Contrary to popular belief, contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

[Athanasias]

I'm pretty much up on the science, thanks.

There exist drugs which delay ovulation that are not abortifacient. Ter also exist methods of cleansing the lower reproductive trac of sperm, preventing conception from happening at a later time. At any rate, methods known to man today are irrelevant to the general concept; rape victims may not abort, but they may use contraceptives to /prevent/ pregnancy. Please read the whole thread before commenting.

I don't think you are up on modern science in regards to this pal. You can be schooled by the Nurses at SLU. All birth control except the pulling out method and condoms do cause abortions. This is just a fact. This includes those drugs that you mentioned. Go ahead and call that number and talk to the research nurse Mary Lee Barron I listed. She can share research charts showing your wrong even on the drugs you listed. You playing with fire.

 

[kepha31]

So lets take a brutalized woman and kill her child, brutalizing her some more. How is that supposed to help? How does killing the woman's child alleviate the trauma of rape by adding another trauma? There are rape victims who are in counseling, not so much for the rape but for the abortion. The OP presents a fallacy.

 

[Davidnic]

Actually in cases of rape you can do either a Luteinizing dip test or a progesterone test to determine if conception has taken place. And if not you have several methods that are not abortive. Remember we are talking about a medical institution with more abilities than the average person at their disposal.

The Bishops are pretty clear that this is only in cases where conception has not taken place and as a result of rape and it is because Rape is not the sexual act. It is a different objective act...an act of violence and not love. And as such contraception that does not cause abortions or contraceptive methods used after it has been established that conception has not taken place are licit.

So as long as conception has not taken place you are not deforming an act of love but defending against and act of violence.

 

[Athanasias]

Actually in cases of rape you can do either a Luteinizing dip test or a progesterone test to determine if conception has taken place. And if not you have several methods that are not abortive. Remember we are talking about a medical institution with more abilities than the average person at their disposal.

The Bishops are pretty clear that this is only in cases where conception has not taken place and it is because Rape is not the sexual act. It is a different objective act...an act of violence and not love. And as such contraception that does not cause abortions or contraceptive methods used after it has been established that conception has not taken place are licit.

So as long as conception has not taken place you are not deforming an act of love but defending against and act of violence.

Are we talking about conception(when the egg and sperm unite) or implantation. Most people today consider conception to actually be implantation as this definition was changed medically in the middle of the 20th century. The Church defines contraception as when the egg and sperm unite even before implantation.

 

[MikeK]

So lets take a brutalized woman and kill her child, brutalizing her some more. How is that supposed to help? How does killing the woman's child alleviate the trauma of rape by adding another trauma? There are rape victims who are in counseling, not so much for the rape but for the abortion. The OP presents a fallacy.

I think you're reading the wrong thread. This thread (and the statement of the Bishops) is specifically about non-abortive contraception - preventing conception by suppressing ovulation or removing sperm before it can come into contact with an egg. For the sake of your own reputation, I advise that you ad the USCCB statement carefully before further comment.

 

[MikeK]

Are we talking about conception(when the egg and sperm unite) or implantation. Most people today consider conception to actually be implantation as this definition was changed medically in the middle of the 20th century. The Church defines contraception as when the egg and sperm unite even before implantation.

We - the Bishops and I - are talking about conception. Read the thread. Read the USCCB statement.

 

[MikeK]

I agree the OP is well something else. Pray for him/her

I appreciate your prayers, and I forgive the insult. I trust the USCCB.

 

[Fantine]

I don't think you are up on modern science in regards to this pal. You can be schooled by the Nurses at SLU. All birth control except the pulling out method and condoms do cause abortions. This is just a fact. This includes those drugs that you mentioned. Go ahead and call that number and talk to the research nurse Mary Lee Barron I listed. She can share research charts showing your wrong even on the drugs you listed. You playing with fire.

And sterilization, which, as I understand it, is the method of birth control employed by 45% of fertile couples.

I am curious about diaphragms, although I am old enough to not even know if those are used anymore.

I also think that if there is never a diagnosed pregnancy any theories we develop about why a conception doesn't implant are simply speculative. We can't do anything more than guess because there are many reasons why implantation doesn't take place, and I have read that 50%-60% of conceptions fail before menstruation.

Implantation failure has diverse causes, including abnormal cytokine and hormonal signaling as well as epigenetic alterations.[8] Recurrent implantation failure is a cause of female infertility. Therefore, pregnancy rates can be improved by optimizing endometrial receptivity for implantation.[8] Evaluation of implantation markers may help to predict pregnancy outcome and detect occult implantation deficiency.[8]

Luteal support is the administration of medication, generally progestins, for the purpose of increasing the success rate of implantation and early embryogenesis, thereby complementing the function of the corpus luteum.

