Why is The Pill allowed?

[ellen42]

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.

I’m not saying that.

I am asking why is medically prescribed birth control morally allowed at all.

The idea that contraception is an intrinsic evil that’s allowable in some cases is what is confusing me.

How can something that is intrinsically evil have a redeeming quality?

 

[Pink_Lemonade]

I’m not saying that.

I am asking why is medically prescribed birth control morally allowed at all.

The idea that contraception is an intrinsic evil that’s allowable in some cases is what is confusing me.

How can something that is intrinsically evil have a redeeming quality?

Because it is not being used as a contraceptive. The “pill”, in its various forms, is not intrinsically evil itself. Neither is a condom. Using them to contracept is where the evil comes in.

The intent is not to prevent conception, the intent is to treat a medical condition or illness. By your logic, taking an antihistamine is wrong because it could dry up cervical mucous. The bottom line is that the Church allows use of the pill to treat medical conditions, so whether or not you agree that She should does not really matter.

 

[1ke]

I am asking why is medically prescribed birth control morally allowed at all.

Because it isn’t a birth contro pill when prescribed for a medical purpose. It is a hormone pill being prescribed for some sort of disease or defect. It simply has the same formulation as a birth control pill and therefore the same product is prescribed for both uses. In other cases, rarely, women taking hormones would actually need a compounding pharmacy to create a unique dosage for them.

It’s the packaging that is throwing you off.

The idea that contraception is an intrinsic evil that’s allowable in some cases is what is confusing me.

Contraception is **never **allowable.

How can something that is intrinsically evil have a redeeming quality?

Contraception is always immoral.

A hormone pill that has both a medicinal effect and a contraceptive effect is morally neutral.

If I take hormones to treat severe endometriosis, I am doing nothing morally wrong. I am not contracepting.

If I take hormones when I have **no **medical reason to do so, in order to prevent conception, then I have turned it into contraception and that is morally wrong.

I think your confusion arises from the fact that these pills were first formulated for the purpose of supressing fertility, then other uses were found for them. This happens with lots of medications. They are created for some purpose-- moral or otherwise-- and then another (moral) use is found for them. A person can take the pill for the moral use, even though they know it has an undesired side effect.

Radiation is an example. Radiation is lethal and it would be immoral to irradiate someone in a high dosage. BUT, in some circumstances, radiation is a legitimate medical treatment and it is not immoral to irradiate someone. Radiation also happens to make you sterile. If a woman were already pregnant, it could also kill the child. If in the course of treating a tumor, radiation makes someone sterile or spontaneously aborts a pregnancy, it is not the desired effect but it is *tolerated *as part of the legitimate medical treatment if there are proportionate reasons to move forward with the treatment.

 

[ellen42]

Contraception is **never **allowable.

A hormone pill that has both a medicinal effect and a contraceptive effect is morally neutral.

These two statements are where the cognitive dissonance comes in.

If it is never allowable, then it should be never allowable – not unless it also has a medicinal effect. Otherwise, it is sometimes allowable.

 

[Debora123]

I’m not saying that.

I am asking why is medically prescribed birth control morally allowed at all.

The idea that contraception is an intrinsic evil that’s allowable in some cases is what is confusing me.

How can something that is intrinsically evil have a redeeming quality?

I’m not sure… the whole birth control thing confuses me too. It is what it is.

 

[1ke]

These two statements are where the cognitive dissonance comes in.

If it is never allowable, then it should be never allowable – not unless it also has a medicinal effect. Otherwise, it is sometimes allowable.

Contraception is never moral. There is no “unless”.

Start here:

A pill exists. This pill can treat a disease. Let’s say arthritis for the sake of argument.

Is it moral to take the pill to treat the arthritis? Yes or no?

Are you contracepting if you take this pill for arthritis? Yes or no?

Now, this same can pill also makes you sterile for as long as you take it.

Is it still moral to take the pill to treat the arthritis? Yes or no?

Are you contracepting if you take this pill for arthritis? Yes or no?

Now, let’s say you do not have arthritis and you take this pill for the sole purpose of making you sterile.

Is it still moral to take the pill to make you sterile? Yes or no?

Are you contracepting if you take this pill to make you sterile? Yes or no?

 

[SonCatcher]

These two statements are where the cognitive dissonance comes in.

If it is never allowable, then it should be never allowable – not unless it also has a medicinal effect. Otherwise, it is sometimes allowable.

Poor phrasing - that’s all.

Hormonal therapy is allowable when used to treat an illness.

Hormonal therapy has the side effect of rendering the person taking it infertile for the duration it is taken.

