Thoughts about birth control/contraception

[Madia]

First topic: Is there any situation when a couple can engage in marital relations when the wife is on the birth control pill?

Assuming the birth control pill contains abortifacients, the answer would be no. Some may argue the double-effect since taking a pill is a morally neutral object and the good effects are intended while the bad effects are not intended and merely permitted. However, the contraceptive/aborifacient side effects do not take place unless there are sexual relations. So we need to to apply the doulbe-effect principle to having marital relations while on the pill, not to the taking of the pill.

Let us go through the steps of double-effects of engaging in sexual relations with someone on the pill:

1. Sexual intercourse between two married people is a morally good act.
2. The good effects of the marital act would not be obtained by means of the evil effects (contraceptive/aborifacient side effects).
3. The evil effect (contraceptive/aborifacient side effects) must not be intended but merely permitted.
4. There must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect.

Now, are the fruits of the marital act a proportionately grave reason to permit the death of child due to the abortfacient side effects? No! Sexual intercourse is not a reason to permit the death of the child. Let me give you an example:

Say your wife is having a difficult pregnancy. The doctor says that if you engage in marital relations there is a chance (3-30%) that your wife will miscarry. Are the fruits of the marital act a proportionate reason to permit the chance that the child is miscarried? If the couple goes ahead and has marital relations in that situation and the child dies because of it, would they be liable for their child’s death?

Second topic: Can one engage in sexual relations with one’s spouse when they are contracpting? This question refers to contraceptive methods that are not abortive (condoms, etc…)

This topic I am unsure of. It seems that by having sexual relations with a partner who is contracepting they are giving material cooperation with evil:
all.org/about/decapp02.htm

Now, a partner contracepting is committing a grave sin. However, to accomplish that grave sin they need the assistance of their spouse. The spouse not contracepting (and not wanting their spouse to contracept) would be engaging in material cooperation with evil.

The question to be asked is what amount of evil would happen if the spouse refuses to engage in marital relations? Would there be a proportionatley grave reason to engage in marital relations? For example, it may be permissable to engage in marital relations in such a situation to prevent divorce. However, it would *probably *not be permissable to engage in marital relations just to keep your spouse from getting angry.

 

[frogman80]

I am not completely sure what it is you are asking… or … are you making a statement?

Purposely using some artificial method to prevent pregnancy is never permitted. A good end or purpose for something is NEVER morally justified when it will obtained by using immoral means.

Is there any situation when a couple can engage in marital relations when the wife is on the birth control pill?

…

Say your wife is having a difficult pregnancy. The doctor says that if you engage in marital relations there is a chance (3-30%) that your wife will miscarry. Are the fruits of the marital act a proportionate reason to permit the chance that the child is miscarried? If the couple goes ahead and has marital relations in that situation and the child dies because of it, would they be liable for their child’s death?

…

Can one engage in sexual relations with one’s spouse when they are contracting? This question refers to contraceptive methods that are not abortive (condoms, etc…)

The Answers are… no.

However… that last question. I know a couple that decided to have a surgery to keep pregnancy form occurring. Years later they found God, and learned it was wrong to contracept. The surgery was not able to be undone, but they are still morally allowed to continue relations.

 

[felra]

Madia:

First topic: Is there any situation when a couple can engage in marital relations when the wife is on the birth control pill?

Second topic: Can one engage in sexual relations with one’s spouse when they are contracpting? This question refers to contraceptive methods that are not abortive (condoms, etc…)

The AAA has answered both accounts in the affirmative:

Pill allowed as an abortifacient?

What does one do when the other party wants to contracept?

Can Catholics use the abortion pill for medical reasons?

IMHO, there is a good case to be made that the use of the pill with the abortfacient effect does not satisfy the conditions of the principle of double effect, when used for medical reasons, or if a spouse chooses to contracept the sexual act.

 

[Madia]

I am not completely sure what it is you are asking… or … are you making a statement?