I agree that it is possible that taking the pill can change secretions that might make implantation more difficult, but there are also many babies who were born whose mothers took the pill.

And there are lots of things that can interfere with fertility--I have even heard that drinking Mountain Dew lowers sperm count.

As I always say, this is all pretty irrelevant to me. I have three adult children--none married--no grandchildren. I would like to have a few grandchildren but I am sensible enough to realize that they are the ones who need to be ready, not me. One has come close to marriage a few times and would like to marry. One is a confirmed bachelor. One is still completing her education.

I am sure that in extremely rare conditions that there are women, primarily women who are not consistent in the use of the pill, who may conceive a zygote that never implants, but in every case the reason why the zygote didn't implant can only be speculated upon, not proved.

And I am not saying this to say birth control is right. I continue to believe that it is different from abortion.

 

[Athanasias]

We - the Bishops and I - are talking about conception. Read the thread. Read the USCCB statement.

The problem here is not with the Bishops understanding of conception its the medical fields who often see implantation as conception and not the prior. Also medical science reveals that every modern form of contraception with the exception of the condom and pulling out method cause abortions to already fertilized eggs even before implantation begins. Nurses at Slu can help you see this evidence. Point 3 is the Bishops USCCB conference does not have alot of weight to it at all. If you study the 5 levels of authority and level of obedience in the Church the Credenda/Tendenda/Obesqsium etc the Bishops USCCB comes to a respect for their office but that is it.

 

[Davidnic]

Its about conception. Look at it this way.

It is always wrong to destroy and embryo.

It is always wrong to prevent conception in a free willed act because it deforms the nature of the act.

As long as you are not destroying life (a fertilized egg) you are allowed to prevent the sperm from getting to an egg in an act of rape because that act is a deformed act already...once of violence. Not the same objective act as free willed sex.

But you must either use a method that does not kill a fertilized egg or prevent the implantation...or you must know by the available medical tests that fertilization and implantation has not taken place.

 

[MikeK]

The problem here is not with the Bishops understanding of conception its the medical fields who often see implantation as conception and not the prior.

...so you still haven't read the thread. OK.

Also medical science reveals that every modern form of contraception with the exception of the condom and pulling out method cause abortions to already fertilized eggs even before implantation begins. Nurses at Slu can help you see this evidence.

I advise you to read what those Nurses have to say before you comment on it, especially in this context. They do not address emergency room post-rape vaginal cleansings, nor do they address the suppression of ovulation when it can be shown that it has not yet taken place (and therefore conception cannot have happened).

Point 3 is the Bishops USCCB conference does not have alot of weight to it at all. If you study the 5 levels of authority and level of obedience in the Church the Credenda/Tendenda/Obesqsium etc the Bishops USCCB comes to a respect for their office but that is it.

Calling them liars (at worst) or negligent scholars (at best), failing to read what they've written and addressing their points in-context is not respect for their office.

 

[Davidnic]

Well really it does not come down to the authority of the body making the statement. They are soundly applying moral theology as the Church uses it and not opposing any infallible proclamations.

As such it has no problems. In addition it is ordinary, though not extraordinary, Magisterium with the authority Bishops possess.

But it does not need to be extraordinary. It contradicts no properly understood Catholic Dogma.

 

[QuantaCura]

First, as to the authority of this directive, the directive at question is below.

USCCB - (Bishops) - Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition

Bishops conferences have zero authority, only individual bishops do. For the decisions of a conference to have authority in the entire region it represents, all the individual bishops of the region must make it their own or the Apostolic See has to give the conference authority for the decision. This directive does not say it was approved unanimously, nor has it been given authority from the Apostolic See, so its authority in a diocese depends on whether the bishop there has implemented it (in fact, the document itself says it recommends bishops do just that).

That being said, without access to any other sources on this topic, this seems like it would be fine--it's an issue of proportionately repelling an unjust aggressor (forcefully keeping an unjust aggressor's sperm away from one's ovum).

 

[QuantaCura]

Just to add, the above document cites an old note by the CDF in 1975 (Quaecumque sterilizatio) when discussing things that are intrinsically evil. The note, which dealt primarily with sterilization, states that hospitals participating in acts that are "by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end" is absolutely forbidden. However, it defines this as impeding "the natural effects of sexual actions deliberately performed" by the subject (my emphasis). Therefore, it logically follows, that since an assault victim, as a subject, has not deliberately performed the action, such an action may be justified to repel the unjust aggressor.

