When people think of birth control as "protection" - reframing the paradigm

[gardenswithkids]

It might help if at this point I explain a tiny bit more of what sparked this train of thought before I started the thread. Someone I know who grew up in a country without all the material wealth of, say, the USA, and also had a large number of siblings, is understandably concerned that younger relatives get their education and have enough to live on.

Nothing wrong with that as a goal. It’s a morally good thing in and of itself.

It’s just that the insistence on limiting family size and using contraception as the means to that end makes me uncomfortable when this person gets to talking about it rather vehemently. That includes scolding those family members who have more than the number of kids that this person thinks is “plenty.”…

Well, now that you wrote that, you got me to thinking…
Contraception “protects” some people from other people’s rude remarks. There is a pressure in our society to limit family size and use contraception. Blue Eyed Lady may not realize it because she’s never had to share with anyone that’s she’s pregnant with her third, fourth, fifth or sixth child. (In some circles, when a married woman in a good financial situation announces her first pregnancy, she may still get people looking at her cross-eyed because she risks her education and career.) Some people who are highly vocal about “a woman’s right to choose” really don’t support our choice at all if we don’t choose what they want.

We could protect ourselves from such rude people by teaching people better manners. If we give in and use contraception, that only encourages some to continue applying their subtle and not-so-subtle pressure on others.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Thanks for sharing. Can I ask why things like “financial ruin, homelessness” are tied to having children? Do you mean because some one is or because they think children will lead to them. When talking about someone “protecting” themselves I don’t think of their current situation, but rather future consequences.

If you mean someone is protecting themselves from certain financial ruin by not having a kid that is what I mean about irrational fears. If having a kids will cause financial ruin then that is not the only, or even most likely, cause of the issue. Foreseeing children as the certain cause of dire consequences is what I am trying to understand.

Let me share a personal story with you. My wife and I started dating while she was a sophomore in high school and I was just getting ready to start college. Towards the end of her senior year we seriously started talking about getting married. We set the date for the fall after she graduated high school despite the fact that I still had a year of school left and our combined income was the equivalent of 22k in today’s dollars.

So two weeks before we were going to get married we found out she was pregnant (birth control failure). My wife finished out her first semester and I dropped out and found a full time job. I know, certain disaster loomed on the horizon, but… nothing horrendous happened. We struggled for a little bit and found a way to make it work. We then had our second and still no disasters.

Fast forward 18 years and 3 (soon to be 4) kids later. I just finished my bachelors degree 3 years ago and despite the fact that my wife doesn’t work outside the home our income is in the top 15% of US household incomes.

My point is that despite having children when we were young, broke and without college degrees did not cause a disaster. **Children didn’t dictate my future. The two people in my family that have financial problems do not have them because of kids, but rather because of poor choices they made.
**
None of us can predict the future. Someone could say they are protecting themselves from the “consequences” of kids so they can be a doctor or lawyer, but what happens if they fail the bar or flunk out of med school? If they never had kids then what is the cause now?

My whole point is why are children in particular seen as the primary barrier to happiness or primary cause of disaster? What is it in our society that programs people to see children in this light?

I am not trying to pick on you or offend you, but truly am trying to understand where the underlying belief that children can cause all these issues comes from.

As a side note; our two oldest have Tourettes Syndrome and Atypical Autism so it’s not like we were given the gift of the most perfect children.

^^This, the parts in bold blue especially. ^^

And what Allegra pointed out that most of the burden for those who do contracept falls on the woman. Maybe for sterilization the rates might be more even - the “You’re going to get the snip, now, mister, it’s your turn” idea.

Well, now that you wrote that, you got me to thinking…
Contraception “protects” some people from other people’s rude remarks. There is a pressure in our society to limit family size and use contraception. Blue Eyed Lady may not realize it because she’s never had to share with anyone that’s she’s pregnant with her third, fourth, fifth or sixth child. **(In some circles, when a married woman in a good financial situation announces her first pregnancy, she may still get people looking at her cross-eyed because she risks her education and career.) Some people who are highly vocal about “a woman’s right to choose” really don’t support our choice at all if we don’t choose what they want. **

We could protect ourselves from such rude people by teaching people better manners. If we give in and use contraception, that only encourages some to continue applying their subtle and not-so-subtle pressure on others.

