Tubes tied question

[kev7]

I know about a married woman who had a brain tumor.

A pregnacy will kill her and as a result she was told to have her tubes tied.

What is the position of the catholic church in this regard?

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Direct sterilization is not permitted, for any reason. The two moral options would be NFP or abstinence.

I will say a prayer for this poor woman and her family.

Malia

 

[kev7]

Feanaro's Wife:

Direct sterilization is not permitted, for any reason. The two moral options would be NFP or abstinence.

I will say a prayer for this poor woman and her family.

Malia

I Agree with you.

The problem is that this woman doesn’t want to take the risk of getting preg. Basically the gift of life for her is death. Abstinance in a marriage for her would be very difficult. The doctor suggested that she have her tubes tied.

I really don’t know what to say to her. If I suggest abstinence it would upset her.

 

[sweetchuck]

kev7:

I Agree with you.

The problem is that this woman doesn’t want to take the risk of getting preg. Basically the gift of life for her is death. Abstinance in a marriage for her would be very difficult. The doctor suggested that she have her tubes tied.

I really don’t know what to say to her. If I suggest abstinence it would upset her.

Don’t be afraid. Tell her the truth. Use the opportunity to point her toward natural family planning if you think suggesting abstinence would offend her.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

kev7:

I Agree with you.

The problem is that this woman doesn’t want to take the risk of getting preg. Basically the gift of life for her is death. Abstinance in a marriage for her would be very difficult. The doctor suggested that she have her tubes tied.

I really don’t know what to say to her. If I suggest abstinence it would upset her.

Is she Catholic?

p.s.

I feel very underqualified to help with this…I really hope someone with more knowledge can help you

 

[rayne89]

Another pregnancy would kill me too. I use NFP. I took a class and we use the most conservative standards. This woman needs a spirtual diector to help guide her through a difficult time and help her to put aside her fear and to trust in God.

 

[kaymart]

I can’t understand why unnessesary major surgery would be a better option for a woman with brain cancer. It’s my understanding that she will need general anestestia (can’t spell the word) wouldn’t that kill her let alone a pregnancy. My heart and prayers go out to this woman and her family.

 

[1ke]

kev7:

I know about a married woman who had a brain tumor.

A pregnacy will kill her and as a result she was told to have her tubes tied.

What is the position of the catholic church in this regard?

The Church’s position is very clear. A person with a serious reason to avoid pregnancy has recourse to the infertile period, abstaining during the fertile period. A person in this situation should learn Natuaral Family Planning and practice it consistently and conservatively.

It most certainly can be done.

 

[BibleReader]

I generally agree that the alternatives to a pregnancy which could well kill the mother are only NFP and abstinence.

However, because the unitive function of heterosexual behavior is a biologically pre-wired function, desired by nature where a couple co-habit, I’m not certain that that function should be kept off the scales as a consideration, also, in deciding the morality of the situation.

Hypothetical: A woman has a womb so afflicted with permanent scarring that the womb will burst and she will die if she gets pregnant.

Let’s say that the risk of pregnancy, because of the same scarring, is about 5% of normal, with normal sexual contact, but the risk of death from pregnancy is 100% unless the fetus is aborted before the end of the second month…

It seems to me that in this hypothetical, having sex, even NFP-protected sex, is implicitly immoral unless the risk of pregnancy is eliminated. In other words, is one morally permitted to knowingly risk one’s life in order to have sex, where the risk of dying from sex is real, not theoretical?

Now, where intentionally rendering the woman completely infertile, thus reducing from 100% to near-0% the risk that having sex will kill the woman, where the loss to nature of doing so is so small (because the risk of pregnancy is only 5% of normal, and the guarantee that the fetus will not survive in any case is 100%), is it moral to opt for abstinence as opposed to contraception, and thus opt for the destruction of the unitive function of sexuality, which is also loved by Nature?

In other words, in the one rare circumstance described in my hypothetical, NOT making use of contraception may be the immoral thing!

I’d be very interested in reading opinions on that, here.

I’d like to see analysis of absolutist prohibitions like, “We are not allowed to ever separate the reproductive function and unitive function of sex.” In other words, I’d like to see an explanation of WHY we are allowed to KILL the unitive function when the price of doing so is killing a mere chance of pregnancy that is 5% of what it normally is, and the possibility that a viable human being can result from the pregnancy is 0%. To put it another way, Does Humanae Vitae itself reckon the unitive function, which Humanae Vitae acknowledges, to be so worthless, that we have favor two months of pregnancy with no chance of viability over letting the unitive function survive? Doing so seems like madness.

 

[puzzleannie]

where is the husband in this situation? the loving Catholic husband when confronted with the dilemma, “If I have sex with my wife and she conceives she will very likely die.” has the obvious choice of abstaining from sex, putting aside his own desires, for the welfare of his wife. For the husband to say: “I cannot put aside my own desires, therefore you must undergo mutilating major surgery so that I am not denied.” is hardly the hallmark of Christian married love.

 

[fix]

BibleReader:

However

*, because the unitive function of heterosexual behavior is a biologically pre-wired function, desired by nature where a couple co-habit, I’m not certain that that function should be kept off the scales as a consideration, also, in deciding the morality of the situation.

