Misogyny in Action

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

From the "Catholic" Usenet board.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004XpJ

Hi, I am just starting out in the RCIA program, and am wondering, are there any exceptions to the prohibition of birth control, such as in the treatment of abnormal periods? I have prayed and meditated, and just can't come to a spiritual answer. Any replies will be appreciated!

-- Fayancie (fayancie@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001

Answers

There are no exceptions when used for birth control purposes. However if a drug or treatment is used for another medical condition that has an unwanted and unintended contraceptive effect there is no moral conflict.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), February 03, 2001.

Translation: Sorry, Fayancie, you'll just have to suffer.

-- Paul Shipp (paullshipp@hotmail.com), February 04, 2001.

Fayancie: Br. Rich is quite correct when he says that you do nothing wrong when following the advice of your Doctor for medical purposes. If you remain in doubt I would recommend you see a priest for guidance to set your mind at ease.

St. James and Mary, Mother of all children including the unborn, pray for us!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), February 04, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jmj Hello, Fayancie. Thanks for asking this important question. Hi, Ed and Rich. I used to believe just exactly the advice you gave, but I recently learned that it is necessary to add further information, lest people make a serious mistake.

First, if a woman is not sexually active, she may use an oral, injected, or implanted contraceptive, for the treatment of a medical condition (e.g., the abormal periods to which Fayancie alluded). No problem there.

But what about if she is married and is having normal relations with her husband?

In that case, she must not use any contraceptive that could have an abortifacient effect (pill, injection, implant, IUD) -- not even under the "principle of the double effect," because the unintended secondary effect is so bad (death of an innocent, unbaptized baby) that it cannot be tolerated. One of the conditions used in judging an act with a "double effect" is this:

There must be a due proportion between the good that is pursued and the evil which can be foreseen to occur.

And so, in the case of a married, sexually active woman, there would be a lack of "due proportion" between "regulation of menstrual periods" (the good pursued) and "abortion" (the evil potentially done, even though unintended).

But let us suppose that someone is adamant in denying the truth that contraceptives can be abortifacient. In that case, one could still argue that there may be a lack of due proportion between the good (regulation of menstrual periods) and the other potential evil effects of common contraceptives (e.g., "the pill"). What am I talking about? Mrs. Judie Brown, head of the American Life League, points out that the book, "A Consumer's Guide to the pill," lists these potential side effects that hurt women: nausea, weight gain, excess bleeding, swelling, cervical or breast cancer, heart attack, blood clots, and even death. [In fact, even a single woman, not sexually active, must weigh these potential side effects in determining whether the use of "the pill" can be justified to "regulate her cycle."]

For all questions on Natural Family Planning, sterilization, contraceptives, and related topics, I do not hesitate to refer you to the NFP experts at the Couple to Couple League. They have a lot of experience in helping women to make their menstrual cycles more regular through means that are neither physically dangerous nor morally wrong. I hope that Fayancie will e-mail the Kippleys of CCL for further help.

St. James, pray for us.

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you. God bless you, Fayancie, and may he guide you smoothly through your RCIA program. Welcome home. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 04, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that care must be exercised to choose the most effective treatment with the least unwanted effects. Many who ues the drugs that have Contraceptive effects also practice NFP to reduce the risks.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), February 05, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jmj Funny that you should mention that, Rich.

Judie Brown recently replied to someone who raised that very idea (using contraceptives for "medical" reasons while practicing NFP). In her opinion (and mine), this is not morally acceptable. She quotes a Catholic "ob/gyn," Dr. Paul Hayes, as follows:

"Some would argue that a couple could use NFP in these situations and simply avoid relations on the days of fertility, thus making their actions consistent with the drug they are using. But I believe this to be in error, as the birth control pill will more frequently eliminate any signs of fertility making the use of NFP impossible. [Moreover] the birth control pill [can have] an abortifacient effect, putting any baby conceived at risk of death from the drug the woman is taking."

And so, since the use of the drugs is optional -- rather than necessary to save the woman's life -- it is not enough just to "reduce" the risk of killing a baby. It is only enough if she "eliminates" that risk. Consequently, if a married woman chooses to use contraceptives to treat a condition, she may do so only if she and her husband agree to complete abstinence from marital relations for the entire period of the treatment.

God bless you. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 05, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Consequently, if a married woman chooses to use contraceptives to treat a condition, she may do so only if she and her husband agree to complete abstinence from marital relations for the entire period of the treatment."

