Justifying Contraception

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='sweetpea316' post='1877912' date='May 29 2009, 01:15 PM']Hmm...none that I can think of. Oftentimes the pill is prescribed as a 'quick and easy fix' and only masks problems, not actually identifying and fixing them. A good friend was having pains and her doctor tried to push the pill on her. She didn't want to take it, so went to a strict no-contraceptive doctor who ended up finding out that she has polycystic ovarian syndrome and fixed the actual problem![/quote]

So true.

although there is no actual fixing of the problem with PCOD/PCOS, there are other ways to treat the symptoms and control one's insulin and blood sugar levels (if that is an issue) and narrow the risk of cancer and other health issues in the future.

Edited May 30, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='musturde' post='1877852' date='May 29 2009, 11:34 AM']Birth Control is allowed in certain medical situations where the intention is not focused on preventing childbirth.[/quote]

True, however the reality is no medical situation is [u]treated[/u] by birth control.

And when birth control is prescribed it is prescribed to cover the symptoms and make them disappear. And the reality is there is always another way to cover those symptoms, if that is what the patient truly wants (which it shouldn't be). We should be seeking to be treated. Not have our symptoms covered up while still suffering from the same issue/disorder.

[quote]If that is true, could condoms be used if a spouse has a certain STD? In this case the intention is to prevent this STD from infecting the other person.[/quote]

No. It is not permissible.

Intimacy should always be open to life. When it is not, it is a sin.

Edited May 30, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1877073' date='May 28 2009, 02:39 AM'](As an aside: the Medieval toleration of prostitution: [url="http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/society/sex/prostitution.shtml"][u]http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_S...stitution.shtml[/u][/url])[/quote]

That's an interesting read... sounds like it leaves out a lot of details, such as the clarification Apotheon noted on the context of that quote from St. Augustine, but an interesting look into history nonetheless. They do note that the Church did not favor prostitution. At best, it was tolerated, but prostitutes were still encouraged to conversion by entering marriage or religious life. Hence, it's not like the Church took an official position of toleration... that seems to be more like society's position on it.

Also, it's very difficult to draw a comparison between prostitution and contraception. Prostitution is committed publicly by people who take it up as a "vocation" of sorts because their entire lifestyle and identity centers around their trade. Contraception is committed privately and women don't draw an identity from contraception as one does from a career or trade.

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1878201' date='May 29 2009, 10:13 PM']Also, it's very difficult to draw a comparison between prostitution and contraception. Prostitution is committed publicly by people who take it up as a "vocation" of sorts because their entire lifestyle and identity centers around their trade. Contraception is committed privately and women don't draw an identity from contraception as one does from a career or trade.[/quote]

Yes, that's true, but the point is certain sins were tolerated. Maybe there is an in between, where we can acknowledge the sin of contraception and still tolerate it?

Btw... it seems many have forgotten that there is barrier contraception (i.e. condoms), so it would leave all the talk about the Pill a moot point.

[mcts]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1877875' date='May 29 2009, 12:22 PM']It can destroy a womens sex drive, leading to a lifetime of "not tonight dear, I have a headache". Its thats not a negative emotional consequence I don't know what is...[/quote]

Apparently one of the hormones released during sex is supposed to get rid of a woman's headache


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1877899' date='May 29 2009, 12:58 PM']This is a good question...but I feel you couldn't compare the two situations because the woman using birth control for medical reasons can't help having those medical problems whereas the spouse with the STD could have prevented that from not having sex.[/quote]

you can get STDs without ever doing anything wrong.


[quote name='RemnantRules' post='1877949' date='May 29 2009, 01:50 PM']I understand HCF, and I have had other women tell me pretty much what you have described.
But acne and menstrual cycles can be observed and monitor through other routes than just giving Birth Control. How is it different though? I understand in that the intent of taking the pill for those women are not intending to prevent pregnancy, but to help certain symptoms. Yet, the overall purpose of birth control pills is to prevent a pregnancy, even abortification, I can't see it being justified. As a male, hypothetically, if they told me that they could improve my acne and certain testosterone issues, but the prescription is intended to make me impotent or unable to produce children, I couldn't justify taking it.

