Birth Control

[Miss Shelby]

I am confused how is being on the bill abortion?

It's not, in and of itself. If one is not sexually active and on the pill, there is no way for an abortion to occur.

If one IS sexually active and on the pill, there is a risk because the pill can create a hostile enviroment in the uterus for a fertilized egg to implant. Thus, it's possible for a fertilized egg to simply be discharged. At least that is my understanding.

Michelle

 

[Fish and Bread]

If one IS sexually active and on the pill, there is a risk because the pill can create a hostile enviroment in the uterus for a fertilized egg to implant. Thus, it's possible for a fertilized egg to simply be discharged. At least that is my understanding.

From http://www.illinoisivf.com/recurrent-pregnancy-loss/pre-implantation.html

"Furthermore, it has been estimated that 75% of karyotypically normal pre-implantation embryos fail to implant."

That means for every pregnancy that last more than 10-14 days, there are three fertilized eggs that slide off the uterine fall and fail to implant, even when no birth control is used. So, should a mother of three (who's never used birth control) pray for the souls of her nine dead children that she never even knew she was pregnant with? Did God design human beings so that 3 out of 4 children would die before their 14th day in the womb? These are serious questions. If we're going to say birth control pills "kill" babies when they cause a fertilized egg not to implant, then let's take that seriously and really think it through. It has all sorts of theological implications.

*Or* maybe, this is a case where the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of it. When it's said that birth lasts from conception to natural death, I'm not sure that should be taken so literally as to say that mothers are killing their children when they use birth control pills that *might* sometimes prevent implantation, which fails 75% of the time naturally anyhow.

 

[nyj]

That means for every pregnancy that last more than 10-14 days, there are three fertilized eggs that slide off the uterine fall and fail to implant, even when no birth control is used. So, should a mother of three (who's never used birth control) pray for the souls of her nine dead children that she never even knew she was pregnant with? Did God design human beings so that 3 out of 4 children would die before their 14th day in the womb? These are serious questions. If we're going to say birth control pills "kill" babies when they cause a fertilized egg not to implant, then let's take that seriously and really think it through. It has all sorts of theological implications.

*Or* maybe, this is a case where the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of it. When it's said that birth lasts from conception to natural death, I'm not sure that should be taken so literally as to say that mothers are killing their children when they use birth control pills that *might* sometimes prevent implantation, which fails 75% of the time naturally anyhow.

Do you know the difference between something happening naturally, and something being forced artificially?

I mean, would you argue that euthanasia is potentially moral because all people eventually die?

 

[Miss Shelby]

From http://www.illinoisivf.com/recurrent-pregnancy-loss/pre-implantation.html

"Furthermore, it has been estimated that 75% of karyotypically normal pre-implantation embryos fail to implant."

So I guess it's okay to go ahead and induce something horrible, since horrible things happen anyways?

*Or* maybe, this is a case where the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of it. When it's said that birth lasts from conception to natural death, I'm not sure that should be taken so literally as to say that mothers are killing their children when they use birth control pills that *might* sometimes prevent implantation, which fails 75% of the time naturally anyhow

No one is saying that mothers intentionally kill their children. I think it's just that many people are not exposed to accurate enough information to make informed decisions.

Michelle

 

[Fish and Bread]

Do you know the difference between something happening naturally, and something being forced artificially?

I mean, would you argue that euthanasia is potentially moral because all people eventually die?

We're talking about situations where birth control is used for health purposes, thus contraception is a side effect and not the intended effect of the medication. Plenty of medications have side effects, up to and including possible death in rare circumstances, and are considered perfectly licit according to Catholic moral theology. If I need to drive a car to get to a hospital to save my life, there's a chance I might crash into something and kill myself, but that's not suicide.

No one's answered my question yet -- if these are literally and fully human lives, then 75% of the human population in any area dies in 10-14 days after conception. 75%, because of the way God designed us. So for every child anyone has, they should be praying for the souls of three other children that they never knew existed, shouldn't they? Or is this only taken seriously when it comes to preventing people from keeping themselves in good health?

I'd also be interested in seeing someone go back to the previous page and tell me why the alternate of refusing to have sex with one's spouse doesn't subvert a biblical purpose of marriage as eludicated by St. Paul.

Pope Paul VI recognized that there are exceptions to the rule re: birth control. Was he wrong? Is there a higher authority than the Pope who has contradicted his encyclical on this topic?

 

[Miss Shelby]

No one's answered my question yet -- if these are literally and fully human lives, then 75% of the human population in any area dies in 10-14 days after conception. 75%, because of the way God designed us. So for every child anyone has, they should be praying for the souls of three other children that they never knew existed, shouldn't they? Or is this only taken seriously when it comes to preventing people from keeping themselves in good health?

What my question is, and that I edited out earlier because I didn't want to freak heather out, which I think it might be too late for now--is HOW healthy the pill is in the long run anyways? Are there other alternatives even for sexually inactive people suffering with hormonal imbalances and such? I haven't looked exhaustively at the Paul VI stuff, but I suspect there is.

What I DO believe to be true is that a sexually active couple should not be using the pill. If a mother is willing to give her life for a 6 or 7 month inutero baby, then why would she risk being on a pill that would terminate her pregnancy without her knowing about it?