I don't agree with this personally. If there is some document from Rome to back this up I would love to read it. This is only my opinion. Some treatments for certain medical conditions simply have no defined "period of treatment" and continue for years and years. If this type of treatment allows a woman to have children at a later date and an alternative treatment will not. Then I believe that this would be morally acceptable. If a treatment might cause an abortion and it is the only remaining treatment. As long as everything is done that can be done to prevent an abortion from occurring. Then there is nothing mroally wrong with proceeding with the treatment.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), February 07, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jmj

To my knowledge, Rich, there is not yet a Vatican document that covers this specific situation. What I relayed was what I have found to be the opinion of orthodox moral theologians and ethicists who have taken the Church's general guidelines into account, applying them to the situation. I have heard the same opinion stated over Catholic radio and TV, and I also found the convenient quotation from Dr. Hayes that I copied above.

You stated: "If a treatment might cause an abortion and it is the only remaining treatment[, then as] long as everything is done that can be done to prevent an abortion from occurring[,] there is nothing morally wrong with proceeding with the treatment.

But "everything ... done that can be done to prevent an abortion" must include complete abstinence!

I think that what you meant, though, is this: "If a treatment might cause an abortion and it is the only remaining treatment, then as long as everything (except abstinence) is done that can be done to prevent an abortion, there is nothing morally wrong with proceeding with the treatment."

If that is what you meant, then I think that Dr. Hayes and Mrs. Brown have shown that to be mistaken. It seems that you are allowing for the possibility of a pill-induced abortion to take place after an unexpected/unintended pregnancy occurs -- in exchange for the benefits of a treatment for a condition that is not life-threatening. That lack of proportion causes the action to fail one of the double-effect tests. Only if the pill were being taken as a "medicine" to ward off death would the necessary proportion be present to tolerate an unintended abortion. (As I mentioned, I used to believe just as you do, until I grasped this crucial distinction.)

God bless you. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 08, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi John, You do make an interesting point with "necessary proportion" that I'll have to ponder. From another angle how do you see the "right of the spouse to marital relations" fit into this. Specifically if treatment is for non-life threatening disease and for 5 to 10 years?

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), February 08, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jmj

Hi Rich,

According to my understanding of the principles that others are advocating and that I have been relaying: (1) If a woman needed to take a life-preserving medicine or treatment that was also potentially abortifacient, she and her husband could share marriage acts freely.

(2) If a woman had the option to take medicine or treatment that could improve her physical functions (regularize periods), but that action was also potentially abortifacient, she and her husband would have to come to an agreement:

.......... He could agree to live with her as brother and sister indefinitely while she took the medicine/treatment.

.......... She could decide to forego the treatments, so that his rights would be satisfied. Through careful practice of NFP, they could space their children according to God's will, despite the periodic irregularity. And, as I mentioned to Fayancie earlier, the Kippleys and colleagues of the Couple to Couple League, based in Cincinnati, "have a lot of experience in helping women to make their menstrual cycles more regular through means that are neither physically dangerous nor morally wrong." I believe that they rely on special diets, natural medicines, and other factors that have had remarkable results.

(NFP experts also have perfected moral ways to help infertile couples have children. Just today, I read that one group -- I think the Hilgers folks in Omaha -- claims at least a 70% success rate, as compared to the 10-to-15% rate of "in vitro" fertilization clinics, whose work involves various immoral acts.)

God bless you. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 08, 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry. I didn't word one sentence correctly. I wrote, "NFP experts also have perfected moral ways to help infertile couples have children."

I meant to refer to couples who have long tried, but as yet have been unsuccessful in conceiving a child. These couples are not necessarily "infertile." JFG -- (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 08, 2001.



-- They Really Do Hate Women (check@it.com), February 12, 2001

Answers

Hey, I know, let's bash Catholics!

-- (RevSmiley@Crystal.Cathedral), February 12, 2001.

Old joke--

Q-If storks bring babies, what bird brings no babies?

A-Swallows

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 12, 2001.


And I thought I had seen some wacky stuff on the old original TB2K.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 12, 2001.

And hey, the swallows are returning to San Juan in March I think. yay

-- (cin@cin.cin), February 12, 2001.

First, if a woman is not sexually active, she may use an oral, injected, or implanted contraceptive, for the treatment of a medical condition (e.g., the abormal periods to which Fayancie alluded). No problem there.

But what about if she is married and is having normal relations with her husband?

In that case, she must not use any contraceptive that could have an abortifacient effect (pill, injection, implant, IUD) -- not even under the "principle of the double effect," because the unintended secondary effect is so bad (death of an innocent, unbaptized baby) that it cannot be tolerated.

This isn't Catholic bashing, it's women bashing. Stupid men telling women to ignore their doctors' orders.

-- Women Bashing (catholics@in.action), February 12, 2001.



Peeking into other people's forums purely for entertainment stinks and that's what this is.

Tell me TRDHW where does the hate part fit in? Is it kind of hating the unborn? Don't know any of those either.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 13, 2001.


I wonder if people from other forums post stuff from here and make fun of it?

-- I wonder (shrubby@evil.lizzard), February 13, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