Why is The Pill allowed?

[ellen42]

That could not be known for a fact since different bodies react somewhat differently to the hormones. Indeed, fertilization might occur and implantation prevented. It also may be that ovulation is entirely prevented.

By the same logic, you can’t know the converse to be true either. If you believe that the pill has an abortifacient effect, then you must accept the moral repercussions of taking the pill regardless of if you could ever prove than an abortion ever actually occurred.

It’s like blindly firing a gun into a dark room. You may never know if you killed somebody inside, but you are morally responsible for what the bullet did when you chose to fire it.

Properly used, narcotics will eventually kill the patient through an overdose if he is chronically on them. The Church allows them anyway since (a) there is no alternative pain reliever, (b) the exact fatal dose is unknown (varies by person), and (c) death is unintentional.

Ah, Paracelsus’s contribution to medicine – everything is toxic, it’s all a matter of dose. “Substance X will kill you if you take it long enough” can be said about anything without knowing if Substance X is really what led to your death.

Fact A: I will drink water every day until I die.
Fact B: It is possible to overdose and die from drinking too much water.
Conclusion: Therefore, water will eventually kill me.

Logically, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[ellen42]

ROTFL, you’ve been here exactly 9 days longer than him.

Ha!

Probably lurking a bit longer then.

 

[Rence]

Haha, yes I am. Seriously though, I’ve never heard anybody claim that the pill causes abortions. Well, actually I’ve heard people claim that about the morning after pill which is also false.

It’s fine to be against the pill but there is no need to make stuff up to make it scarier than it is. If this lie causes just one woman to not take the pill for medical reasons, the person who told the lie is guilty of a greater sin than taking the pill (in my opinoin).

People on this forum, and others, always claim that the pill causes abortions.

Ellen, the pill is allowed for medicinal purposes because it meets criteria for the principle of double effect.

 

[SonCatcher]

Ah, Paracelsus’s contribution to medicine – everything is toxic, it’s all a matter of dose. “Substance X will kill you if you take it long enough” can be said about anything without knowing if Substance X is really what led to your death.

Fact A: I will drink water every day until I die.
Fact B: It is possible to overdose and die from drinking too much water.
Conclusion: Therefore, water will eventually kill me.

Logically, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

You misunderstand the problem of narcotics. Narcotics lose their efficacy over time so larger and larger doses are eventually required to obtain the same benefit. When the patient reaches the point where the efficacious dose is identical to the fatal dose, he will die the next time he takes it. If there were any way to figure out what the fatal dose is, the patient would be morally prohibited from taking that amount. There isn’t so he isn’t. (there is also the issue of the patient’s actual condition - it could well be that he dies of that before the narcotic reaches toxicity)

The amount of water required does not change, however.

 

[Rence]

Not at all.

The moral “loophole” is still there, even if you argue that most people are using it as a loophole.

As an informed Catholic who knows that the birth control pill is an abortifacient, how can you morally take the pill (while being sexually active) even if it is truly for a legitimate medical reason? That same risk of an abortion is there whether the intent is good or not. That abortion is still killing a human life.

Because that informed Catholic does not believe that birth control is an abortificant, but knows that that the pill can but has not been proven to prevent implantation, first of all. However, that’s not even the point. The point is: Second of all, if it is for medicinal purposes, the Church allows the pill to treat medical conditions and does not require abstinence, then we, as laypeople, cannot expect that of our fellow Catholics. We, as Catholics, can choose to abstain if we wish, but it is not required. What you’re talking about is holding Catholics accountable to that which the Church doesn’t even hold Catholics to. If you feel compelled to not treat a medical condition with hormone therapy because you feel it is immoral, by all means, don’t. But don’t expect the same of others.

 

[TimothyH]

The Pill prevents ovulation. Without ovulation, there is no egg to be fertilized.

This is an extremely important point, and it was the primary focus of Humanae Vitae in 1968.

The Church had previously spoken against any use of artificial birth control whatsoever in the Encyclical Casti Connubii which was released on Dec 31, 1930. Casti Connubii was a response to the Anglican Church’s teaching in August of that same year that artificial contraception was not always a sin. Paragraph 56 is breathtaking, and definitely worth reading.

What was debated in the years leading up to Hamanae Vitae however, was whether the pill was an unnatural means of controlling birth or whether it was in fact natural. Some argued that ovulation was a natural part of a woman’s complete cycle leading up to conception and birth, and so any man made interferance was unnatural. Other’s argued that sex, conception and implantation were apart from ovulation - that there could be no birth to control without ovulation in the first place, and that ovulation was a seperate matter.

Obviously the Holy Father decided on the former, that the pill was an unnatural regulation of birth. The Holy Father stated that we must look at the whole of man, and cannot look at the individual parts and processes apart from the whole.

It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects.