Michelle

 

[Fish and Bread]

What my question is, and that I edited out earlier because I didn't want to freak heather out, which I think it might be too late for now--is HOW healthy the pill is in the long run anyways?

Well, I don't see people dropping dead from birth control use. That doesn't mean there isn't an element of risk there, but it doesn't seem as though that's any more the case than with most popular drugs -- cholesterol medicines, anti-depressants, etc.. I think most of this talk amongst advocacy groups of the pill being unsafe is because they think it's evil, not because they're concerned about it actually being unsafe. At least, that's my impression. I'm not a doctor. There is at least one doctor on OBOB who might be able to give more accurate information.

What I DO believe to be true is that a sexually active couple should not be using the pill. If a mother is willing to give her life for a 6 or 7 month inutero baby, then why would she risk being on a pill that would terminate her pregnancy without her knowing about it?

Because there's a clear difference between a 3 day old single-celled embryo and a 7 month old fetus, for one thing. I'm sorry, but there is. And that's why people pray for the souls of miscarriages and not the routinely non-implanted embryos. It's comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Chrystabelle]

What my question is, and that I edited out earlier because I didn't want to freak heather out, which I think it might be too late for now--is HOW healthy the pill is in the long run anyways? Are there other alternatives even for sexually inactive people suffering with hormonal imbalances and such? I haven't looked exhaustively at the Paul VI stuff, but I suspect there is.

The pill is, certainly, not very good for people. It can cause all sorts of serious side effects. For one, it can make the woman feel pretty awful for quite a few months or longer.

I had a school friend who died from taking the pill. She had a thrombosis. The pill can also cause strokes and other problems to do with blood clotting. Aside from that it increases the risk of breast cancer and other cancers, later in life.

BUT if a woman has irregular periods which are due to polycystic ovaries, she is increasing her risk of uterine cancer, anyway, by NOT having periods. However, I know a devout Roman Catholic who had polycystic ovaries and never took the pill. She had irregular periods for 20 years and was unable to conceive.

Now she is the proud mother of a baby girl!! A well-deserved miracle for a very brave woman.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Because there's a clear difference between a 3 day old single-celled embryo and a 7 month old fetus, for one thing. I'm sorry, but there is. And that's why people pray for the souls of miscarriages and not the routinely non-implanted embryos. It's comparing apples and oranges.

But you're saying (or seem to be) that there is no difference between a 3 day old single celled embryo which is discarded due to the affects of the pill and one that is discarded due to uninfluenced or unknown means. (regardless of the question of when life begins)

Michelle

 

[Miss Shelby]

The pill is, certainly, not very good for people. It can cause all sorts of serious side effects. For one, it can make the woman feel pretty awful for quite a few months or longer.

I had a school friend who died from taking the pill. She had a thrombosis. The pill can also cause strokes and other problems to do with blood clotting. Aside from that it increases the risk of breast cancer and other cancers, later in life.

BUT if a woman has irregular periods which are due to polycystic ovaries, she is increasing her risk of uterine cancer, anyway, by NOT having periods. However, I know a devout Roman Catholic who had polycystic ovaries and never took the pill. She had irregular periods for 20 years and was unable to conceive.

Now she is the proud mother of a baby girl!! A well-deserved miracle for a very brave woman.

crystabelle, thank you. That's a testimony which balances out both sides. Thank you for sharing that. I'm sorry for the loss of your friend and I know it's a subject with which you speak from with true life experience.

Michelle

 

[Fish and Bread]

But you're saying (or seem to be) that there is no difference between a 3 day old single celled embryo which is discarded due to the affects of the pill and one that is discarded due to uninfluenced or unknown means. (regardless of the question of when life begins)

I do believe that there's a difference, but there are other issues at work here that I think are being ignored by many people within the Church. And I worry about that, because it's creating a stumbling block for many folks. In a way, can't going beyond what the church teaches into more conservative territory be just as dangerous as disregarding existing teachings and going into more liberal territory?

 

[Miss Shelby]

I do believe that there's a difference, but there are other issues at work here that I think are being ignored by many people within the Church. And I worry about that, because it's creating a stumbling block for many folks.

Well, I don't know what issues you're talking about.. but I will say that I can see where there would be misinterpreation and misapplied condemnation here. So I would like to say that the Church recognizes that some people simply do not know and do not have enough information to know when they are making bad choices. And the Church NEVER condemns people for that, all the Church asks is for them to have a willing heart to follow Christ. So if mistakes are made, and realized--which we've all made them, don't be afraid to admit them -- because it's in admitting them that opens the door for the real help to come in.

Michelle

 

[Fish and Bread]

Well, I don't know what issues you're talking about.. but I will say that I can see where there would be misinterpreation and misapplied condemnation here. So I would like to say that the Church recognizes that some people simply do not know and do not have enough information to know when they are making bad choices. And the Church NEVER condemns people for that, all the Church asks is for them to have a willing heart to follow Christ. So if mistakes are made, and realized--which we've all made them, don't be afraid to admit them -- because it's in admitting them that opens the door for the real help to come in.