It happened in China by government fiat, and it’s happening in other countries by popular demand.

 

[GenerationHV]

Very good point. And as I said above, the contraceptive methods with the highest rates of “success” are achieving part of that via abortifacient effects. If there were a way to determine the percentage of abortion vs. prevention of ovulation, and subtract that from the total, I would bet that the “success” percentage of those methods would plummet.

I just checked your profile to make sure you were not in fact a medical dr because your knowledge of the so called “abortifacient effect” is lacking. If you speak of any method that thins the endometrial lining by way of suppressing ovulation and call it "abortifacient,"I hope you also consider breast feeding to have a potentially “abortifacient effect.”.
After all the the suppression of ovulation that occurs with exclusive breast feeding also thins the endometrium thereby making it inhospitable to implantation should a women have “breakthrough ovulation” while nursing.
It’s just berserk to me that Catholics go on and on with this propaganda when the church does not teach that the pill= murder. rather it teaches any act of contraception is a grave matter.

Read Humanae Vitae you will not find the word abortifacient anywhere.

 

[holyrood]

despite having children when we were young, broke and without college degrees did not cause a disaster. Children didn’t dictate my future. The two people in my family that have financial problems do not have them because of kids, but rather because of poor choices they made.

…

My whole point is why are children in particular seen as the primary barrier to happiness or primary cause of disaster? What is it in our society that programs people to see children in this light?

This is exactly it. In this country in particular, how many people are actually homeless as a result of having children? There are plenty of homeless people who have no children.

I had my first at 20. I had my 9th when I was 36. I finished my bachelor’s when my oldest was 9 months old, and finished my master’s while pregnant with the 7th and 8th (twins). I’ve done reasonably well for myself in a couple of fields–despite working only part time all these years so I can be here with the kids. I have a roof over my head, a very respectable car, heat in the winter…everything I need and pretty much everything I want, too. We still have money to give to the church and sponsor three children.

By contrast, when my younger sister was 31 and having her first child, and she and her husband both had full time incomes, my mother was worrying about how they would make ends meet.

It really has a lot to do with choices, and what we think we need, what we’re willing or unwilling to settle for. And you’re right: our society has programmed us to equate children with somehow limiting our freedom, our fun, our future. To an extent, it is somewhat irrational to fear getting pregnant within marriage.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I just checked your profile to make sure you were not in fact a medical dr because your knowledge of the so called “abortifacient effect” is lacking. If you speak of any method that thins the endometrial lining by way of suppressing ovulation and call it "abortifacient,"I hope you also consider breast feeding to have a potentially “abortifacient effect.”.
After all the the suppression of ovulation that occurs with exclusive breast feeding also thins the endometrium thereby making it inhospitable to implantation should a women have “breakthrough ovulation” while nursing.
It’s just berserk to me that Catholics go on and on with this propaganda when the church does not teach that the pill= murder. rather it teaches any act of contraception is a grave matter.

Read Humanae Vitae you will not find the word abortifacient anywhere.

You assume my knowledge is lacking. I disagree. One source straight from the horse’s mouth is the FDA information on many different forms of the Pill and IUDs (perhaps not every one,but many of them) where it states that that pill or device may block implantation. You have to read the fine print on the prescribing information to find it in most cases, but it is there.

If breast-feeding does suppress an implantation, that would be through natural means, the moral principle involved being that of double effect. The baby needs to nurse, and if God allowed another baby to be affected, as long as that was not the only reason the mother breastfeeds, it is not a sin on her part. It’s still unfortunate but not a sin.

Humanae Vitae was a document on morality and as such could not be expected to cover every scientific aspect, and certainly not ones that hadn’t even been developed at the time it was written. Moral theologians and scientists can have (name removed by moderator)ut as to how to apply the moral teachings HV presents in day to day life. The Pope John Paul II Institute is one notable case in point.

To say that because the document didn’t include the word “abortifacient” is like the arguments some Protestants make that if the Bible didn’t specifically mention something as wrong, then it’s probably okay to do that thing. Jesus gave us the Church’s Magisterium to guide us from error - along with Sacred Scripture. So there’s really no point in nitpicking about the absence of the word “abortifacient” in Humanae Vitae.

