The Church's Teaching On Contraception

[Dave]

I have talked with my non-Catholic mother about why contraception is wrong and why the Church teaches against it, explaining that it separates the procreative and unitive aspects of sex. However, she remains convinced that the reason why the Church teaches what it does is that it wants as many Catholics as possible. I can't believe my own mother actually believes such nonsense! How would I respond to that?

In addition, there was a seven-year period between the time my parents married and the time I, their oldest, was born. Between that time, my mom was on the Pill, which, as we all know, is abortifacient. I've often wondered if perhaps I had older siblings that my mom unknowingly aborted. :(

[Brother Adam]

A couple of things:

1) Tell your mom is she can verify (read: prove) what she thinks about the Catholic Church, you will gladly concede to it.

2) Which pill was your mom on? I've asked a couple of doctors about the different pills available, and not all of them are abortafecients.

[Jake Huether]

2) Which pill was your mom on? I've asked a couple of doctors about the different pills available, and not all of them are abortafecients.

Maybe I'm ignorant... Okay - I am ignorant... But specifically on this issue... Urrrr. Okay, I'll just post my thoughts.

I'm inclined to believe that this is one of two things:

1) a bold-faced lie.

2) an ignorant dr.

The third (but unwritten) option is that I'm the ignorant one (hard to believe).

I think all pills (being hormonal in nature) cause the uterus wall to become unaccepting of a fertilized egg (i.e. human!!!).

The way I understand it is that any "pill" will attempt to stop the sperm from reaching the egg via not allowing the egg to be there (right?). However, every once in a blue moon (depending on the dosage of the "pill", the egge will make it. But, simultaneously a secondary effect (and back up) is that the pill causes the uterus to not accept attachment of the human - ultimatly aborting the child.

Therefore, that dr. might have been referring to a high powered pill (high dose of hormones), which statistically causes the egg to be at the right place at the right time less frequently. Nonetheless (as small as a percentage as it may be) there are those blue moon incidents that allow the egg to be fertilized.

As I understand, NO pill, shot, or whatever (that involve hormon trickery) are EVER 100% abortion proof.

[jasJis]

I'm not an expert, but I've had a discussion with another on this. I was never able to garner conclusive unbiased information, but it seems many current BCP use hormones to upset a women's cycle to prevent ovalation. This type of pill also has the side effects of increased occurence of breast cancer, cervical cancer, high blood pressure, etc. I could not prove that they are also abortificant, but the side effects definitely were un-natural and were obviously intrusive to the natural health of a woman to the point the other person agreed it was harmful and devalued women to be just sex objects.

[Jake Huether]

JasJis,

I don't see how a pill could "upset the cycle" without necessarily also producing the "back up" abortion.

You see, it disrupts the cycle primarily focussing on not having the egg release. BUT simoltaneously this "disruption" in the cycle has also caused the uterus to shut down. The hormon used to fake out the egg is the SAME hormon that causes the uterus to shut down. So, if the uterus is shut down - if the egge does happen to be released, then the human is dead meat.

I don't know if they can disrupt JUST the egg part, without inadvertantly effecting the uterus.

But then again, I'm no doctor... But then again again even being a doctor doesn't really matter these days...

[jasJis]

If the egg never comes out, it never gets fertilized. If there's no conception, there's not person. No person, no abortion. It doesn't matter if the uterous is upset, that doesn't make it an abortion. The pill as an abortificant is only part of the story against the pill. Just the basic concept of artifical birth control should be enough.

[Jake Huether]

If the egg never comes out, it never gets fertilized.  If there's no conception, there's not person.  No person, no abortion.  It doesn't matter if the uterous is upset, that doesn't make it an abortion.  The pill as an abortificant is only part of the story against the pill.  Just the basic concept of artifical birth control should be enough.

True to a T! :D

My point was that BECAUSE it messes up the uterus, as part of the process of stopping the egg, in the event that the egg happens to escape nonetheless and is fertilized, then yes - it would inevitably result in an abortion.

And since ALL pills work on this principle (that I know of), and there is ALWAYS a small chance that the egg will make it to fertilization, then in no cercumstance is the pill acceptable.

[vianney]

Very true but I work in a pharmacy and pills can be used to help women who have serious ovarian sists. A good friend of mine has this problem and has gone through hell and back with it and the only way she can control the problem is with the pill.