The point here is that the Church doesn't seem to have spoken on the use of birth control for people with health problems that require or suggest it's use. In fact, Pope Paul VI seemed to come out in favor of it in that context. Now, if someone knows differently, let's see the encyclical. If not, it sounds like it's just a theory of their's, like limbo, and not something they should be suggesting is a mandatory position to hold for Catholics.

 

[Miss Shelby]

The point here is that the Church doesn't seem to have spoken on the use of birth control for people with health problems that require or suggest it's use. In fact, Pope Paul VI seemed to come out in favor of it in that context. Now, if someone knows differently, let's see the encyclical. If not, it sounds like it's just a theory of their's, like limbo, and not something they should be suggesting is a mandatory position to hold for Catholics.

It is factual what the pill can do. It is factual that there are harms as well as benefits. The Church DOES speak about that. That is what we're left with for now, and I do not think that the point is that the Church needs to speak authoritatively about it one way or the other in case of medical necessity. Every situation differs. The point, in reality, is that the Christian be willing to follow Christ. I think that's what God looks at.

Michelle

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Well this is news to me. For the past 25 years, amongst my female Roman Catholic friends, it has been common knowledge that the Pope was talking about the pill. Even the priests advised us of this. (It was not known, until recently, that the combined pill was an abortificient.)

They were wrong:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

Personally, I never took the pill. If I had and I had been told that it was possibly abortificient, I would have used condoms with it. I think most Christians would. Most Christians would not want to rely on NFP for something so important.

As a long-term user of NFP I can guarantee that someone who was taking the pill would not be able to accurately use NFP at the same time. The pill thickens the cervical mucus and changes the body's temperature. Therefore, how on earth would a woman know that she was ovulating?

I really do not think that where there is a possibility that the pill maybe abortificient, that people should rely on NFP to prevent this.

It is morally wrong to have sex anytime while on the pill. There are ways of curing the problem, and each day they're are finding out more and more about the woman's reproductive system, Pope Paul VI Institute is doing some great work on this. So in my opinion there are a couple of options:

1. Continue to be on the pill, while only alleviating the symptom and not the problem, and abstain from sex.

2. Go off the pill and find another cure than the pill.

 

[Fish and Bread]

It is factual what the pill can do. It is factual that there are harms as well as benefits. The Church DOES speak about that. That is what we're left with for now, and I do not think that the point is that the Church needs to speak authoritatively about it one way or the other in case of medical necessity. Every situation differs.

That's all I'm saying.

To claim that it's illicit for a Catholic to take what are known as birth control pills for reasons other than birth control is not factual. Rome has not spoken.

To claim that a woman must abstain from sex with her husband while taking medication that might have a side effect of preventing pregnancy has also not been made an official aspect of Catholic teaching. Rome has not spoken.

The bible has spoken on that second issue, though, as near as I can tell. St. Paul is very clear that spouses are not to deny each other unless it is for a mutually agreed upon period of fasting or prayer, so that they might not be tempted to commit the sin of adultery. That's an eternal Christian principle that can not be altered, it seems to me.

 

[wrknprgrstn]

What about the woman who have to be on it to regulate there period? I am on it. If I wasnt I would get a period once a month. Is it wrong then?

Here's the deal...if you know you are using "the pill" for the wrong reason...you are wrong. Now, pick up your mat and walk my dear sister. Peace, Your bro.

 

[Tonks]

2. Go off the pill and find another cure than the pill.

What if there is no other cure? And don't play games with me. For the sake of the argument let us assume there is not - as in the case of chronic ovarian cysts. The only way to stop them is to prevent ovum eruption from the uterus. While in the vast majority of women a cyst is not threating but in a small minority and uncontrolled cyst or series of them can lead to hysterectomy.

Of course it is also important to note that HV was written before BC was used for anything much more than a contraceptive - when the pill first came out the primary function was not to control irregular menstrual cycles.

Frankly, this is no different than someone on Accutane and having (medically) to take the pill.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

What if there is no other cure? And don't play games with me.

What was that comment for?

For the sake of the argument let us assume there is not - as in the case of chronic ovarian cysts.

Okay, then let us assume for the sake of argument that there is no cure for ovarian cysts.

The only way to stop them is to prevent ovum eruption from the uterus. While in the vast majority of women a cyst is not threating but in a small minority and uncontrolled cyst or series of them can lead to hysterectomy.

Of course it is also important to note that HV was written before BC was used for anything much more than a contraceptive - when the pill first came out the primary function was not to control irregular menstrual cycles.

Well surely, this is a very hard situation, if it is incurable. However, I find it hard to believe that the Church would approve of people having sex, when abortion is a possibility. Maybe this is what the Church is referring to when it mentions in Humanae Vitae that if a woman needs to undergo a procedure for medical reasons, that has as a double effect sterilization, then that would be morally alright. Maybe in this case, a couple would choose to have an hysterectomy to rid themselves of the problem and give life other ways, such as adoption, ministry, charity.

Frankly, this is no different than someone on Accutane and having (medically) to take the pill.

What is Accutane?

 

[Protinus]

What was that comment for?

It was a valid comment