 

[GenerationHV]

You assume my knowledge is lacking. I disagree. One source straight from the horse’s mouth is the FDA information on many different forms of the Pill and IUDs (perhaps not every one,but many of them) where it states that that pill or device may block implantation. You have to read the fine print on the prescribing information to find it in most cases, but it is there.

If breast-feeding does suppress an implantation, that would be through natural means, the moral principle involved being that of double effect. The baby needs to nurse, and if God allowed another baby to be affected, as long as that was not the only reason the mother breastfeeds, it is not a sin on her part. It’s still unfortunate but not a sin.

Humanae Vitae was a document on morality and as such could not be expected to cover every scientific aspect, and certainly not ones that hadn’t even been developed at the time it was written. Moral theologians and scientists can have (name removed by moderator)ut as to how to apply the moral teachings HV presents in day to day life. The Pope John Paul II Institute is one notable case in point.

The pill or device doesn’t “block” implantation per se. A thin endometrial lining just may not be good place for implantation. This occurs during breast feeding, peri menopause and while women use hormones for medical conditions (or contraception.) And reading an FDA insert doesn’t make you informed.

It’s actually this misinformed propaganda that makes some Catholics believe that barrier methods or sterilizations ok. It gets people all worked up. Bottom line is there are complexities in play beyond the sperm meeting the egg to make a pregnancy. Magisterial authority ( which JP institute does not have) says a couple may not willingly engineer their marital embrace in such a way that it frustrates its life giving potential.

As Catholics intellectual assent is demanded of us for official church teachings. The JP Ii propaganda about even licit uses of hormonal therapies is just no better than the quiverful propaganda ( pill = constant abortions and vasectomies cause chronic testicle pain)

 

[Usige]

The pill or device doesn’t “block” implantation per se. A thin endometrial lining just may not be good place for implantation. This occurs during breast feeding, peri menopause and while women use hormones for medical conditions (or contraception.) And reading an FDA insert doesn’t make you informed.

It’s actually this misinformed propaganda that makes some Catholics believe that barrier methods or sterilizations ok. It gets people all worked up. Bottom line is there are complexities in play beyond the sperm meeting the egg to make a pregnancy. Magisterial authority ( which JP institute does not have) says a couple may not willingly engineer their marital embrace in such a way that it frustrates its life giving potential.

As Catholics intellectual assent is demanded of us for official church teachings. The JP Ii propaganda about even licit uses of hormonal therapies is just no better than the quiverful propaganda ( pill = constant abortions and vasectomies cause chronic testicle pain)

I’m not sure I get where you are going. In *Evangelium Vitae, *Blessed John Paul II refereed to intrauterine devices and chemical compounds “which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients”. So saying that it’s not coming from magisterial teachings would be incorrect.

Now if you are trying to make the point that contraception is grave matter principally because it frustrates the procreative act, I don’t think anyone would disagree. That being said, the potential abortifacient effect (and there is debate about the pill’s tertiary effects of thinning of the endometrial lining *) should not just be discounted.

The difference between endometrial thinning during breastfeeding and the use of contraceptives is in the principle goal of the user. The moral licity is determined by what goal one is trying to achieve (nourishing one’s child versus stopping conception/implantation). So if one were to seek out endometrial ablation specifically because it destroys the endometrium and make implantation virtually impossible that would not be morally licit (or a good choice as a form of contraception).

Now if we want to continue the discussion it should be moved to another thread as it is only tangentially relate to 3Doctors original thread topic.*

 

[HoneyBea]

I find it quite disturbing when a doctor tells my friend who just gave birth 3 months ago and found out she is pregnant today… “do you want an abortion?” My friend went off on her doctor! I wish I was there to see it. Nonetheless to say she is switching doctors and her husband had to be refrained from scheduling an extra appt.

I guess abortion is now acceptable birth control for married women too.

I never bought into all that quasi feminist spiel about how weak and incapable I am because I’m a woman and how I have no control over my own body so I need some little pill to do what I can do for myself with some knowledge and discipline.

I don’t have any advice but I am dealing with the same issue with another girlfriend of mine who is struggling to understand why I trust entirely in God on this issue. She is slowly starting to open her mind to see the beautiful wisdom in truth.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I find it quite disturbing when a doctor tells my friend who just gave birth 3 months ago and found out she is pregnant today… “do you want an abortion?” My friend went off on her doctor! I wish I was there to see it. Nonetheless to say she is switching doctors and her husband had to be refrained from scheduling an extra appt.

