“Open to life” means that if they have sex they can’t do anything to prevent pregnancy but there is nothing that says they have to have sex.
Artificial Birth Control doesn’t kill a child.
It prevents pregnancy.
If it killed the fertilized egg, it wouldn’t have the failure rate it has.
Yes. but to use abc is contrary to charity.
the woman is supposed to die for the child. It is a sacrifice of herself for the child and is likened to Jesus dying on the cross for us.
this argument that is taking place (if you want to call it that) boils down to two points of view.
the woman’s right point of view
What God did for us point of view
No, she’s not. The child cannot be directly killed but treatments can be given directed at the mother that will indirectly kill the child.
I’m speaking in terms of when it is an option b/w the woman’s life and the child’s life. conception has already occurred.
I certainly have, they both know, but I’m the younger brother and 16 years younger, they are almost in their 50’s.
I still pray for them because other than that they are pretty solid Catholics on the issues.
If the woman has conceived, the fetus can not be directly destroyed, even to save her life. This would be a “direct abortion.”
They can do other procedures where the fetus may not survive, but this is referred to as an "indirect abortion,: which is licit.
My post addressed that. If no treatment that does not directly kill the child are available then the mother will die, but in general treatments directed at the mother are allowed, even if they will kill the child.
While the situation is difficult, the answer in accord with Catholic doctrine is not.
That is certainly false. It is at times wise and proper to avoid becoming pregnant. Then comes the matter of how one will do that. Temporary abstinence (per NFP) is a moral means given the premise (that just reasons to avoid pregnancy exist).
The right answer is as the Deacon stated. Everything after “but” added confusion. Adopting NFP for just cause is not what the expression “being open to life” seeks to oppose. The last sentence above reflects on a real and difficult consequence.
The problem that comes to mind is, what happens if the same woman ends up getting a hysterectomy because of her medical condition ?
Do her husband and herself have to stop having sex ?
The answer is, no
Not sure I am following you. There are certainly assertions that some (if not all) “pills” have a secondary mode of making the uterus unsuitable for implantation, and thus see fertilised eggs die. I’m not qualified to assert the facts on this myself.
The drug manufacturers have refuted this.
They’re claim is that it stops contraception, not implantation
True, but how does that pertain to the circumstances of the thread?
I think that’s because they, themselves, are “open” to it.
Open to an impossibility ?
A woman without a uterus can not get pregnant.
I agree with you. I’m just trying to come up with a Catholic rationale as to why it would be o.k. for them to have sex even when it’s not possible to conceive.
Nor can a woman a certain number of days from ovulation. Nor one in menopause. I am missing your point.