Unique Case Contraceptive

  • Thread starter Thread starter rick-t
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m using the same reasoning and principles that the CDF is using. You can not expect the CDF issuing a responsum for every possible case
 
HomeschoolDad said:
NFP is not infallible.
Click to expand...
It’s not possible to get pregnant if you reserve sex to the week prior to the period. Phase three NFP is pretty safe, but its super strict and heard. And moreover, I would use every Crosscheck possible and ensure she’s regularly cycling even if that means abstaining from sex post partum completely until she is regularly cycling.

Here’s how I’d do it. 1) Get a Tempdrop to really catch that biphasic shift in temp after ovulation 2) Get Proov Progesterone Temp strips to confirm the presense of progesterone. 3) Consider the time of the period till after the biphasic shift off limits. Use mucus observations to only keep a habit of knowing where you are in your cycle 4) Use LH test strips, a Mira, or learn the Marquette method (but don’t use it exclusively) 5) Only use phase three if your symptoms have no ambiguity.

I’d say the toughest part about this is that it’s so restrictive on sex, the abstinence will get super hard. Abstaining, not charting, is the hardest part of NFP. But it’s not possible to get pregnant after the ovum is no longer present. So generally there should be nearly two weeks that are safe.
 
twoangels said:
I’d say the toughest part about this is that it’s so restrictive on sex, the abstinence will get super hard.
Click to expand...
When people are suffering from severe illness, it is amazing how much easier it is to abstain.
 
twoangels said:
NFP is not infallible.
Click to expand...
Strange things can happen. Anyone using NFP has to be open to the possibility, however remote and far-fetched it might be, that a pregnancy could occur. If there is absolutely no way that a couple can risk even the remotest chance of a pregnancy, then abstinence is the only way to avoid this. Even immoral means of birth regulation are not 100% foolproof, and there are even rare cases of pregnancy when one partner has been surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation). A woman cannot become pregnant if both of her ovaries have been removed, but I have never heard of a woman having this done solely to avoid pregnancy. That would be pretty drastic, and I’m not sure any doctor would agree to this.
Click to expand...
 
rick-t said:
The medication which allows her to function would also be deadly to a child in her womb.

Questions:
  1. Normal marital relations resulting in conception would be knowingly taking a life?
Click to expand...
The object of the act of taking this medicine is to enable normal functioning. That it might cause the death of a fetus is not the chosen object, but a second effect, so I assume double effect principles apply here?
rick-t said:
Would a birth control method be allowed in this case to allow normal marital relations? To save the couple from the grief of knowingly participating in the creation of a child knowing the child’s fate?
Click to expand...
This is the “It would be better if I had never been born” scenario. From Job to George Bailey, the answer is the same. “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” Any child created by God deserves however much life God has chosen to give him or her. Even if he dies without being noticed, God knows and loves whoever was created. Grief includes thanksgiving for the life given by God, no matter how little it was, as well as sorrow that it was so little.

Then we can move on to the thornier issue, if the way the child dies will threaten the mother.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Strange things can happen. Anyone using NFP has to be open to the possibility, however remote and far-fetched it might be, that a pregnancy could occur.
Click to expand...
It’s about as common as being pregnant with children who are at different stages of development.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I’ve heard of that happening. Very, very rare, but not impossible.
Click to expand...
Well there’s a point where you just have to accept that life has risks. I think living your life in fear of that is like not getting out of bed because of all the possible wrongs that could happen to you at any step of the journey.
 
twoangels said:
Well there’s a point where you just have to accept that life has risks. I think living your life in fear of that is like not getting out of bed because of all the possible wrongs that could happen to you at any step of the journey.
Click to expand...
True, and different people are willing to risk different things. Even if it were licit for a couple to have relations and practice NFP if the wife were taking a medication that would kill any child conceived — and I cannot accept that it is licit — I would not take that chance.

How would you tell that child, in eternity, “I wanted to have relations so badly that I allowed you to be conceived and then perish”?

And yes, I know that many very young embryos perish just as part of nature. That is in God’s hands and cannot be helped. To avoid that, everyone would have to cease having relations, and that’s not an option — the human race would die out. Clearly Almighty God does not expect us to go that far.

A side note: if a woman has to take a potentially abortifacient contraceptive for therapeutic purposes (to regulate the cycle, to alleviate endometriosis, etc.), it seems to me that she and her husband would be bound to go through the motions of practicing, at the very least, conservative NFP. The abortifacient effects of oral contraceptives in this regard were not known when Paul VI admitted their liceity for therapeutic purposes in Humanae vitae.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
A side note: if a woman has to take a potentially abortifacient contraceptive for therapeutic purposes (to regulate the cycle, to alleviate endometriosis, etc.), it seems to me that she and her husband would be bound to go through the motions of practicing, at the very least, conservative NFP
Click to expand...
Just a clarification: NFP is not possible while being on hormonal contraceptives
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Even if it were licit for a couple to have relations and practice NFP if the wife were taking a medication that would kill any child conceived — and I cannot accept that it is licit — I would not take that chance.
Click to expand...
It is licit, but not mandatory. You can abstain if you want, but “I would” or “I wouldn’t” are just that.
 
jag said:
A side note: if a woman has to take a potentially abortifacient contraceptive for therapeutic purposes (to regulate the cycle, to alleviate endometriosis, etc.), it seems to me that she and her husband would be bound to go through the motions of practicing, at the very least, conservative NFP
Click to expand...
I was imprecise in my wording, sorry. I meant that the couple would have to abstain during the period when ovulation can be foreseen as a reasonable possibility (several days on either side of approximately day 14-15, give or take).
Click to expand...
 
jag said:
couple would have to abstain during the period when ovulation can be foreseen as a reasonable possibility
Click to expand...
If it is a method that absolutely suppresses ovulation (anovulant), and that is the only thing that it does, this is true. However, some BCPs work differently:

https://www.catholicsistas.com/2013/07/how-does-the-birth-control-pill-work/

There is also an excellent essay on this subject, “The Pill Does Kill”, that was distributed several years ago by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), but I haven’t been able to find it online. The link I posted above is the next best thing. I have the WELS essay in text format but it would run far longer than the character limit on CAF.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top