Well, I’m afraid that some people are saying that a couple can use the birth control pill (with abortfacients) and justify it under double effect which I wanted to show was not true.

What I’m unsure of is when is/isn’t it allowed for a spouse (who doesn’t want to contracept) to engage in marital relations with a spouse who is contracepting (using methods that aren’t abortfacient).

I know a couple that decided to have a surgery to keep pregnancy form occurring. Years later they found God, and learned it was wrong to contracept. The surgery was not able to be undone, but they are still morally allowed to continue relations.

I understand that they are able to engage in relations in that situation but my question was directed to a spouse who is physically able to procreate but is using a devise (condom, etc.) to contracept.

 

[Madia]

The AAA has answered both accounts in the affirmative:

I disagree. Although the miscarriage may not be intended, by having sexual relations you are permitting it to take place. The good effects of sexual relations are not a proportionatley grave reason to permit a child to be miscarried.

 

[felra]

Madia:

I disagree. Although the miscarriage may not be intended, by having sexual relations you are permitting it to take place. The good effects of sexual relations are not a proportionatley grave reason to permit a child to be miscarried.

Curious, do have a citation of a more “authoritative” source (than us humble lay CA posters) that makes the case (never morally licit to ever permit use of contraception) by applying the principle of double effect (ex., recognized moral theologian)?

 

[Madia]

Curious, do [you] have a citation of a more “authoritative” source (than us humble lay CA posters) that makes the case (never morally licit to ever permit use of contraception) by applying the principle of double effect (ex., recognized moral theologian)?

No, although I would be interested in one. Can anyone here see any flaw in my reasoning?

Does anyone think that sexual intercourse would be proportionatley grave reason to permit the death of a child? For example, does anyone believe that if the couple in my above example (the one with the wife having a difficult pregnancy) were to engage in sexual relations and have a misscarriage, they would look at their misscarried child and think “Well, I didn’t intend this but having sex was a just reason to permit this child’s death.”? Don’t you think the more likely reaction would be “What have I done!?”?

 

[vluvski]

I remember reading something somewhere, in a Catholic apologetics series or maybe even the CCC, that it is OK to have relations with your spouse even if he/she refuses to stop using ABC, provided you have already, in Christian charity as described in last weekend’s readings, made known to them the sin of practicing ABC. I think the reasoning was that the non-ABC spouse should not withhold sex on those grounds.
I can’t say I understand this reasoning completely, but that is what it said.
So sorry I can’t remember the reference!!!

 

[frogman80]

Madia:

No, although I would be interested in one. Can anyone here see any flaw in my reasoning?

Does anyone think that sexual intercourse would be proportionately grave reason to permit the death of a child? For example, does anyone believe that if the couple in my above example (the one with the wife having a difficult pregnancy) were to engage in sexual relations and have a miscarriage, they would look at their miscarried child and think “Well, I didn’t intend this but having sex was a just reason to permit this child’s death.”? Don’t you think the more likely reaction would be “What have I done!?”?

A person needs to be careful with hypothetical situations in a logical argument. 3%-30% chance of miscarriage. Why this percentage? Did the couple get a second opinion? It is a very wide range of percentage there, and honestly 30% is may not be that much… If the couple is actually at “high” risk for loosing a child, it may be grounds for purposely postponing a pregnancy by abstaining during fertile times. But let us say they didn’t decide to abstain, and got pregnant anyway. How would the couple know for a fact that the baby was going to miscarry? If they did have a miscarriage, the action they took (sexual relations) did not cause the miscarriage itself. They did not choose to have sex for the purposes of killing a baby. There is nothing immoral going on here fruits or no fruits. This situation cannot be logically compared to using abortificants. The action of taking a pill to kill a baby in case one is accidentally made is morally wrong. Action… take the pill… reason… to get rid of a possible baby.

Here is a hypothetical… let us say you need surgery to save your life, but the surgery itself poses high risk. Are you committing suicide if you choose to have the surgery and end up dieing? No. Your initial choice led to the final result of your death, but it is not the same as you asking someone to end your life.