God Bless[/quote]

If you're on the pill, your cycle can be regulated so there isn't buildup and stuff because if it gets bad enough, the effects can be permanent and you can never get pregnant.

[musturde]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1878180' date='May 29 2009, 09:38 PM']True, however the reality is no medical situation is [u]treated[/u] by birth control.

And when birth control is prescribed it is prescribed to cover the symptoms and make them disappear. And the reality is there is always another way to cover those symptoms, if that is what the patient truly wants (which it shouldn't be). We should be seeking to be treated. Not have our symptoms covered up while still suffering from the same issue/disorder.



No. It is not permissible.

Intimacy should always be open to life. When it is not, it is a sin.[/quote]

I'm finding it hard to believe this logic.
NFP is allowed but condoms are not.
Although some argue that people who practice NFP are still open to having children, I think this claim should be re-examined.

Let's take these two following websites as sources. If someone finds something more credible, please post it.

[url="http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/women/contraceptive/126.html"]http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/ho...eptive/126.html[/url]
[url="http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/condom.htm"]http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/condom.htm[/url]

Familydoctor.org claims that NFP is 90 to 98 percent effective while the latter site states that condoms are 85 to 98 percent effective. If this is true, the condom is less effective than NFP. Therefore, since both of these methods prevent pregnancy, why should we allow one over the other? If we allow one, why should we allow the more effective one? I'm having trouble understanding how someone with knowledge that both of these methods don't work 100% of the time can not use both of these methods and still be open to having children. In both situations, the goal is to reduce the chance of impregnation. Also, condoms would provide more safety if one of the members has an STD. How can NFP be justified and condoms not in this case?

Edited May 30, 2009 by musturde

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RemnantRules' post='1877900' date='May 29 2009, 06:01 PM']someone please help clarify for me how using birth control kills certain infections and/or help a woman that other medications couldn't do?[/quote]
There are some cases where a problem is truly hormonal, and thus needs to be treated with hormones. For example, some forms of endometriosis are exacerbated by oestrogen. That doesn't necessarily mean taking the Pill, but perhaps some hormonal treatment is warranted in a case like that. I would venture to say, though, that the majority of problems "treated" with the Pill do not warrant that "treatment".

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1877908' date='May 29 2009, 06:08 PM']It has nothing to do with infections but the woman's menstrual cycle and hormone levels. For example, some women go on birth control because they get severe hormonal acne before or during their monthly cycle. As for the menstrual cycle, some women's monthly cycle is not the typical 5-6 days but 2-3 weeks. I am in no way advocating taking this pill, I have heard plenty of things against it, but these are the reasons why a women goes on it. It really shouldn't be called "the birth control pill" in these instances because it is DIFFERENT that the real birth control pill.[/quote]
As I found out (after I'd been put on the Pill to "fix" my heavy, painful, irregular bleeding), there is a non-hormonal treatment for that, and I found that it worked well. I think it was called Mefenamic Acid. Anyway, I was told that that's the option for treating dysmennorhea & menorraghia for those who are opposed to hormonal treatments.

[quote name='musturde' post='1878352' date='May 30 2009, 07:22 AM']I'm finding it hard to believe this logic.
NFP is allowed but condoms are not.
Although some argue that people who practice NFP are still open to having children, I think this claim should be re-examined.

Let's take these two following websites as sources. If someone finds something more credible, please post it.