I guess abortion is now acceptable birth control for married women too.

I never bought into all that quasi feminist spiel about how weak and incapable I am because I’m a woman and how I have no control over my own body so I need some little pill to do what I can do for myself with some knowledge and discipline.

I don’t have any advice but I am dealing with the same issue with another girlfriend of mine who is struggling to understand why I trust entirely in God on this issue. She is slowly starting to open her mind to see the beautiful wisdom in truth.

I’m not surprised at all these days that a doctor would suggest such a thing. But kudos for your friend! I too would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when she gave the doctor what for.

Abortion for married women sadly is not common but not unheard of, and this goes back all the way to Roe v. Wade and I’m sure before that. I remember reading in women’s magazines every now and then an article by a married woman who had an abortion for no other reason than she had the perfect family and then an “oopsie” came along.

The stories were often told in first person, and sometimes juxtaposed with a story of a woman who carried her unplanned baby to term. Such stories have appeared since the 1970s, and not just in rags like Cosmopolitan, but in some like McCall’s or Woman’s Day, to my recollection. In other words, not just the magazines aimed at sexy swinging single gals but at those of us who are more family oriented.

@ GenerationHV, I wish you would take a less abrasive tone towards me. I am willing to admit that my knowledge is not complete, but I’m not an idiot or completely ignorant in this area either. From your original post in which you accuse Catholics of falling for some type of “propaganda,” I wonder if your gripe is less with me and more with something else. At any rate, as Usige pointed out, perhaps if you want to expound on your point you might consider starting a thread of your own for that purpose. Good day.

 

[HoneyBea]

Also we are seeing today the health risk of contraception. I have met so many women who are non Catholics and practice NFP because of the awful side effects of contraception. The church was right and has always been right about birth control.

 

[agoodsinner]

NFP is much different from contraceptive methods. Yes, it can be done with a contraceptive mentality, which is wrong, but I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. NFP remains open to life, it keeps each act of lovemaking completely open to God’s plan.

So if you had that mentality with nfp, and used it for the rest of your fertile life, would having done a permanent birth control like a hysterectomy/vasectomy be an equal sin or greater, or lesser?

Also, if God intends you to have children regardless, wouldn’t he override whatever contraception you were taking?

On the point of the word protection, it’s meant as protection against pregnancy. Not your spouse.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I just checked your profile to make sure you were not in fact a medical dr because your knowledge of the so called “abortifacient effect” is lacking. If you speak of any method that thins the endometrial lining by way of suppressing ovulation and call it "abortifacient,"I hope you also consider breast feeding to have a potentially “abortifacient effect.”.
After all the the suppression of ovulation that occurs with exclusive breast feeding also thins the endometrium thereby making it inhospitable to implantation should a women have “breakthrough ovulation” while nursing.
It’s just berserk to me that Catholics go on and on with this propaganda when the church does not teach that the pill= murder. rather it teaches any act of contraception is a grave matter.

Read Humanae Vitae you will not find the word abortifacient anywhere.

No. This is not correct.

Birth Control pills use high levels of synthetic hormones(estrogen and progesterone) to override a woman’s natural hormone production. BC pills have three known mechanisms. 1 suppress ovulation, 2 cause changes in mucus to make in hostile to sperm 3.cause changes to the endometrium to prevent implantation.

A woman who breastfeeds produces prolactin. Prolactin suppresses production of estrogen and progesterone. A breastfeeding woman is in a pseudo menopausal stage.

If prolactin production slows or lessens, estrogen and progesterone both rise, allowing for conception and implantation. . If the body produces enough estrogen to ovulate, it means that prolactin levels are dropping and estrogen and progesterone levels are rising it should not interfere with a pregnancy.

Nothing in prolactin keeps the endometrium thin like the hormones in BC pills do

 

[Usige]

Also, if God intends you to have children regardless, wouldn’t he override whatever contraception you were taking?

God does not interfer with freewill that way.

On the point of the word protection, it’s meant as protection against pregnancy. Not your spouse.

You protect yourself from danger. We protect ourselves from being killed by a tiger, from being shot, and any of a thousands other mortal dangers. What is the general danger of pregnacy that one is protecting themselves from? It’s a little like saying you stuck a bag over your head to protect yourself from breathing.