 

[cheddarsox]

Everyone who has sex, is open to life and conceives knows that one day that child will suffer and die. That is a 100% fact, yet it is good to conceive. We are not ultimately responsible for when and how the child will eventually die. We are not morally culpable for death due to the conception of the child.

There is a chance (some drs estimate that fully 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage) that a conception will not come to term. That does not make the parents “guilty” of causing the death of that baby.

To say it is so, is like saying God is responsible for people going to hell because he created them. If the parent’s conceive with a heart open to raising, loving and caring for that child, they are not morally responsible for an unfortunate miscarriage, even if they were at greater risk for such than the “average” couple.

cheddar

 

[frogman80]

vluvski:

I remember reading something somewhere, in a Catholic apologetics series or maybe even the CCC, that it is OK to have relations with your spouse even if he/she refuses to stop using ABC, provided you have already, in Christian charity as described in last weekend’s readings, made known to them the sin of practicing ABC. I think the reasoning was that the non-ABC spouse should not withhold sex on those grounds.
I can’t say I understand this reasoning completely, but that is what it said.
So sorry I can’t remember the reference!!!

Situation: spouse A is against contraception, but spouse B refuses to stop using it.

I am looking for sources, but I think a spouse A has the right to refuse to “pay the marriage debt” if spouse B refuses to stop using contraception.

However, now that I think about it … (contrary to what I wrote in a previous post) … I am not sure that spouse A concurs any sin if he/she decides to “pay the marriage debt.”

Madia:

The question to be asked is what amount of evil would happen if the spouse refuses to engage in marital relations? Would there be a proportionatley grave reason to engage in marital relations? For example, it may be permissable to engage in marital relations in such a situation to prevent divorce. However, it would probably not be permissable to engage in marital relations just to keep your spouse from getting angry.

Situation: spouse B requires spouse A to USE contraception.

Spouse A is never permitted to morally use a contraceptive… to prevent divorce, or to keep a spouse from being angry… etc.

 

[Madia]

If the couple is actually at “high” risk for loosing a child, it may be grounds for purposely postponing a pregnancy by abstaining during fertile times.

My hypothetical situation was one in which the couple was *already *pregnant and told that since it is a difficult prengancy, they should abstain from marital relations so they don’t risk a misscarriage. The analogy would be that having sex in the hypothetical situation or with a woman on the pill would be the action that led to the miscarriage.

Everyone who has sex, is open to life and conceives knows that one day that child will suffer and die. That is a 100% fact, yet it is good to conceive. We are not ultimately responsible for when and how the child will eventually die. QUOTE]

Now a child who is with you in you car is at risk for death. Since that is true, does that eliminate any responsibility on your part if you drive intoxicated and the child dies? If you are not responsible for the death of your child if you are driving safely and are in an accident then why would you be responsible for the death of your child when you are driving intoxicated?

If you are responsible for your child’s death when you are driving intoxicated then why aren’t you responsible for your child’s death when you engage in marital relations when using abortficaients?

 

[frogman80]

Madia:

My hypothetical situation was one in which the couple was *already *pregnant and told that since it is a difficult pregnancy, they should abstain from marital relations so they don’t risk a misscarriage. The analogy would be that having sex in the hypothetical situation or with a woman on the pill would be the action that led to the miscarriage.

[Everyone who has sex, is open to life and conceives knows that one day that child will suffer and die. That is a 100% fact, yet it is good to conceive. We are not ultimately responsible for when and how the child will eventually die.

Now a child who is with you in you car is at risk for death. Since that is true, does that eliminate any responsibility on your part if you drive intoxicated and the child dies? If you are not responsible for the death of your child if you are driving safely and are in an accident then why would you be responsible for the death of your child when you are driving intoxicated?

If you are responsible for your child’s death when you are driving intoxicated then why aren’t you responsible for your child’s death when you engage in marital relations when using abortficaients?

Ahh yes!.. I mis read didn’t I! Sorry about that!

