What's the difference in contraception?

[threej_lc]

Could someone help me reply to this argument?

“Why is contraception permissable in treating disease for a women, because the negative side affect of it being a contraceptive is not being sought, but condoms are not permissable in the prevention of transmission of aids as a medical measure, even though the contraceptive aspect is not being sought in their use?”

This is a theoretical question assuming that condoms are 100% effective in preventing STD transfer, which we of course already know isn’t true.

Thanks,
Josh

 

[st_felicity]

Married sexual intercourse is a sign of God–it images God’s creative and sacrificial love. If a couple disregards one or the other aspects (procreative or unitive–or both), then the sex act no longer mirrors the total self-giving love of God or the creative love of God.

If a woman taking an oral contraceptive for a medical reason engages in intercourse–she should only do so at infertile times in her cycle. Infertility is a side effect of necessary medicine in this (rare) case. The side effect is a foreseen but unintended consequence of medication and therefore, not “against” life, but rather “for” health. Still, she should practice very strict NFP so as to lower the chance of creating life only to destroy it.

Condoms, however, in all instances are used to separate the couple physically–even if used only during infertile periods, it is a barrier between man and wife and thus a barrier to total self-giving. The unitive aspect of lovemaking is destroyed by the barrier and thus no longer mirrors God. One could argue condom use is even more morally objectionable than hormonal contraception because it is an attempt to destroy BOTH procreative and unitive sex.

 

[Pug]

There are several threads on contraception ping-ponging about right now, so you should try one of them if you don’t get your answer here. Try the Moral Theology forum and it’s subforum on life.

The way the pill works, it is often incidental that it makes a person infertile. That is, even if the pill failed to stop ovulation, it could still be treating the disease just fine.

However, if the condom fails to prevent semen/sperm from travelling, then it is probably going to fail in reducing disease transfer. It is often the “fluids” that are what spread the disease. The contraceptive effect is more intertwined in a condom than the pill.

I’m not sure about how my next point relates, take it or leave it. The person who is having sex and using a condom to prevent the disease has a simple option. Don’t have sex. The pill user may not have such a simple alternative. I’ve seen this point on some of the other threads on the topic.

Good luck. Hope you’re not in one of those deep discussions with a person, or if you are, I hope you convince them!

 

[Tom]

Several problems with your basic premise:
Condoms are not “100%” effective; “assuming that condoms are 100% effective in preventing STD transfer, which we of course already know isn’t true.” (As you’ve admitted) As a medical measure, not even sperm cells, which are several times larger than any virus cell, are prevented 100% of the time from transmitting. How can anyone possibly think a virus cell, several times smaller than a sperm cell, can’t possibly penetrate the condom? It’s simply ridiculous.
Contraception is not “permissible in treating disease for a women,” certain medical treatments are permissible which MAY have a side affect of preventing conception. Sounds like splitting hairs, but it’s not. If I have testicular cancer I may have to have surgery to remain alive, this surgery will make me sterile, should I die rather than having this surgery? Certainly not, the purpose is not sterilization, but to remove the cancer, sterilization is an unfortunate side affect.
The ONLY and I repeat ONLY proven 100% effective method of prevention of spread of STDs is abstinence!!!

 

[threej_lc]

Yeah, I actually am in this conversation with someone. I hate it when they’re this smart

I really did like Pug’s answer though, and I used something similar. Although the pill is bad, there may be no other option. Whereas with std’s, abstinance is always available and a better option. To amputate one’s leg is occasionally a necessary “evil” to save someone’s life. However if the doctor amputate’s your leg to solve your sprained ankle, when he could have given you ice, everyone will readily admit what he did was wrong and sinful. An evil outcome used in stead of a more appropriate one is always evil.

Josh

 

[Tom]

Contraception is one of the worst plagues of the twentieth century. If you do a little research, you’ll find the destruction of our moral structure began coincidentally (or not) with the introduction and acceptance of the birth control pill. The pill was developed in the 1950’s with mass marketing beginning in the late 1950’s; the early 1960’s were declared as the “sexual revolution” it was indeed revolting. Sex became a sport since unwanted pregnancies were supposedly a thing of the past. Women, and eventually men, became (more) sexual toys to be used and discarded. The rate of abortion skyrocketed as well as the occurrence of STD’s. Look at where the rate of divorce dramatically increases. All of the world’s problems, which were touted as solved by contraception, have dramatically gotten worse.

