particular medicine for a legitimate therapeutic reason.

Yes, but *DEFINE *“legitimate therapeutic reason”…

Again, I’m going to quote myself here…

But again - just like I mentioned before regarding the pill, intent must be considered as well as the risk/benefit analysis of using it. We always have to question whether or not a better alternative exists…

If we don’t look for moral alternatives to the evil side effect then are we doing our due diligence? I mean, these things affect our SOULS - these are *heavy *choices - life and death! Choosing the first answer because it’s *EASY *isn’t always the *RIGHT *choice.

Yes, sure there are priests that will give their “blessing” for you to accept that first answer - and if there are no alternatives then that is all you have to go on… but we have to ALWAYS question authority here - PUSHING each other toward the most moral decision possible.

 

[theengel]

Even if we know that a particular medicine will nearly always cause a miscarriage or some other evil side effect, it can still be moral to use that particular medicine for a legitimate therapeutic reason.

So in the example situation I submitted (where derailing a train, knowing people would probably die, in order to save your own life), you feel there would be no sin committed?

 

[theengel]

Yes, but *DEFINE *“legitimate therapeutic reason”…

We’d also have to figure out just how much we “need” the therapy. I don’t think I’ve met a woman who hasn’t been told at one time in her life or another that she has to start taking pills in order to “regulate” her cycles. Of course, I’m referring to women who I know well enough to know a detail that intimate, and that would mean a small number of people. But I constantly hear from people who say they were told this by doctors, and ended up ignoring the doctor.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Look, guys, the point is you can’t pass judgement on another woman without KNOWING what she is going through.

The Pope HIMSELF has DECLARED that the pill has legitimate therapeutic purposes. He has ALLOWED its use for these reasons!!!

Until you are spending time on the bathroom floor vomiting from pain, crying your eyes out because you are so emotional you think SUICIDE is a good idea, losing JOBS because you are taking 2 weeks of sick time to do all of this because you are having 2 periods a month, you can’t talk.

No one on here that I have seen so far is a doctor. And women who struggle with these issues usually see a whole HOST of doctors trying to fix this problem. Women on the pill for theraeutic reasons don’t just get on the pill thinking “h yeah, free contraception for my small issue” for MANY it is a gut wrenching painful decision. THey have side effects from the pill (morning sickness, loss of sex drive, weight gain etc) and it SUCKS, but they deal with it because it’s better than losing jobs, and bleeding like a stuck pig.

Sorry to get graphic on here, but how many people out there who doubt the legitimacy of “therapeutic reasons” reall yknow what it is like?

No one says it “cures” anything, and any woman on it for medical reasons won’t say it cures anything either. In the cases it is prescribed for it is to MASK the symptoms of the underlying problem if nothing else can be done, or the woman doesn’t want to sacrifice her fertility. Those with crippling endrometriosis (most common reason) would have to go under the knife to fix the problem, and that can potentially cause infertility, and if they don’t have kids yet, why would they want to do that? Especially since pregnancy usually “cures” the problem anyway?

You may not trust the doctors, the priests, whatever. But I trust the Pope. Pope John Paul II, and HE HIMSELF said it DOES have legitimate therapeutic reasons and can be used for those reasons. I just don’t understand the logic of those catholics who are SO catholic, that they know better than the pope.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The tube is diseased,

what disease is “rupture”? the tube is normal as is the baby

it has or will rupture. Removing the tube from the body saves the life of the mother.

*Removing the tube from the body *kills the baby

The morning after pill is only allowed if it can be determined that ovulation has NOT occurred, so, there is no chance of an abortion.

so what “disease” is that ? , btw - no "if it can be determined that ovulation has NOT occurred" is incorrect

 

[kage_ar]

Pope John Paul II, and HE HIMSELF said it DOES have legitimate therapeutic reasons and can be used for those reasons. I just don’t understand the logic of those catholics who are SO catholic, that they know better than the pope.

Would you please link me to that statement from His Holiness John Paul II?

 

[kage_ar]

what disease is “rupture”? the tube is normal as is the baby *Removing the tube from the body *kills the baby so what “disease” is that ? ,

The cure of a disease language relates to birth control pills.

Direct abortion is never permitted. If you can find a reference that says one can have a direct abortion, please, post the link.

btw - no "if it can be determined that ovulation has NOT occurred" is incorrect

Well, if they cannot determine if ovulation has occurred, they will not be able to follow the USCCB Directive.

usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partone

USCCB Directive #36 states:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19