I am not sure if Catholics are against birth control pills or the intention of using birth control pills. I’m guessing that it would make sense if it were the latter rather than the former, because I don’t think the pills are intrinsically immoral. They are just pills. And they work hormonally. Maybe they may be used as a prescriptive drug.
The hormones in oral contraceptives are not intrinsically evil and may have some therapeutic uses. However, the practice of artificial contraception has always been considered immoral by Christians.
Read the prophetic Humanae Vitae if you have not done so.
Enviromentally, the water is being polluted with estrogen. It will cost trillions of dollars to update the water filtration system to Accomodate this.
I first heard about the pollution when exposed to a playboy artical that my then boyfriend was freaking out about because he was using steriroids and worried about estrogen levels counteracting his testosterone manipulations. Shortly there after, I came across a catholic publication that was more scientific about the enviromenal issue. I thought to myself, “Hell must be freezing over if playboy and Catholics are fighting the same cause …”
Here is a more recent Fox News link you can explore : foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/23/water-pollution-caused-by-birth-control-poses-dilemma/
(I’ve got more points … But ill do new reply’s for these )
In the 2005 world health organization named the birth control pill as a group 1 carcinogen along side with radium, asbestos, & cigarette. 30% increase of breast cancer due to BCP.
It’s scary to know this fact and see the Susan G Kolman Foundation (Breast Cancer) fund an organization that is a cause for breast cancer. Foundations like these are such money makers that I dought they truly want a cure … And their funding of PP confirms my suspicions.
Catholics are against all birth control, not just the pill.
I can’t find the artical, but I’m “Psychology Today” they cover how the BCP contributes to divorse via the olfactory When women meet a man and they are on BCP they are attracted physically to men similar to their dads, and brothers. This is because dads and brothers provide protection and familiarity when a woman is pregnant; the BCP makes the woman’s body to act pregnant … Women seek their mate based off smell … They will pick men similar to dads and brothers when on the BCP. This will be fine until they go off the BCP later in life and many of these women in the study say they cannot stand the smell of their husband.
This is the most I can find of that artical: vaginapagina.livejournal.com/12574528.html
BCP is a type of abortaficant. This is resulting in women who don’t recognize that an egg has been fertalized overriding the implantation (onto the utterious). Did you know that when fertilization takes place that the baby must travel seven days to the womb? During this time, a chemical is sent out which tells the mothers body to stop menestration. The BCP will stop this message and override the baby’s communizations resulting in the baby being flushed down the toilet?
The marriage act perfectly as God created it will inspire the couple to be faithful, in fidelity, trusting, and open to life. When couples do this they are inviting God into their marriage. We must also surrender our fidelity, faith, trust, and life to God first, spouce second, and self third to experience this love as God wishes to bestow onto us.
IMO from a secular and moral point of view YES I say the BCP is evil.
The use of any artificial means to regulate fertilization or to eliminate the possibility of fertilization is grave matter. That runs from “coitus interruptus” to tying the fallopian tubes (or vasectomy in the case of males).
If you read Humanae Vitae or study the early Wednesday audiences of Pope Bl. John Paul II (popularly known as the “theology of the body”), you will recognize that the rationale behind that is the act separates the unitive and procreative dimensions of conjugal love and makes it a dysfunctional act. Rather than an act of total self-giving, it becomes hedonistic and ego-centric.
In addition to the injury done to the individuals involved, there are negative societal implications to so many people adopting a “self-love” attitude in their lives.
Group 1 just means that it’s a known carcinogen and doesn’t indicate whether the item causes a small or large increase in cancer rates. Sunlight is also a group 1 carcinogen.
30%? No. The NIH notes that there is an increased rate of cancer in women who use oral contraception, but it’s small enough that research is being done to see whether this increase is due to the OC formulation or the screening of women used in studies concerning breast cancer and OC use.
And the evidence is there that oral contraceptives do reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.
So does having kids. Some studies show that women that have 3 or more children have a 50% lower chance of ovarian cancer without the environmental impact or raised risk of other cancers. Having a pregnancy after 35 also appears to lower the risk.