[url="http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/women/contraceptive/126.html"]http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/ho...eptive/126.html[/url]
[url="http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/condom.htm"]http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/condom.htm[/url]

Familydoctor.org claims that NFP is 90 to 98 percent effective while the latter site states that condoms are 85 to 98 percent effective. If this is true, the condom is less effective than NFP. Therefore, since both of these methods prevent pregnancy, why should we allow one over the other? If we allow one, why should we allow the more effective one? I'm having trouble understanding how someone with knowledge that both of these methods don't work 100% of the time can not use both of these methods and still be open to having children. In both situations, the goal is to reduce the chance of impregnation. Also, condoms would provide more safety if one of the members has an STD. How can NFP be justified and condoms not in this case?[/quote]
The issue isn't the effectiveness, it's the how & why of it. If NFP were only 10% effective at postponing pregnancy, that would still the only moral option of spacing births where that is justified. If condoms were only 10% effective they would still be immoral. This is because condoms seek to circumvent the couple's fertility, thus interfering with the procreative aspect of sex. It also inserts a barrier between the couple, thus interfering with the unitive aspect of sex. If a woman is charting, she simply has knowledge of when she is naturally more or less fertile. If the couple chooses to abstain during the fertile time because they have just reasons for postponing another pregnancy, their sex is still unitive and procreative, because they have done nothing to their bodies to prevent conception should it occur, even though conception is less likely at that moment. The couple's knowledge of the woman's cycle can also be of help when they are trying to conceive, since they would know when she is fertile.

[mamalove]

It truly does lie in intent. NFP can be abused if it is used without a grave reason. If you are postponing pregnancy because you want to by a new boat/big screen tv/ fancy car, ect., then you are in the contraceptive mindset making NFP not much different than using a condom. IMHO, using NFP with a contraceptive mindset might be worse. It's a deceptive and manipulative way to get around church teachings. But, when used properly, it is a wonderful gift to couples and families. Edited May 30, 2009 by mamalove

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='mamalove' post='1878393' date='May 30 2009, 10:53 AM']

It truly does lie in intent. NFP can be abused if it is used without a grave reason. If you are postponing pregnancy because you want to by a new boat/big screen tv/ fancy car, ect., then you are in the contraceptive mindset making NFP not much different than using a condom. IMHO, using NFP with a contraceptive mindset might be worse. It's a deceptive and manipulative way to get around church teachings. But, when used properly, it is a wonderful gift to couples and families.[/quote]

The whole "grave reason" is always debated over in NFP discussions. It makes me feel as if Catholic couples who have enough money to support a child but have just gotten married and are adjusting (if they are both psychologically and emotionally healthy there is clearly no "grave reason" here) should abstain from sex entirely or should come together sparingly, since using NFP during this time would probably constitute "abuse."

[musturde]

[quote]The issue isn't the effectiveness, it's the how & why of it. If NFP were only 10% effective at postponing pregnancy, that would still the only moral option of spacing births where that is justified. If condoms were only 10% effective they would still be immoral. This is because condoms seek to circumvent the couple's fertility, thus interfering with the procreative aspect of sex. It also inserts a barrier between the couple, thus interfering with the unitive aspect of sex. If a woman is charting, she simply has knowledge of when she is naturally more or less fertile. If the couple chooses to abstain during the fertile time because they have just reasons for postponing another pregnancy, their sex is still unitive and procreative, because they have done nothing to their bodies to prevent conception should it occur, even though conception is less likely at that moment. The couple's knowledge of the woman's cycle can also be of help when they are trying to conceive, since they would know when she is fertile.[/quote]

Basically the only difference between the two to me is that the condom is less natural. Is that the real argument? If so, then it makes more sense. Also, if condoms are not 100% effective, then the procreative aspect is only diminished, not destroyed. Correct? If that is true, to a certain degree NFP must diminish the procreative aspect to a certain degree as well. No matter how natural the process may be, the intention remains. If a poor family can't afford another kid, why would it matter which process the family used if both of them diminish the procreative aspect? Is it just that NFP diminishes less?

The STD problem hasn't fully been answered. Do people not know or is the real answer that the other person must have unprotected or no sex in that situation? I was always taught in theology class that as long as the protein went in the right place, you're a-okay on whatever you do. Therefore, I guess someone could use a condom, take it out and go long distance. I'm being serious. Would this be sound?