The following is a quote from the supplement part of the Summa. It is about a woman and her menstruation, but it touches on the well being of offspring. Please read the entire section (located here.) The quote alone may be misleading for those who tend to read into things!

Summa:

I answer that, It was forbidden in the Law to approach to a menstruous woman, for two reasons both on account of her uncleanness, and on account of the harm that frequently resulted to the offspring from such intercourse

. With regard to the first reason, it was a ceremonial precept, but with regard to the second it was a moral precept.** For since marriage is chiefly directed to the good of the offspring, all use of marriage which is intended for the good of the offspring is in order.** Consequently this precept is binding even in the New Law on account of the second reason, although not on account of the first. Now, the menstrual issue may be natural or unnatural. The natural issue is that to which women are subject at stated periods when they are in good health; and it is unnatural when they suffer from an issue of blood through some disorder resulting from sickness. Accordingly if the menstrual flow be unnatural it is not forbidden in the New Law to approach to a menstruous woman both on account of her infirmity since a woman in that state cannot conceive, and because an issue of this kind is lasting and continuous, so that the husband would have to abstain for always. When however the woman is subject to a natural issue of the menstruum, she can conceive; moreover, the said issue lasts only a short time, wherefore it is forbidden to approach to her. In like manner a woman is forbidden to ask for the debt during the period of that issue.

Madia, forgive me, but I am still a bit confused… which side of the logical argument do you support? Thank you!
[/quote]

 

[kamz]

my cousins wife ( they are Catholic) is on the pill under doctors orders to try to clear up her endometreosis so they can have some kind of time line or remission when she has a small window of oppurtunity to get pregnant, that is the only reason they are using it, oddly, to help them get pregnant, weird.

 

[frogman80]

A clarification to my last post (lest anyone think i am quacky)… even though I quote from the supplement… the only part of interest to this thread is the parts in bold. What the author of the supplement wrote on the subject of menstruation (as I have read to understand) is not correct… or at least the last time I checked having relations with a woman during her time of the month does not lead to leprosy! I am also pretty sure a woman can not conceive during that time! I dunno maybe its just a really bad translation.

 

[KCT]

vluvski:

I remember reading something somewhere, in a Catholic apologetics series or maybe even the CCC, that it is OK to have relations with your spouse even if he/she refuses to stop using ABC, provided you have already, in Christian charity as described in last weekend’s readings, made known to them the sin of practicing ABC. I think the reasoning was that the non-ABC spouse should not withhold sex on those grounds.
I can’t say I understand this reasoning completely, but that is what it said.
So sorry I can’t remember the reference!!!

Perhaps w/ barrier methods, but what about the abortifacient nature of the pill? How could a man justify having relations w/ his wife knowing they could conceive and the child would die? —KCT

 

[cynic]

are relations during pregnacy even permissable to catholics, since the act is obviousely no longer open to life?

 

[Madia]

It is about a woman and her menstruation, but it touches on the well being of offspring.

I am no biology expert. It seems to me that St. Thomas is saying that marital relations was orginally forbid during menstration for two reasons: uncleaness and the harm that could result to the offspring during such intercourse (deformity?). Now although the laws of cleaness are no longer binding, the moral precept still is.

Are children at an increased risk of birth defects if they are conceived during menstration? If so St. Thomas seems to indicate that you cannot have marital relations during that time since it would increase the risk of birth defects. However, if the menstration is unnatural (I’m assuming this means due to illness) it would be permissible to engage in marital relations since she could not conceive and hence, no child would suffer.

For those of you with a better understanding of biology:

1. What risks are there to your offspring by engaging in marital relations while the wife is menstrating?
2. What illnesses cause unnatural menstration and sterility?
3. What was St. Thomas talking about at the time since he obviouslly didn’t have the advances in science that we did?

If you apply the part of the Summa to my original topic and substituted “birth control” for “menstrating”, it seems that it would forbid the use on account of harm toward the child. However, if the woman couldn’t conceive then birth control would be permissable since there would be no possible harm to the child since the child couldn’t be conceived in the first place.