 

[MikeK]

Just to add, the above document cites an old note by the CDF in 1975 (Quaecumque sterilizatio) when discussing things that are intrinsically evil. The note, which dealt primarily with sterilization, states that hospitals participating in acts that are "by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end" is absolutely forbidden. However, it defines this as impeding "the natural effects of sexual actions deliberately performed" by the subject (my emphasis). Therefore, it logically follows, that since an assault victim, as a subject, has not deliberately performed the action, such an action may be justified to repel the unjust aggressor.

Yes - which was dicussed to death in this very thread.

Rape can be a reproductive act but it is not an example of the marital or conjugal act.

Contraception is allowable following rape, so long as it does not interfere with an already-created life. Contraception is not allowed before, durring or after the marital (conjugal) act.

That said, I fail to see how contraception can be called an instrinsic evil. If it is sometimes, even if only in the rarest of circumstances - allowed, then the "intrinsic" modifyier is intruded upon. My head has a hard time with statements like "Action X is intrinsically evil when condition Y exists." My understanding of the word intrinsic doesn't allow for conditional modifiers.

 

[Rebekka]

Just to add, the above document cites an old note by the CDF in 1975 (Quaecumque sterilizatio) when discussing things that are intrinsically evil. The note, which dealt primarily with sterilization, states that hospitals participating in acts that are "by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end" is absolutely forbidden. However, it defines this as impeding "the natural effects of sexual actions deliberately performed" by the subject (my emphasis). Therefore, it logically follows, that since an assault victim, as a subject, has not deliberately performed the action, such an action may be justified to repel the unjust aggressor.

Silly question, but does this mean (also considering Mike's post ^) that sterilization of a celibate person, for example a nun, would not be intrinsically evil? She will not deliberately perform a sexual action, and to prevent a potential pregnancy after a potential rape she could use sterilization as a non-abortive means of contraception. Not that I think many nuns would want it, just wondering. After all, the bible speaks of eunuchs too.

 

[MikeK]

Silly question, but does this mean (also considering Mike's post ^) that sterilization of a celibate person, for example a nun, would not be intrinsically evil? She will not deliberately perform a sexual action, and to prevent a potential pregnancy after a potential rape she could use sterilization as a non-abortive means of contraception. Not that I think many nuns would want it, just wondering. After all, the bible speaks of eunuchs too.

That's an interesting question. I think the answer would be "no", because that sterilization may not prove necessary, and it will permanently alter what God designed. That Nun could receive emergency, non-abortifacient contraception just like anyone else if she were to fall victim to a rape, but I don't think she'd be allowed to phophylactically, permanently sterilize herself because she might get raped.

 

[QuantaCura]

I don't think you could do that. From the CCC:

2297 "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations are against the moral law."

the CCC cites this section of Pius XI's Casti Conubiii:

71. Furthermore, Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.)​

Such a preemptive measure would not be therapeutic. Even in the post-assault/contraception example, its not therapeutic, but an act of self-defense. Taking an analogous situation, it's one thing to maim an aggressor as he's attacking you in order to defend yourself, but it's another to maim someone just in case he attacks. I would think that you can't preemptively maim yourself either.

 

[Rebekka]

That's an interesting question. I think the answer would be "no", because that sterilization may not prove necessary, and it will permanently alter what God designed. That Nun could receive emergency, non-abortifacient contraception just like anyone else if she were to fall victim to a rape, but I don't think she'd be allowed to phophylactically, permanently sterilize herself because she might get raped.

"If you can't permanently alter what God designed, then I want my foreskin back."

I don't think you could do that. From the CCC:

2297 "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations are against the moral law."

Such a preventative measure would not be therapeutic. Even in the post-assault/contraception example, its not therapeutic, but an act of self-defense. Taking an alaogous situation, it's one thing to maim an aggressor as he's attacking you in order to defend yourself, but it's another to maim someone just in case he attacks. I would think that you can't pre-emptively maim yourself either.

What does the bible say about eunuchs?

 

[QuantaCura]

I think the intention of circumcision is therapeutic, no? I know that it's necessity or effectiveness is debated, but I don't think it would be sinful if done in good conscience for therapeutic reasons. Since Jewish people have kids, I am assuming it doesn't make one unfit for natural function...

As to eunuchs, off the top of my head, the Bible mentions those born that way and those made so by men. It also notes:

Deuteronomy 23:1
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

That's all I can think of. Do you know of a passage that says its ok to make people physical eunuchs?