not trolling

[Skripper]

There's clearly a line, though the line is not always clear. What is clear is that the woman and her husband should make the decision with the help of their priest and not take my word for it on a forum.

I think the difference here is that that cancer could kill her (or just injure her) whether she has sex or not, where the issue of a possible future pregnancy possibly causing problems is not nearly as clear a danger as a current cancer and it's only a problem if she gets pregnant, and even then, only a possible problem.

Good point. While I've heard of instances where another pregnancy can (even greatly?) increase a woman's risk of death, I've never actually heard of an actual, documented case where it was: "Get pregnant and you will die, guaranteed." Not saying this has never been the case, only that I've never actually heard a documented case of it. Yet this argument is, without fail, proffered every time this issue comes up. And even if this were actually the case, in like one in a million cases or whatever, it's not as though sterilization is the only option. It may be the most convenient option, but it certainly isn't the only option available. So why is this always offered as an argument?

 

[EllenMoran]

Abstaining from sex is one option. Abstaining from sex (with her husband, we are assuming) during her fertile times is another option. So is trusting in the Lord that he will protect her. IOW, the idea that her only three options are to abstain, die, or sin, is a bit too simplistic and not a full picture of the situation.

For our non-Catholic posters who may not be familiar with what you're referring to here, romecoming, I'm going to clarify a bit.

What's being referred to here (identifying a woman's fertile times and abstaining then) is known as "Natural Family Planning" - and no, it's *not* the rhythm method.

There are a number of different methods within NFP, but one of the most well-known is the Sympto-Thermal Method, in which a woman observes different symptoms of her body as well as taking her temperature each morning in order to identify whether or not she is potentially fertile. This method, when the rules are followed, is as effective for avoiding pregnancy as the Pill. In the original question, this method would be permissible for that Catholic couple because it respects God's natural design for our fertility.

If you want more info, the Couple-to-Couple League is a Catholic organization that teaches STM; Taking Charge of Your Fertility (Ovusoft software) is a completely secular version of NFP (and as such promotes some things that a Catholic organization would not, like the use of barrier methods during the fertile time). As a side note, I know of a number of non-Catholic women who were taught this method when they tried to get pregnant - since you identify when the fertile vs. infertile times are, it can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy.

 

[Combatchuc11]

Skripper: That's fine, but as I already said, the doctor told my wife's mom that she would probably die if she gave got pregnant again because the last time she almost bled to death, which was worse than the previous childbirth, which was worse than the birth before that. The problem is that her hips don't spread enough during childbirth. If you don't know what this entails, take your middle finger and your ring finger and try to spread them 10 inches apart. Anyways, the point of me saying all this is because I dislike it being implied that I'm exagerating or making something up. I came in asking a question to understand what catholicism taught, I read the through the links that were given to me earlier and just asked about the things I didn't understand. You on the other hand have popped in to attempt to discredit a useful question. Just because you didn't see the use in it, I've been learning this entire time. Please don't troll my posts.

 

[Benedicta00]

Skripper: That's fine, but as I already said, the doctor told my wife's mom that she would probably die if she gave got pregnant again because the last time she almost bled to death, which was worse than the previous childbirth, which was worse than the birth before that. The problem is that her hips don't spread enough during childbirth. If you don't know what this entails, take your middle finger and your ring finger and try to spread them 10 inches apart. Anyways, the point of me saying all this is because I dislike it being implied that I'm exagerating or making something up. I came in asking a question to understand what catholicism taught, I read the through the links that were given to me earlier and just asked about the things I didn't understand. You on the other hand have popped in to attempt to discredit a useful question. Just because you didn't see the use in it, I've been learning this entire time. Please don't troll my posts.

Then by all means she should not become pregnant again. But there are moral ways to go about that which does not include ABC or sterilization.

 

[Skripper]

Skripper: That's fine, but as I already said, the doctor told my wife's mom that she would probably die if she gave got pregnant again because the last time she almost bled to death, which was worse than the previous childbirth, which was worse than the birth before that. The problem is that her hips don't spread enough during childbirth. If you don't know what this entails, take your middle finger and your ring finger and try to spread them 10 inches apart. Anyways, the point of me saying all this is because I dislike it being implied that I'm exagerating or making something up. I came in asking a question to understand what catholicism taught, I read the through the links that were given to me earlier and just asked about the things I didn't understand. You on the other hand have popped in to attempt to discredit a useful question. Just because you didn't see the use in it, I've been learning this entire time. Please don't troll my posts.