Some people (admittedly a majority in this case) use hormonal therapy for the sole purpose of seeking its side effect when they are healthy. This is not allowable because it is the contraceptive mindset.

 

[edwest2]

From Humanae Vitae, published in 1968:

"Lawful Therapeutic Means

“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. (19)”

God looks at our intentions. If your goal is to follow sound medical advice then your goal is treatment.

I invite everyone to read the following:

catholic.com/quickquestions/am-i-right-to-tell-my-ccd-students-they-should-not-take-the-pill-for-medical-purposes

Peace,
Ed

 

[underacloud]

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.

This is an excellent summary of the key principle.

Moral theologians continue to disagree on this matter. In short, the Church does not require abstinence, but in my opinion the matter needs careful consideration by any given couple. We need to keep in mind than in the principle of double effect, the good effect must proportionately outweigh the bad.

Any hormone treatment has the potential to interfere with a womans reproductive cycle, including thinning of the lining, and thus affecting chances of implantation of a fertilized egg (zygote). What is unclear is the potential for sperm to reach, via the thickened mucus, an egg, which has broken through. Some treatments will carry greater risks, and some (arguably the combined pill) may carry very small risk (the moral debate remains somewhat clouded by a lack of definitive evidence one way or the other on this matter). Is this small risk sufficiently small to be outweighed by the good effects?

It’s always hard to weigh good effects with small risks of very bad effects. For example, each time I get in my car I stand a small chance of being killed in a crash. But I don’t let that small risk of a very bad effect outweigh the good effects of driving where I need to go. How much greater would the risk need to be before I changed my mind?

Also consider that the Church has never required a woman who has a deficient luteal phase to abstain, although she may be having an unintended aborted pregnancy during each ovulatory cycle. Likewise, a woman who has many miscarriages is under no obligation to abstain. In these cases, there is a “foreseeable impediment to procreation” which is not intended…in much the same way that a woman taking hormone treatment may find that her fertility is impeded (of course, the intent is very important).

 

[Julia_Mae]

That is simply not a Church teaching.

Could I have a reference, please, to the precise Church teaching?

 

[Julia_Mae]

From Humanae Vitae, published in 1968:

"Lawful Therapeutic Means

“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. (19)”

God looks at our intentions. If your goal is to follow sound medical advice then your goal is treatment.

I invite everyone to read the following:

catholic.com/quickquestions/am-i-right-to-tell-my-ccd-students-they-should-not-take-the-pill-for-medical-purposes

But when does the Church allow us to take an abortifacient while actively having intercourse? This is not a direct reference to the Pill, there are other treatments that affect procreation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Julia_Mae]

From Humanae Vitae, published in 1968:

"Lawful Therapeutic Means

“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. (19)”

This is not specific to the Pill. When does the Church allow us to take an abortifacient?

 

[underacloud]

This is not specific to the Pill. When does the Church allow us to take an abortifacient?

“foreseeable impediment to procreation” is general wording and logically covers contraceptive, abortifacient, and other fertility issues.

 

[1ke]

When does the Church allow us to take an abortifacient?

When, as previously explained, the medication, surgery, or procedure that has the abortfacient possibility meets the all criteria outlined in the Principle of Double Effect.

 

[CatherineOH]

I’m not saying that.

I am asking why is medically prescribed birth control morally allowed at all.

The idea that contraception is an intrinsic evil that’s allowable in some cases is what is confusing me.

How can something that is intrinsically evil have a redeeming quality?

How is this for redemption.
I know that the pill is not sinful when taken for other conditions.
I suffered for many years from one such condition.
If I had not taken the pill, and other drugs, I would not likely have been alive to enjoy converting to catholic this Easter.

Redemptive enough?

Though now, I suppose I have gained a sin of prideful outburst.

 

[dixieagle]

This is not specific to the Pill. When does the Church allow us to take an abortifacient?

When a medication (in this case, a hormone or hormones) is taken to treat symptoms of a disease or condition (e.g., endometriosis) but potentially has the unintended consequence of making the uterus hostile to a fertilized egg.

There have been several excellent posts about the “double effect” which is what applies in this type of instance.

None of this is to say that taking hormones (aka “the Pill”) is necessarily the optimum way to deal with a condition such as endometriosis; I don’t believe it is, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[edwest2]

This is not specific to the Pill. When does the Church allow us to take an abortifacient?

Why did you leave out the other link I provided?

Peace,
Ed

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not saying that.

I am asking why is medically prescribed birth control morally allowed at all.

Medically prescribed* birth control* is never morally allowed, ellen.

But synthetic hormones are morally neutral. And therefore, depending upon the context, they are permissible.

The Pill is nothing more than synthetic hormones. In and of itself, a tablet is not intrinsically evil.