Edited May 30, 2009 by musturde

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='musturde' post='1878431' date='May 30 2009, 05:10 PM']Basically the only difference between the two to me is that the condom is less natural. Is that the real argument? If so, then it makes more sense. Also, if condoms are not 100% effective, then the procreative aspect is only diminished, not destroyed. Correct? If that is true, to a certain degree NFP must diminish the procreative aspect to a certain degree as well. No matter how natural the process may be, the intention remains. If a poor family can't afford another kid, why would it matter which process the family used if both of them diminish the procreative aspect? Is it just that NFP diminishes less?[/quote]
I don't think condoms are prohibited simply because they are less natural. It is a very real barrier between the spouses. And even if they weren't effective at preventing pregnancy at all, they'd still destroy the procreative aspect of sex because the intent is to circumvent your fertility and have sex without "consequences". Whether or not the couple is successful in not conceiving is irrelevant, since they are clearly trying to make sure they don't conceive. And they are doing this not by working with the natural times of fertility and infertility, but by deliberately trying to sterlise the sex act. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, so to speak.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1878399' date='May 30 2009, 04:20 PM']The whole "grave reason" is always debated over in NFP discussions. It makes me feel as if Catholic couples who have enough money to support a child but have just gotten married and are adjusting (if they are both psychologically and emotionally healthy there is clearly no "grave reason" here) should abstain from sex entirely or should come together sparingly, since using NFP during this time would probably constitute "abuse."[/quote]
Or they could use NFP to conceive. Charting just gives the couple an awareness of the cycle.

[musturde]

Well what if someone's just too lazy to do NFP and has procreation in mind if the condom decides to mess up? The thing is, if people know that condoms are LESS effective, then what would be the harm in using them if the spouses were both as open to procreation as they would be if they used NFP. There is a barrier, I understand that, but by using NFP, one is only having sex on the days that a woman is much less likely to get fertile. Therefore, just by using NFP one is hindering procreation and putting an "invisible" barrier between himself and his spouse. With this train of thought, I would be against NFP as well.

Also, std question not answered .

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='musturde' post='1878474' date='May 30 2009, 06:19 PM']Well what if someone's just too lazy to do NFP and has procreation in mind if the condom decides to mess up? The thing is, if people know that condoms are LESS effective, then what would be the harm in using them if the spouses were both as open to procreation as they would be if they used NFP. There is a barrier, I understand that, but by using NFP, one is only having sex on the days that a woman is much less likely to get fertile. Therefore, just by using NFP one is hindering procreation and putting an "invisible" barrier between himself and his spouse. With this train of thought, I would be against NFP as well.[/quote]

How on earth would it make sense to use a condom with the intention of it failing? Or are you meaning that they'll be welcoming to life if the condom happens to fail? Either way, the purpose of a condom is to circumvent the couple's fertility and to prevent pregnancy. That alone impairs the procreative aspect of sex.

NFP means that a woman is charting her signs of fertility, and the couple then decides whether to abstain or not during the fertile phase, judging by whether they have just reason to postpone pregnancy. It is a sacrifice, and there is no barrier in place during intercourse. One is not rendering the sex act sterile, they are simply not engaging in sex. I'm sure it's possible for NFP to not be the best if there's excessive abstinence, but in most cases that would not be the case. And of course it must be a mutual decision, and there is a lot of communication.

[quote name='musturde' post='1878474' date='May 30 2009, 06:19 PM']Also, std question not answered .[/quote]
I am not a scholar on that. My personal view is that a condom still would not be allowed, but I do not know if that is always the case.

[musturde]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1878496' date='May 30 2009, 01:04 PM']NFP means that a woman is charting her signs of fertility, and the couple then decides whether to abstain or not during the fertile phase, judging by whether they have just reason to postpone pregnancy. It is a sacrifice, and there is no barrier in place during intercourse. One is not rendering the sex act sterile, they are simply not engaging in sex. I'm sure it's possible for NFP to not be the best if there's excessive abstinence, but in most cases that would not be the case. And of course it must be a mutual decision, and there is a lot of communication.[/quote]
Alright that makes more sense. Thanks.