Relax, friend. Not only did I not "troll" your post, I was responding to romecoming, with respect to something he had said to another poster, not you. Now, if the other poster to whom romecoming was responding was actually, somewhere down the line prior to that, responding to something you had actually posted previous to that, I assure you I wasn't even aware of it (sorry, I haven't read every post in the thread). Please read my post again, and I think you'll see what I mean. I wasn't even aware that you or your post was in the mix regarding my response to romecoming's post. Don't be so quick to jump to (in this case wrong) conclusions, okay?

 

[RedTulipMom]

Skripper: That's fine, but as I already said, the doctor told my wife's mom that she would probably die if she gave got pregnant again because the last time she almost bled to death, which was worse than the previous childbirth, which was worse than the birth before that. The problem is that her hips don't spread enough during childbirth. If you don't know what this entails, take your middle finger and your ring finger and try to spread them 10 inches apart. Anyways, the point of me saying all this is because I dislike it being implied that I'm exagerating or making something up. I came in asking a question to understand what catholicism taught, I read the through the links that were given to me earlier and just asked about the things I didn't understand. You on the other hand have popped in to attempt to discredit a useful question. Just because you didn't see the use in it, I've been learning this entire time. Please don't troll my posts.

Maybe i am not understanding, but if her hips don't spread enough during childbirth can she not then have a cesarean rather than vaginal childbirth? my mother had major complications while giving birth to twins (my sister and I). She also had a problem with her hips not spreading and when she gave birth to my brother they had to do a caesarean because of this. Her case may be different but ask the doctor is a caesaran would work. Also, as far as doctors saying you will die if you give birth again, that is the doctors opinion, it dont make it necessarily so. My mom was told that she would die if she gave birth again after my sister and I. When she got pregnant with my brother 3 doctors told he she better abort the baby or both her and the baby would die. She didnt. She continued on with the pregnancy, she had a casaerean and neither her nor the baby died. So doctors may say "you will die if you get pregnant again", but that doesnt make it so.

 

[Estefana]

But using NFP in a case where a pregnancy is going to cause death is simply too risky.

Also, I have never understood why Catholic Doctrine does not regonise that not everyone wants children.

 

[Benedicta00]

But using NFP in a case where a pregnancy is going to cause death is simply too risky.

That is why we trust God. If there was no risk- what would be the point of trust?

Also, I have never understood why Catholic Doctrine does not regonise that not everyone wants children.

It does, but it can not tell a lie- marriage was created to bring forth children.

This may be hard for you to understand at age 19 I realize, I was 19 too at one time but we are to rise above fallen nature, not give into it and live according to it.

It is selfishness that would tell a couple they do not want kids. The end of a Christian marriage is children.

 

[ABlindManSees]

Sorry to venture away from the topic, but I have a question that is similar, if a female has a problem that she cannot keep from miscarrying, (for instance the fertilized embryo won't attatch to the uteran walls) is it then alright to sterilize oneself? Is it consider moral to allow yourself to conceive over and over again and your body keep aborting? Or would it be adviseable to use NFP? I'm just curious as I've never heard of a standpoint, and perhaps there are drugs that could help, but then that brings another question of, if it is immoral to cause pregnancy via invetro and all that, is it morally permissable to use drugs to help you get pregnant, like in the case of having a progstrone deficiency?

 

[Estefana]

That is why we trust God. If there was no risk- what would be the point of trust?



It does, but it can not tell a lie- marriage was created to bring forth children.

This may be hard for you to understand at age 19 I realize, I was 19 too at one time but we are to rise above fallen nature, not give into it and live according to it.

It is selfishness that would tell a couple they do not want kids. The end of a Christian marriage is children.

I have always said that I want a couple of children when I have established a career and can support them. However, I am sensitive to the fact that not every woman feels maternal and wants to be pregnant.

I have a friend who falt out refuses to ever give birth to a child of her own when there are millions in an orphanage. I don't think that is a bad thing.

 

[EllenMoran]

But using NFP in a case where a pregnancy is going to cause death is simply too risky.

The only method that is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy is abstinence. Even vasectomies and tubal ligations have failure rates, much less the more frequently used barrier methods.

I'm not saying that that woman shouldn't seek to avoid pregnancy - just wanting to encourage accuracy in assessing the risk taken with all the methods being asked about/discussed.