 

[agoodsinner]

pro·tec·tion noun \prə-ˈtek-shən
: the state of being kept from harm, loss, etc. : the state of being protected

: something that keeps a person or thing from being harmed, lost, etc. : something that protects someone or something

: a device (such as a condom) that is used during sex to prevent pregnancy or the spread of diseases

This is from www.merriam-webster.com. As you can see contraception is now in the dictionary as protection. I would also argue that pregnancy can cause harm, and does cause harm. It is not nice to your body one bit. And children can be scary People don’t have any real preparation for how difficult they are. And if you are not called to marriage, but for whatever reason sexual relations is unavoidable…say, constant expected rape…is that still a sin? Is using contraception when you are known to have ectopic pregnancy not a protection, and is that still a sin?

 

[David011]

I also wouldn’t start the conversation by telling them that they have a “contraceptive mentality” and that they should change it. You really have no way of knowing what anyone’s mentality is, and frankly, one person using birth control could have a completely different mindset than another person who is using the exact same form of birth control. Even if their life circumstances are the same, their mentality and the discussions about it between them and their spouses could be completely different. Honestly, I don’t believe there is much difference between using NFP strictly knowing full well that there is only a very, very slim chance that it is possible for you to get pregnant and using the pill with the same odds. Sure, you can claim that you’re still “open to life”, but if you were that open you wouldn’t chart every morning and then intentionally avoid sex on days that it’s possible. That’s just getting off on a technicality. If you trust god not to give you anymore children than you can handle, then just blindly have sex whenever you want.

This is exactly what my wife and I have concluded. We’ve recently started going to church again and wanted to give Catholicism another decent try but this is one of the teachings that still doesn’t make sense. The term “open to life” started to become pretty redundant since that was the mane “argument” anyone could offer us. On a psychological level my wife just concluded these people had some sort of unresolved impregnation fetish. Haha but we’re still open to being convinced and although the chances of that happening look pretty slim.

 

[CaliLobo]

I can make a whole list of things that my husband and I are protecting ourselves from by using contraception, including, but certainly not limited to: financial ruin, homelessness, missed career opportunities, incomplete education, both physical and mental health issues, etc.

Until I have finished law school and we have something in the bank a child would be disastrous. I am not protecting myself from him, nor he from me. Rather, we made a decision together about what we need to do in order to be able to have the family that we’ve always wanted when the time is right.

By the way can the Catholics of CAF agree that teachings on birth control come from the Magisterium only, and not the Bible?

 

[HoneyBea]

For me birth control is and was one of the easiest church teachings to accept. I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic to the various scenarios given, but again it goes back to faith. I know this answer of faith is far too simplistic for some people and they need to dissect it and reason this into practical terms. You want the church to be practical, I understand. All I can say is that we are all called to a deeper faith in various ways, whether we accept those callings is our own will. Also, the notion that as a women, I can’t be in control of my own body is insulting and degrading. I’m a strong and capable woman. Thank you and no thanks.

“We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong. In these current fashions it is not really a question of the religion allowing us liberty; but (at the best) of the liberty of allowing us a religion. These people merely take the modern mood, with much in it that is amiable and much that is anarchical and much that is merely dull and obvious, and then require any creed to be cut down to fit that mood. But the mood would exist even without the creed. They say they want a religion to be practical, when they would be practical without any religion. They say they want a religion acceptable to science, when they would accept the science even if they did not accept the religion. They say they want a religion like this because they are like this already. They say they want it, when they mean that they could do without it.”
—G.K. Chesterton

From “The Catholic Church and Conversion" 1926

 

[holyrood]

And if you are not called to marriage, but for whatever reason sexual relations is unavoidable…say, constant expected rape…is that still a sin?

Constant, expected rape??? Whatever are you talking about?

I hope you’re being facetious.

 

[agoodsinner]

Constant, expected rape??? Whatever are you talking about?

I hope you’re being facetious.

no I wasn’t, but unfortunately this situation can and does happen. by a relative, a friend…and the victim is too scared or embarrassed to tell someone, but brave enough to obtain birth control or forced to.

 

[HoneyBea]

So the dictionary has replaced the word of God now? Okaaaaaay!