Use of contraceptives to actually aid in conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter In_Hoc_Signo312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

In_Hoc_Signo312

Guest
I recently had a conversation with an atheist friend who for some reason saw fit to tell me that she was on what she at least claimed was contraceptives, which I thought was strange because she isn’t romantically involved with anybody now. When I asked why she was using them, she explained to me that it regulates her cycle. This made me think about something I had thought about asking on here a few times before, but didn’t because I thought what I would have asked didn’t actually make any sense. But because of what my friend told me, I’ve decided now that I now, in fact, will ask it on here. If there are artificial contraceptives that allow ovulation to take place at regular intervals (as opposed to preventing ovulation, which is what I thought they were designed to do until now), would that actually make it easier to conceive? If so, would this be compatible with Church Doctrine, then?
 
That is a medical use, not a contraceptive use. The same medications that are appropriate for a single woman who has no sex life at all are OK for a married woman who is using them for the same reasons and does not have other options that take her situation into account. In that case, the contraceptive effect of the medication is an unintended side effect when there are not non-contraceptive options for achieving the same treatment goals. (Medications that could have the effect of causing birth defects are another matter, as the risk is zero to the patients with no likelihood of getting pregnant but finite in women of child-bearing age who do have sexual relations from time to time.)
 
It depends on what contraceptives you mean. For example a doctor will tell you that the pill will regulate your cycle.
What this actually means is that the pill stop all ovulation but you have a bleed that seems like a period but is not.
Im not sure about the coil - I think Orthodox Jewish women use this is it stops all bleeding and so they do not have to keep away from their husbands. So again ‘regulation’ other than stopping the ovulation.
 
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
When I asked why she was using them, she explained to me that it regulates her cycle.
Click to expand...
Ignorance of female reproduction abounds, particularly among those who have a vested interest in understanding it: females.
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
If there are artificial contraceptives that allow ovulation to take place at regular intervals (as opposed to preventing ovulation, which is what I thought they were designed to do until now), would that actually make it easier to conceive?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing.

If there were such a thing, by definition it would not be a contraceptive.
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
If so, would this be compatible with Church Doctrine, then?
Click to expand...
Hormonal treatments designed to stimulate ovulation, such as Clomid, are not contraceptives and they are morally licit when used to aid and not replace the marital embrace. They correct a defect, which is morally licit.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
No contraceptive restores ovulation.
Click to expand...
“Regulating” a cycle does not just mean restoring ovulation. It can also mean forcing the cycle into a frame that will reduce an unacceptably heavy menstrual flow or an unacceptably short time between one menstruation and the next. (This I have heard from a professor of gynecology who suggested such a treatment as an option for me.)

Whether a particular use of medications that can also be used for their contraceptive effect would be appropriate for a married woman depends on whether the goal of the treatment and the presence of other options warrants acceptance of the unintended contraceptive side effect. A single woman does not have to concern herself with that possibility any more than she has to concern herself with side effects of a drug that could harm her developing child if she were to become pregnant during treatment.
 
EasterJoy said:
“Regulating” a cycle does not just mean restoring ovulation. It can also mean forcing the cycle into a frame that will reduce an unacceptably heavy menstrual flow or an unacceptably short time between one menstruation and the next. (This I have heard from a professor of gynecology who suggested such a treatment as an option for me.)

Whether a particular use of medications that can also be used for their contraceptive effect would be appropriate for a married woman depends on whether the goal of the treatment and the presence of other options warrants acceptance of the unintended contraceptive side effect. A single woman does not have to concern herself with that possibility any more than she has to concern herself with side effects of a drug that could harm her developing child if she were to become pregnant during treatment.
Click to expand...
I agree, but was answering OP’s question.
 
Wesrock said:
It doesn’t make her ovulate regularly. It makes her menstrual cycle predictable.
Click to expand...
Actually that isn’t what it does at all. A person taking hormonal pills (i.e. “Birth Control Pills”) doesn’t have a menstrual cycle.
 
