Tubes tied a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike-STA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike-STA

Guest
I was wondering if a women who gets her tubes tied after she went through menopause would be a sin since it is sterlization? She can’t have kids though so.
 
:confused: Why would she have it done if she went through menopause??? If she can still concieve though, it is a sin
 
Direct sterilization is a sin, whether you’re 25 or 53.
 
Steralization only applies to those who can bear children. If she was already incapable of bearing children, then no steralization occurred and thus no sin.
 
40.png
qmvsimp:
Steralization only applies to those who can bear children. If she was already incapable of bearing children, then no steralization occurred and thus no sin.
Click to expand...
God opens the womb and God closes the womb. Yes, it is still sterilization.
 
40.png
qmvsimp:
Steralization only applies to those who can bear children. If she was already incapable of bearing children, then no steralization occurred and thus no sin.
Click to expand...
Recall to mind Abram’s wife Sarai, or Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth. Both unable to have children. Yet Sarai bore Isaac, and Elizabeth bore John the Baptist.
 
40.png
1ke:
God opens the womb and God closes the womb. Yes, it is still sterilization.
Click to expand...
Presuming child bearing is really impossible and not improbable, and presuming tying the tubes was done for a legitimate medical reason and not to prevent bearing of children, then it is not a sin.
 
Sgt Sweaters:
Recall to mind Abram’s wife Sarai, or Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth. Both unable to have children. Yet Sarai bore Isaac, and Elizabeth bore John the Baptist.
Click to expand...
We don’t know the specific case that we’re being asked about. But we do know that neither Sarai nor Elizabeth had the luxury of modern medicine like we have today.

If the chance of having children is zero (not close to zero) based on the medical condition of the female in question, and if the procedure is being done for a reason other than sterilization, then it is not a sin.
 
40.png
qmvsimp:
We don’t know the specific case that we’re being asked about. But we do know that neither Sarai nor Elizabeth had the luxury of modern medicine like we have today.

If the chance of having children is zero (not close to zero) based on the medical condition of the female in question, and if the procedure is being done for a reason other than sterilization, then it is not a sin.
Click to expand...
If the surgery was done to treat a medical condition (I do not know of any condition where this would apply) then it would not be a sin. But under those circumstances, it wouldn’t be a sin before menopause either (such as when a hysterectomy is needed for a diseased uterus). If the tubes were tied as a kind of insurance against even a remote possibility of pregnancy, it would probably be a sin.

If it was done for no medical reason but after all fertility had definitively ceased, then it would probably be the sin of mutilation even if not of sterilization.

Is this entirely a hypothetical or are there some actual specifics that could shed some light onto why someone would want/need to have this done?
 
40.png
qmvsimp:
We don’t know the specific case that we’re being asked about. But we do know that neither Sarai nor Elizabeth had the luxury of modern medicine like we have today.

If the chance of having children is zero (not close to zero) based on the medical condition of the female in question, and if the procedure is being done for a reason other than sterilization, then it is not a sin.
Click to expand...
If the surgery was done to treat a medical condition (I do not know of any condition where this would apply) then it would not be a sin. But under those circumstances, it wouldn’t be a sin before menopause either (such as when a hysterectomy is needed for a diseased uterus). If the tubes were tied as a kind of insurance against even a remote possibility of pregnancy, it would probably be a sin.

If it was done for no medical reason but after all fertility had definitively ceased, then it would probably be the sin of mutilation even if not of sterilization.

Is this entirely a hypothetical or are there some actual specifics that could shed some light onto why someone would want/need to have this done?
 
40.png
qmvsimp:
We don’t know the specific case that we’re being asked about. But we do know that neither Sarai nor Elizabeth had the luxury of modern medicine like we have today.

If the chance of having children is zero (not close to zero) based on the medical condition of the female in question, and if the procedure is being done for a reason other than sterilization, then it is not a sin.
Click to expand...
Great, but that’s not the question. The OP is asking if getting one’s tubes tied is a sin since the woman is past what’s usually considered child-bearing years. The answer to that question is YES, IT IS A GRAVE SIN. Please refrain from complicating the matter.
 
40.png
qmvsimp:
Presuming child bearing is really impossible and not improbable, and presuming tying the tubes was done for a legitimate medical reason and not to prevent bearing of children, then it is not a sin.
Click to expand...
There is no medical reason to have your tubes tied other than sterilization.
 
You all make very good points. Until we know the specifics involved, and until we have a medical reason aside from sterilization, we should presume it is a sin.
 
40.png
kmktexas:
If the surgery was done to treat a medical condition (I do not know of any condition where this would apply) then it would not be a sin. But under those circumstances, it wouldn’t be a sin before menopause either (such as when a hysterectomy is needed for a diseased uterus).
Click to expand...
I think you need to be careful here. It may or may not be a sin depending on the medical condition. For example, part of the disagreement on partial-birth abortion is what constitutes a medical reason for killing the baby. Pro-abortionists want things like headaches to be included. I’m not saying you’re claiming this, but I just want to be clear that medical condition should be interpreted narrowly.

Sterilization for medical reasons requires a high medical-reason threshold before it is moral.
 
What possible medical reason could there be??? Tubual ligation I think just shuts off the tubes. The woman still gets her cycle, I understand except in this paticular case if she is through menopause??? any answers I confused.
 
40.png
qmvsimp:
I think you need to be careful here. It may or may not be a sin depending on the medical condition. For example, part of the disagreement on partial-birth abortion is what constitutes a medical reason for killing the baby. Pro-abortionists want things like headaches to be included. I’m not saying you’re claiming this, but I just want to be clear that medical condition should be interpreted narrowly.

Sterilization for medical reasons requires a high medical-reason threshold before it is moral.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That’s exactly why I used the example of a diseased uterous for comparison. I cannot for the life of me think of any medical condition that would be treated by a tubal.
 
My ob/gyn is a Catholic doctor who practices the Catholic values and faith, along with the other two doctors in there office. In addition to not offering birth control, abortion, etc they do the treatment to reverse the tubes be tied. Life is a lot easier with doctors that understand the Catholic faith!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top