 

[1ke]

threej_lc:

Could someone help me reply to this argument?

“Why is contraception permissable in treating disease for a women, because the negative side affect of it being a contraceptive is not being sought, but condoms are not permissable in the prevention of transmission of aids as a medical measure, even though the contraceptive aspect is not being sought in their use?”

This is a theoretical question assuming that condoms are 100% effective in preventing STD transfer, which we of course already know isn’t true.

Thanks,
Josh

A legitimate medical treatment is one that treats the disease in order to correct or cure. A medicine used to treat a disease may have an unintended and unavoidable consequence. For example, cancer drugs cause hair to fall out. Their primary purpose is to eradicate the cancer and the unintended and unavoidable consquence is hair loss. In the same way, some treatments have an unintended and unavoidable side effect of sterility. Cancer drugs can do this, high doses of hormones can do this, radiation can do this, a hysterectomy does this.

A condom is not an attempt to treat a disease. The intent is to engage in sex and at the same time prevent the fruition of the sex act. That is not the same as taking a pill to shrink a tumor and having that treatment damage your ovaries. Objectively, the sex act is unitive and procreative.

Look up the Principle of Double Effect. There are criteria that must be met in order for it to apply.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

threej_lc:

Could someone help me reply to this argument?

“Why is contraception permissable in treating disease for a women, because the negative side affect of it being a contraceptive is not being sought, but condoms are not permissable in the prevention of transmission of aids as a medical measure, even though the contraceptive aspect is not being sought in their use?”

This is a theoretical question assuming that condoms are 100% effective in preventing STD transfer, which we of course already know isn’t true.

The very nature of using a condem INTENDS contraception. You cannot use one without the intention, unless you are using it as a water balloon.

In fact, let me add that *coitus interruptus *or the “withdrawal method” is just as sinful as contracepting with a condemn. As simple way to remember it is this: Non-procreative sex is not sinful. Human acts which intend to render sex non-procreative is sinful.

The two cases have significantly different circumstances. In all cases, if one has a choice between the following alternatives:

1. an act that has both good and evil effects
2. an act that has only good effects
3. an act that has only bad effects

Choice 2 is always morally licit. Choice 3 is always morally illicit. Choice 1 is sometimes morally illicit, and sometimes morally licit.

In the case of contraception using condemns to prevent STD, there’s an alternative that has no evil side effects: abstinence. Choose it. It’s a no-brainer.

The use of condemns is not “safe sex” as you can still get STDs through the use of condemns. In fact, you can still get pregnant through the use of condemns. It’s a deceptive myth that one can have safe sex without risk of STDs or pregnancies. The only safe sex is no sex. Such intention to indulge in lustful genital activiey while deliberately intending to circumvent God’s intended use of sex is evil, contrary to His will. Thus, one intends to commit sinful acts (contraception) to what benefit? Gratification? For what risk? STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

Seems like a no-brainer to me. One cannot gratify their lust, as this is simply a sin, and it has nothing but bad consequences. Genital activity coupled with the intentional disruption of what God intended sex to be is nothing but the sin of lust, pure and simple.

On the contrary, the treatment of illness through the use of hormones is not for the intended use of gratifying one’s lust, but for the treatment of the illness, for better bodily health. It may the unintended side effect of contraception and, perhaps, unintended miscarriage (unless one abstains from sex during hormone treatments).

In situations where an act can have both good and evil effects, the conditions for applying the principle of double effect are followed:

1. the act itself cannot be evil.
2. the bad effect is not a “means” of obtaining the good;
3. the bad effect must not be the intended, but must be merely tolerated
4. the good is sufficient to outweigh the bad.

All four principles must apply for moral licitness.

For the case of using a condem for gratifying one’s lust, the principles above don’t even apply because the act, in itself, is evil and has no good effect.

For the case of using hormone treatments to treat an illness, all of the principles might apply under certain circumstances, therefore it might be morally licit.