Madia, forgive me, but I am still a bit confused… which side of the logical argument do you support?

I’m against sexual relations when the woman is on the birth control pill since the conceived child could be chemically aborted due to the aboritfacients contained in the pill.

Whether one could engage in sexual relations with a spouse who is contracepting (using contraception without abortifacients) seems to me like it may or may not be permissable depending on the circumstances. However, one can never contracept themselves to please their partner.

my cousins wife ( they are Catholic) is on the pill under doctors orders to try to clear up her endometreosis so they can have some kind of time line or remission when she has a small window of oppurtunity to get pregnant, that is the only reason they are using it, oddly, to help them get pregnant, weird.

If you talk to them please tell them to get a second opinion at:
popepaulvi.com/

Using the pill to help achieve pregnancy seems fairly illogical to me. For example, would you take a pill to regulate your irregular heart beat that also had the side effects of giving you heart disease and possibly causing a fatal heart attack?

are relations during pregnacy even permissable to catholics, since the act is obviousely no longer open to life?

Yes, assuming the marital act poses no threat to child. A couple can also engage in marital relations when one/both of the spouses are sterile. Having sexual relations with one who cannot conceive is not morally wrong. Intentionally blocking conception (contraception) is intrinsically wrong.

Also, I’m pretty sure that if someone is on a medication that has the contraceptive side effect(not abortifacient), then the couple could still engage in marital relations assuming there is grave reason for taking the medication. For example, it seems that if a woman is taking a medication to treat cancer that has contraceptive side effects, there would be a just reason. However a woman taking medication to treat acne has contraceptive side effect would not be a just reason.

 

[Pug]

Madia:

For example, it seems that if a woman is taking a medication to treat cancer

I would like to know what you are including in your analysis. A drug may increase the risk of contractions, increase the risk of deformity, increase the risk that the child will be a fussy child, decrease the folic acid in your blood, etc. Which effects are you considering here, or does the analysis only apply to something that thins the uterine lining, or otherwise increases the risk that a baby won’t implant correctly?

I suspect cancer drugs will probably result in the death of the baby.

 

[LittleDeb]

k so this topic is one of my favorite so I have to jump in.

So I don’t have to keep straight on who said what I will just answer each question as I remember them. But wow, where to begin?

First. The possibility of having a miscarriage is still just that a possibility. The hypothetical percentages are still just medical opinion. It might even be an educated medical opinion but still opinion. “We cannot put our children in bubble wrap,” as my husband says. For many different reasons my pregnancy was high risk by “medical opinion.” I did the best I could and we have a healthy baby.

Second one I remember: It is possible for a woman to bleed during ovulation. It’s caused by a heavy lining build-up that cannot sustain itself. It can seem like normal menstrual flow. Women who chart using sympto-thermal NFP know exactly when they are fertile or not even if they seem to have a “period” at a strange time. Women who don’t chart think they are infertile because they confuse this sloughing off of blood with menstrual flow.

Third one and most important to the thread: As someone whose been there, done that, and interviewed hundreds of others who also have. Let me state emphatically. There is NO medical benefit to The Pill! Before anyone jumps on me the AMA has no other use than contraception defined in their journal. Someone please find me the source if needed. There are doctors who will prescribe it for women with endometriosis but it does more harm than good. (Quick lesson on the disease: Some women cannot carry to term because of the web of blood around uterus, while others cannot conceive due to blocked fallopian tubes. Important to know the difference while trying to conceive. The Pill masks the syptoms but does not get rid of the current adhesions only “prevents more from implanting.” And even that is not true.) Please feel free to PM me if you would like more information on much better cures. Especially the person with the cousin on it to help “keep the window open.” I was told that same load of hooey and I started praying for your cousin the moment I read that.

All that rant said it is important to note that culpability in the issue of marital acts while on “medical contraception” is lessened due to this horrible rampant widespread myth that hormonal contraceptives can be helpful.

Gee Deb, tell us how you really feel.