From the start we have a false premise. You state as fact that sexual conduct is a must by disregarding our intellect, will and grace.

 

[kaymart]

puzzleannie:

where is the husband in this situation? the loving Catholic husband when confronted with the dilemma, “If I have sex with my wife and she conceives she will very likely die.” has the obvious choice of abstaining from sex, putting aside his own desires, for the welfare of his wife. For the husband to say: “I cannot put aside my own desires, therefore you must undergo mutilating major surgery so that I am not denied.” is hardly the hallmark of Christian married love.

This is the best response so far. abstaining would show true love

 

[felra]

It seems to me that in this hypothetical, having sex, even NFP-protected sex, is implicitly immoral unless the risk of pregnancy is eliminated. In other words, is one morally permitted to knowingly risk one’s life in order to have sex, where the risk of dying from sex is real, not theoretical?

Sexual intercourse in the confines of a sacramental marriage is never immoral.

Now, where intentionally rendering the woman completely infertile, thus reducing from 100% to near-0% the risk that having sex will kill the woman, where the loss to nature of doing so is so small (because the risk of pregnancy is only 5% of normal, and the guarantee that the fetus will not survive in any case is 100%), is it moral to opt for abstinence as opposed to contraception, and thus opt for the destruction of the unitive function of sexuality, which is also loved by Nature?

Abstinence (marital continence) does not destroy the unitive aspect of married sexual love, it simply does not activate it.

In other words, in the one rare circumstance described in my hypothetical, NOT making use of contraception may be the immoral thing!

I suppose this would be true if your premise is true, which it is not. There is still the moral option of abstinence. Also, the only 100% to prevent a pregnancy that may be life threatening to the mother (and baby) is through abstinence or through removal of the ovaries or castration. The truly loving and self-sacrificing thing to do if truly the wife’s life is on the line with a future pregnancy is to abstain, NOT to introduce a lie into the marital embrace (which is precisely what any form of contraception/sterilization does). Good intentions do not make an illicit action moral; one may never do evil that good may come of it (so says the Church).

I’d like to see analysis of absolutist prohibitions like, “We are not allowed to ever separate the reproductive function and unitive function of sex.” In other words, I’d like to see an explanation of WHY we are allowed to KILL the unitive function when the price of doing so is killing a mere chance of pregnancy that is 5% of what it normally is, and the possibility that a viable human being can result from the pregnancy is 0%. To put it another way, Does Humanae Vitae itself reckon the unitive function, which Humanae Vitae acknowledges, to be so worthless, that we have favor two months of pregnancy with no chance of viability over letting the unitive function survive? Doing so seems like madness.

I notice that you obviously exclude the one truly loving action as emulated by Christ—to lay down one’s life that others may live. This is mutual sacrifice (marital continence) for a higher good. Yours is a distorted redefinition of the meaning of the fullness of marital love.

 

[NFPfamily]

kev7:

I Agree with you.

The problem is that this woman doesn’t want to take the risk of getting preg. Basically the gift of life for her is death. Abstinance in a marriage for her would be very difficult. The doctor suggested that she have her tubes tied.

I really don’t know what to say to her. If I suggest abstinence it would upset her.

Even a tubal ligation has a failure rate. If she is at such risk for losing her life, morality should be the forefront of her decision making- especially if she is Catholic. We need to realize the bigger picture here. We are all on a journey, met with different challenges, and need to adhere firmly to the Church’s teachings. NFP allows very conservative practice, where couples in situations like this could very confidently practice the method. And please advise these people that Dr.'s today are simply not informed (for the most part- some have taken their own measures to learn more…) of modern NFP. They still believe it is unreliable which isn’t true. I would suggest they find a supportive Catholic physician and pray a lot.

 

[Christian4life]

If she has a malignant, actively cancerous brain tumor she is dead already.

 

[Shiann]

WHAT?:bigyikes:

 

[Christian4life]

Despite what you may have been led to believe, even getting your tubes tied there is a small chance you can still get pregnant. The surgery has risks as well. Go with NFP and be ULTRA strict. I don’t think people realize how ultra strict you can be with NFP. It is the way I know of that has a possible 100% effectiveness if done THAT conservatively.

 

[space_ghost]

…sheese, this bunch is way to scary for me…

Peace!

http://sine.ncl.ac.uk/learning_journeys/aux_images/ghost.jpg
…i’m outta here…

 

[Firebug]

I agree that NFP or abstinence would be the way to go, but if you think that she is going to just get her tubes tied anyway, even after mentioning the above alternatives, should one really enlighten her that she would be wrong in doing it? At least then, she could stay ignorant, and be free of sin? Am I wrong in thinking this?

My prayers are with her!
-Christina

 

[Shiann]

Despite what you may have been led to believe, even getting your tubes tied there is a small chance you can still get pregnant.

Yup. All methods of artificial birth control are inferior to the natural cycle of our own bodies.

The surgery has risks as well. Go with NFP and be ULTRA strict. I don’t think people realize how ultra strict you can be with NFP. It is the way I know of that has a possible 100% effectiveness if done THAT conservatively.

::nodding:: Good post.