Catholic Church crucified dor birth control pills, now look


#1

The RCC has been crucified for years saying that a women should not use birth control pills. Nothing New, after all what gives them the authority to tell us what to do.

So okay now for years The Church condemns it because of course the word of God says no.

Now the who was right God or the world. It is said a women who has taken them for 5 years or more have a good chance of getting brain tumors. Wow!

But could it be once again GOD is right MAN is wrong?


#2

Let’s be accurate in our assertions.

Five women in 100,000 who use the pill would be expected to develop a brain tumor. That’s not “a good chance” and it is a lower risk than complications from pregnancy.


#3

To add, those stats include all danish women, not just the ones whom took birth control for 5 consecutive years.

…the study couldn’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship between hormonal contraception use and risk for glioma

The report went on to say American women between 15 - 44, it comes to about 8.5 cases per million.

I understand your vehemence in condemning birth control, but one must consider all of the facts of a study.


#4

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2921840/Why-sperm-counts-falling-Contraceptives-drinking-water-chemicals-plastics.html

Here’s one of many good reasons the CC was right above


#5

I am just putting it out there buddy, what was just said on the news yesterday.

It said women who have used birth control for 5 years or longer are at greater risk.:shrug:


#6

“Greater” being a relative term.

I am just saying that our arguments are more persuasive if they are accurate and precise. “Greater risk” is not “a good chance.”


#7

Some football stadiums hold 100000 people. So, I’ll let you pick from the college teams with stadiums over 100000 capacity
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
Texas A&M
LSU
Alabama
Texas

Now, none of those are my favorite, but lets choose Bama.
If every game I went to there was a random drawing and they shot people from 5 seats on the field. should I go? Would you? Or would those odds be too “good of a chance” of getting picked?
5
people
every
game


#8

I think book worm’s point is that if we are going to argue against birth control, we have to do so with truth. Even in such a case, 5 people is not a “good chance”. It’s important to be accurate because people will not respond to BS.


#9

Since this is posted in Moral Theology, the is the argument that it’s immoral for someone to take steroid hormones because they can carry the risk of developing brain tumors?

If yes, it’s reasonable to expect a similar outcry over people who take antipsychotics that can cause potentially fatal hematological disorders. Or people on anti-obsessive agents that can lead to suicidal ideation. Or chronic pain patients who are on medications that can lead to liver failure. Or the people with lupus and/or rheumatoid arthritis who manage their conditions with medications that can cause cardiomyopathy. Where’s the moral outrage over these medications?

Almost all medications carries the risk of side effects, a lot of them very serious or potentially fatal, for themselves and for others. (There’s a cardiac med that so frequently causes people to get dizzy or faint that cardiologists routinely pull the drivers licenses of their patients on it lest they pass out behind the wheel.) If we’re going to argue the immorality of one class of drugs based on their potential for fatal side effects, we have to argue the immorality of being on lots of medications. Except we don’t.


#10

But, using your analogy, suppose five people are shot walking down the street outside the stadium, hit by a bus, or struck by lightening because they DIDN’T go to the game. Would you now go to the game?

Doctors say that the health risks of pregnancy are greater than the risks of a brain tumor from BC pills.

If you use inaccurate or false claims to prove a point, you do more harm to your argument than good.


#11

I have seen a lot of off topic red herrings on these boards but that one is clever…

you took the analogy too far…:wink:


#12

This is the part that doesn’t sit well with me.

It’s about the same as God saying, “I told you so! I told you not you use birth control pills, and you went ahead and did it anyway. Now you’ve got a brain tumor. Well, don’t come crying to me about it.”

The prohibition against artificial means of birth control was made because it violates the uniative and procreative aspects of sex, not because birth control pills, which were invented thousands of years later, would carry unintended medical risks.

Generally speaking, I wish people would quit seeing negative consequences to our behaviors as punishments from God.


#13

ABC is banned because it prevents a husband and wife being open to life. It is not banned because there might be a subsequent health risk which in your example is pretty small anyway.


#14

I understand why you posted what you did, I was not trying to attack you. But when you use the words you did it skews the message of the study.


#15

The problem is, as others have stated, is that most if not all medications can cause nasty side effects. And in greater numbers than what you have shown here.

Does that mean that “again GOD is right MAN is wrong?” And we shouldn’t take ANY medication?

Or does it simply mean that medications can cause side effects? User beware.

Or do you believe that the side effects from ABC are punishment from God? And if so, how is that different from side effects from other drugs?


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.