This teaching was later built upon by Blessed Pope John Paul II in his teaching on the Theology of the Body. Humanae Vitae address the pill head on in paragraph 14.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

The key world is before. You can’t do something now, like take a pill, in order to prevent pregnancy tonight, or tomorrow, or ten years from now. And you can’t seperate ovulation from conception, implantation and birth. All are one process. We have to look at the whole person. Incidntally, the word after is used as well, which speaks to the issue of the morning after pill.

And the Church was not unreasonable. Christ healed many diseases, and the Church herself undertands her mission to continue Christ’s work, or at a minimum, not stand int its way.

On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

The arguments about ovulation vs implantation and conception vs abortion are false arguments. We must look at the whole human person, created by God, and the whole mission to which he is called, which includes procreation for the Glory of God.

Such is the wisdom of the Church.

-Tim-

 

[opus101]

I’ve read (but forgot where) that there is a good way of treating endometriosis, etc., without using “the pill”. Can anyone find this info?

The use of the pill to treat these things is perfectly acceptable for single, chaste women who are not sexually active.

 

[Rence]

Ah, Paracelsus’s contribution to medicine – everything is toxic, it’s all a matter of dose. “Substance X will kill you if you take it long enough” can be said about anything without knowing if Substance X is really what led to your death.

Fact A: I will drink water every day until I die.
Fact B: It is possible to overdose and die from drinking too much water.
Conclusion: Therefore, water will eventually kill me.

Logically, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

You do realize, that drinking too much water can and does kill people…right?

 

[Rence]

I’ve read (but forgot where) that there is a good way of treating endometriosis, etc., without using “the pill”. Can anyone find this info?

The use of the pill to treat these things is perfectly acceptable for single, chaste women who are not sexually active.

The use of the pill to treat these things is perfectly acceptable for any woman, regardless of whether they are sexually active or not. And the Church does not require one to hunt down, and/or incur costly services in an effort to find alternatives. The Church wants one to work with their doctors.

However, there is a Catholic resource for alteratives, Pope Paul VI Institute: popepaulvi.com/

 

[TimothyH]

Fact A: I will drink water every day until I die.
Fact B: It is possible to overdose and die from drinking too much water.
Conclusion: Therefore, water will eventually kill me.

Logically, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

Three species of mendacity.

100% of people who drink orange juice will die.

Yikes. Mark Twain is one of my hero’s.

I don’t know if you guys have seen this. dhmo.org/facts.html

-Tim-

 

[ellen42]

Because that informed Catholic does not believe that birth control is an abortificant, but knows that that the pill can but has not been proven to prevent implantation, first of all. However, that’s not even the point. The point is: Second of all, if it is for medicinal purposes, the Church allows the pill to treat medical conditions and does not require abstinence, then we, as laypeople, cannot expect that of our fellow Catholics. We, as Catholics, can choose to abstain if we wish, but it is not required. What you’re talking about is holding Catholics accountable to that which the Church doesn’t even hold Catholics to. If you feel compelled to not treat a medical condition with hormone therapy because you feel it is immoral, by all means, don’t. But don’t expect the same of others.

What about medical conditions where pregnancy is the disease – i.e., if the mother is highly unlikely to survive the pregnancy? That’s not morally acceptable since the treatment is to alter fertility, even if it’s for a medical reason. We’re not required to be abstinent, as you said, but we aren’t allowed to use birth control either.

I’m also not trying to enforce other people’s actions. It’s that there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance going on when I think about the whole concept of double effect when the “bad” side is really bad. I understand it when tell a small child “Eat this, it’s candy”, but it was really medicine that saved his life. The lie is minor compared to the intended outcome. However, increasing your risk of killing somebody to treat a medical problem seems like the good wouldn’t outweigh the bad.

You do realize, that drinking too much water can and does kill people…right?

Yes, that’s why I labeled it as “Fact B”

 

[insideitall]

I was going to also suggest something like what isabel said, abstaining when you would be fertile, as a safety if breakthrough ovulation happened to occur.

do you distinguish intent in other situations?

say you had two people charged with someone’s death.

the first person tracked a coworker for weeks to memorize their schedule, then brought a gun to work and waited for the chosen moment.

the second person was driving (following all traffic laws) through their neighborhood and hit a little kid who ran out between parked cars.

would you say that since the second person knew there were kids around, and that one might be playing in the street, that they shouldn’t drive? that since they did, knowing those risks, that they should be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment as the first person?

 

[PennyinCanada]

Ellen, I personally would not want to come before God to answer for that one. For myself, I would 1) find other options besides taking the pill or 2) not have sex.
I have enough to answer for without taking that on. It seems pretty straightforward to me as it does to you.

 

[1ke]

To answer your actual question, Ellen:

Humanae Vitae 15: On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

This is an application of the Principle of Double Effect in the case of treatments that render one infertile either temporarily or permanently.

The Principle of Double Effect does not, however, give one carte blanche to act. One must meet all of the criteria.