1ke said:
Actually that isn’t what it does at all. A person taking hormonal pills (i.e. “Birth Control Pills”) doesn’t have a menstrual cycle.
Click to expand...
:confused: Years ago I took birth control pills to regulate my menstrual cycle, and I did indeed have one. Although many years later I found it would have been perfectly healthy to regulate it to several months of no period instead of just 3 weeks. And the benefit of that is why I call this time of my life “blessed” menopause. 😃
 
Bonnie said:
:confused: Years ago I took birth control pills to regulate my menstrual cycle, and I did indeed have one. Although many years later I found it would have been perfectly healthy to regulate it to several months of no period instead of just 3 weeks. And the benefit of that is why I call this time of my life “blessed” menopause. 😃
Click to expand...
I think what was being said was that you don’t get a “real” period. Yes, you will bleed at a certain TOM, but it’s not a true cycle.

hormonesmatter.com/pill-bleeds-periods/
 
Bonnie said:
:confused: Years ago I took birth control pills to regulate my menstrual cycle, and I did indeed have one.
Click to expand...
No, this is not medically accurate.

Hormones complete suppress and replace the menstrual cycle.

What you experienced was withdrawal bleeding, not a menstrual period. The withdrawal bleeding is caused by the placebo pills. Newer forms of hormones have no placebos and therefore no bleeding.
Bonnie said:
Although many years later I found it would have been perfectly healthy to regulate it to several months of no period instead of just 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
You did not have a period.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
No contraceptive restores ovulation.
Click to expand...
Of course they don’t…they are designed to destroy fertility.

Best to go to a real doctor who prescribes natural hormones and not synthetic, which is what the pill contains.
 
1ke said:
No, this is not medically accurate.

Hormones complete suppress and replace the menstrual cycle.

What you experienced was withdrawal bleeding, not a menstrual period. The withdrawal bleeding is caused by the placebo pills. Newer forms of hormones have no placebos and therefore no bleeding.

You did not have a period.
Click to expand...
but I thought it was permissible to use the pill for medical reasons.

not that I am completely knowledgeable of all the reproductive issues that can happen to a person but certain people do get extremely heavy bleeding
 
angell1 said:
but I thought it was permissible to use the pill for medical reasons.

not that I am completely knowledgeable of all the reproductive issues that can happen to a person but certain people do get extremely heavy bleeding
Click to expand...
It is permissable to utilize it for medical reasons. However, it’s important to note that it doesn’t truly fix any medical issues, but instead masks the symptoms.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
It is permissable to utilize it for medical reasons. However, it’s important to note that it doesn’t truly fix any medical issues, but instead masks the symptoms.
Click to expand...
By “fix medical issues” do you mean completely cure them? Well, very few medications actually do that. Antibiotics that are used to treat bacterial infections, I guess. Chemotherapy, maybe, when it does work – but it often does not.

But, blood pressure pills don’t cure hypertension. Insulin doesn’t cure diabetes. Etc, etc.

But that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church frowns upon such medications or obligates every Catholic to try “natural methods” first (even for diseases such as hypertension or diabetes where some natural methods can help a lot). It certainly does NOT forbid the use of pain medications that are expressly designed to “mask the symptom” of pain, not actually fix the underlying cause. Because sadly, not all causes of pain can be cured.

Whenever this issue comes up I notice many Catholics see the Pill the same way some Baptist see “demon rum”. Or how some secular humanists see “demon guns”.

But since unfortunately many posters have left CAF and won’t be challenging the “demon Pill” narrative. Let me note that there some reproductive issues that cannot be cured even with “natural” treaments, and apparently per many who have experienced “Napro” many Napro practitioners rely heavily on surgery – hardly a “natural” treatment IMHO.

I think the use of hormonal treatments to treat medical conditions are mostly a question of prudence and self-searching to ask, “Is the contraceptive effect of this medication, something that I’m just tolerating, or eagerly accepting as a loophole in Church teaching?” Since I have certainly come across my share of Catholics who proudly state that they have a “medical reason” to take the Pill and happily embrace the contraceptive effects as a side benefit, and that strikes me as a tad bit legalistic.

But I also know that many Catholics do prayerfully decide that medications with contraceptive effects are indeed licit in their situation.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
It is permissable to utilize it for medical reasons. However, it’s important to note that it doesn’t truly fix any medical issues, but instead masks the symptoms.
Click to expand...
^ this

A doctor I went to told me this. He used to answer questions about the pill on ewtn’s q& a site

I now have a wonderful doctor at ppvi institute.
 
jediliz said:
^ this

A doctor I went to told me this. He used to answer questions about the pill on ewtn’s q& a site

I now have a wonderful doctor at ppvi institute.
Click to expand...
Not everyone can afford to go to PPVI Institute. And again, last I checked the Church does NOT impose an obligation for anyone to do so.

I think there are reasons of prudence to not just blindly accept hormonal treatments without asking your doctor about the risks, benefits, alternatives, etc. But that would be the case for ANY medical treatment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top