Just because there is an accidental possitive side effect does not mean that its use is a good thing.
Catholics are pro-technology that investigates the root of fertility and hormone abdormalities. I confess that my bias against the pill started at 19 when I had a stroke and was hospitalized for a week. The hospital never said it was a stroke, but the campus clinic did unofficially said under their breath that it was a stroke and advised I stay off the BCP. I was obedient and stayed off the BCP. After college many years later I was experiencing heavy flow and painful cramps. I went and saw an ObGYN and he recomended I get on a low dose of BCP. I told him my whole story about the college episode “stroke” and he said that was not relevant, wrote me a prescription and sent me on my way. I tried it for a few weeks and notices sensatitaty to light so I stopped taking the BCP and lived with the heavy flow and pain. It seems to me the BCP has made many OBGYns lazy. I did figure out how to stop the heavy flow on my own … I stopped using artificial sweateners due to a diet that said to. No artificial surgar, normal flow … Added in artificial surgar and got the bad flow and cramps. This is all before I became interested in God, Catholosism, and technology.
Since OP tied in hormones into the original question, I wanted to give a place that will provide more than a prescription because a while back I wanted more help from the professionals. Check out the Paul Vi institute for more information: popepaulvi.com/about.htm
Strictly speaking, if an action is sinful, then the intention to do the action is sinful. It is not sinful to use medication to treat a medical condition that would have an unintended side effect as an artificial contraceptive. From Humanae Vitae (1968, Pope Paul VI):
[FONT=Times New Roman][size=3][LEFT]***Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)
[/size][size=3][FONT=Times][size=3][FONT=Times New Roman]size=3 See Pius XII, Address to 26th Congress of Italian Association of Urology: AAS 45 (1953), 674-675; to Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395].
[/size][/size][/FONT][/FONT][/size][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][size=3]vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html[/size][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][size=3]
It is against Church doctrine to use any artificial means to prevent pregnancy. That does not mean the use of pills for medical purposes is not allowed but where the primary reason to take them is to prevent pregnancy that is forbidden
There ARE significantlyelevated levels of estrogen related chemicals in the waterways these days. But it’s not what you think. Let’s do some fun math. There are 300 million people in America. Assume half are women, that about 40% of those are in the fertile and sexually active years and that 70% of those are on the pill. Im sure that’s WAY overestimated, but that way we’re conservative. So 42 million pill users at about 27 real pills a month constituting about 1 oz of actual hormone total per month. If that’s right, we’re dumping 31.5 million pounds of estrogen into the environment (probably less) a year.
Sounds like a lot? The USA has about 3.5 million square miles of land area and 264,000 square miles of water (lakes, streams, etc). Assuming an average water body depth of 8 feet we have 3.67 x 10^15 pounds of water. So each year we dump enough estrogen to pollute our water supply to 0.0000000085 estrogen. Or 8 parts per billion in the water. Total annual rainfall varies, but is over 35" on average meaning we turn over more than half the surface water.
By contrast when a woman pops one pill it is 0.0023 pounds of estrogen and if she’s 150 pounds and 80% water, she’s got a blood concentration of .00002. About 2,200 times the concentration in the water from pills. And all this assumes ZERO breakdown of the estrogen in the woman’s body, sewage treatment plants and in the environment.
Sorry, the pill isn’t causing fish sex changes and all the other hooha. If anything, it’s the plastics industry that utilizes chemicals similar to estrogens. You could argue that drunks in New Orleans the night of Katrina peeing off the levee contributed to the levee overtopping and destruction of the city. Technically that might be true since they DID add slightly to the water level on the upside of the levee. But it wouldn’t be accurate to say that the effect was significant. Same thing with the pill and natural water supplies.
Postnote: The above are rough estimates, not highly researched figures. It’s ballpark check, not a thesis paper.
Oh, yeah the topic. Contraception is immoral, not the materials used to achieve it. Materials are just materials.