• The object of the act must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);
• The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;
• The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effects, and no other means of achieving those effects are available;
• The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
• The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

Therefore, under the Principle of Double Effect there may be times when the contraceptive effect can be tolerated.

There are times when even the possible (although by no means certain) abortifacient effect can be tolerated. Yes, the hormonal pill might create an inhospitable uterus. That is not certain. In the case in which there is a *proportionate reason *to treat a disease by means of these hormones-- or ANY hormones, surgery, or other process (radiation for example)-- the person may do so.

For a non-hormonal pill example of Double Effect, St Gianna Molla *could have *legitimately chosen treatment for her uterine cancer-- which would **certainly **have had the effect of killing her unborn child-- under the Principle of Double Effect. She chose heroic virtue in foregoing the medical procedure. But she was not required to do so.

 

[Rence]

What about medical conditions where pregnancy is the disease – i.e., if the mother is highly unlikely to survive the pregnancy? That’s not morally acceptable since the treatment is to alter fertility, even if it’s for a medical reason.

That’s not “a treatment to alter fertility”, that’s a current pregnancy and the Church doesn’t allow interventions that would directly touch the fetus. That doesn’t compare to ‘may prevent implantation’. The primary action of contraceptives is the prevent ovulation. It “may”, prevent implantation because it’s a hormone. It’s also hasn’t been proven to actually inhibit implantation. One doesn’t sin on a “maybe”.

We’re not required to be abstinent, as you said, but we aren’t allowed to use birth control either.

The Church allows contraceptives to treat medical conditions, and does not require abstibence.

However, increasing your risk of killing somebody to treat a medical problem seems like the good wouldn’t outweigh the bad.

And if that’s how you feel about it for you, that’s fine. Others are not required to base their medical conditions on what your conscience dictates to you. They can follow Church teaching, which allows contraceptives to treat medical conditions, without being abstinent. They know it meets the Church’s criteria for the principle of double effect.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Haha, yes I am. Seriously though, I’ve never heard anybody claim that the pill causes abortions. .

It’s right in the incredibly fine print in the insert which is a copy of the information in the Physician’s Desk Reference. The Pill(s) all have a variety of actions for preventing pregnancy, one of which is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg if one gets past the ovulation barrier, or cause a recently implanted fertile egg to be expelled during menses which occurs when the chemical signal that tell the body it is pregnant is interfered with. .

However, that wasn’t the reason the Church banned the Pill, it’s birth control intention is the issue and if taken as medical treatment and not birth control, then the intent is different which removes the sin.

Except we now know that all versions of the Pill are abortifacient.

So you can take it medically as long as you practice abstinence.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Birth control does not cause aborition, it prevents fertilization.

this is just splitting hairs. One stops the life from coming together, the other stops life from continuing. Either way its standing in the way of life.

 

[Rence]

So you can take it medically as long as you practice abstinence.

That is simply not a Church teaching.

 

[Debora123]

this is just splitting hairs. One stops the life from coming together, the other stops life from continuing. Either way its standing in the way of life.

It really isn’t “just splitting hairs.”

Even the Church recognizes that a sin like intentional abortion is at a much more offensive level than the sin of contraception.

With that being said, the OP needs to understand that the Church does not require women on medically prescribed birth control to abstain. It simply does not. Arguing with us here won’t change that.

 

[sw85]

Hi ellen42,

I know that it is morally acceptable for people to use birth control when the intent is not for birth control, but that contraception is a side effect. However, I cannot wrap my head around why that’s morally okay.

If I take the pill, I know that it can render my uterus an inhospitable place for a fertilized egg, thus potentially causing an abortion. If I go into this with that intent, I understand the moral implications. However, if I go into this knowing that it might, and probably will, happen, but I’m doing it for other medical reasons – how is that somehow not still an abortion?

Abortion is wrong. Period. In all cases. Full stop.

Except for this? I don’t get it.

It’s like saying “If you fire this gun, you will likely kill somebody”. If you then fire the gun because it might kill somebody, then it’s obviously a sin. However, if you fire the gun because you liked the smell of gunpowder, but didn’t care where the bullet went, then it’s okay because the bullet was just a side effect of your intention.

It’s worth noting here that the Church does not let you tolerate contraception as a side effect for just any reason. The cause needs to be serious. For instance, the Church would frown on a woman taking oral contraception to prevent discomfort (even if she is taking it to prevent discomfort and not to contracept), but not on a woman taking it in order to treat a serious health problem.

The reason this is true is that the sexual faculty is one part of a broader substantive unity, and as such the proper use of that faculty is itself subordinate to promoting the good of the broader unity. A good example is in order. It would, for obvious reasons, be a sin for me to saw off my own leg. My leg is designed to support my weight and enable me to get around, and acting contrary to the natural function of one’s body is always a sin. But if my leg is gangrenous, it is permissible for me to have it cut off. In that case, my leg is unable to execute its function, anyway, and it is very likely to kill the rest of me. The good of my leg is subordinate to the good of the body (and person) of which it is a part.