Medical use BCP with marital relations

That I already responded to. As well, I’ve already posted my references by priests and respected apologists. I kind of feel like I’m just repeating myself at this point.

It appears it’s just you and me again!

Oh well. No worries. Over time perhaps others will come to contribute.

Take it easy Aleii and have a nice weekend!


you as well

Look, we are free as catholics to take advantage of medical advancements to make our quality of life, and health, better. Some women have crippling pain. You can’t know until you’ve spent a week with your head in a bucket vomiting from the pain, laying in a bed, white as a sheet and shivering violently, and threatened job loss from taking too much time off work (a week a month). Now granted, I didn’t help anything by starving myself for 2 years, but still. Medical treatment allows me to lead a normal life.

If all your nurse P or doctor has to offer in the face of those symptoms is COCs, please, please, find more medical professionals to assist you! This is a fine example to make the point of my last post. Doctors are overprescribing birth control pills instead of getting to the bottom of the issue.

Now, ALL medicines have side effects. Look at your bottle of over-the-counter pain killers. Those can cause organ damage and even death. Does this mean we should boycott it as a death pill? Some people abuse them to kill themselves. Should they be outlawed as poison? Or can people take them for the use for which they are intended?

Combination oral contraceptives do not have abortive side effects. They were created with the purpose of 1) to prevent ovulation and 2) to prevent the new human from connecting to the mother and living. This wasn’t an accident. Furthermore, this then brings many questions to bear: such as, why not just choose a birth control pill that is NOT a COC?

What is a side effect of hormonal “birth control”? Infertility. That is how anyone taking it for medical reasons sees it as. It’s a side effect. A rather sucky one at that. I can’t have kids until I’m 24-25 because going off it and having a natural period will be…well, hell. It’s better for me to wait until my doctor assures me that it would be so bad.

Many, many other therapies, hormonal replacement therapies, surgeries, etc exist. Please take charge of your health and research various options! Relief from pain and healing is possible for many women.

About the abortion thing. The point of the drug is to thin your endometrium. This is how it works to treat endometriosis. However, the birth control effect PROTECTS women on it from unintended abortion. To just thin the endometrium without preventing ovulation guarantees an abortion. If you take your pill at the same time EVERY DAY your chances of ovulation are lower than .01% (this is on the box and from my doc.) So women in my postion set alarms and take it at the same time every day to do all we can to avoid anything like that from happening.

Again, why the requirement to take a COC? Single-hormonal BCPs such as Provera or Progestegin can be MUCH more helpful in alleviating painful symptoms.

Lastly, “abortion” happens on NFP too. Even with couples TRYING to conceive. Not every fertilized egg implants. MOST do, but not all. This is unintended by the couple. Same with ABC I dearly pray that if any life is created by my husband and I, s/he survives. I would love nothing more than to discover i was pregnant. It wouldn’t be the first time someone got preggers on the pill. I know at least 5 kids born despite BCP, and I know there are more. Bascially, if you want to call a woman on BCP for medical reasons causing “abortions” you have to call any woman who has had a miscarriage or non-implantation case, abortive. IT. IS. UNINTENTIONAL.

I chose to respond to your post because of this above quote. This is terribly, terribly misleading and incorrect. An abortion is a deliberate attempt to kill a pre-born human. A miscarriage is a natural death of the pre-born human where the mother is unable to stop it or unaware of it happening.

Again, it is not new medical information that combination oral contraceptives were created with a specific purpose in mind. People were getting pregnant on birth control pills and this was a problem, so synthetic hormones had to be added to prevent the human from surviving. This brings up the success rate of the BCP.

So before you write inflammatory statements accusing women with DEBILITATING MEDICAL PROBLEMS of being killers, really think about what you are saying. I am sick of myself and others feeling like second rate citizens because we were born with a medical problem. It’s no different that getting in the face of a woman being treated for cancer and therefore infertile (or deadly to any fertilized egg) because she is “killing her children”. :banghead:

Again, I urge you to look into various medical institutions and organizations for cutting edge therapies, new medical treatments and doctors with second opinions. I am sure there are others on this forum who can direct you to organizations completely committed to women’s health issues. Please don’t give up in finding a healthy, safe therapy for you and your existing or future children.

It’s easy to apply rigid and formulaic rules to other people. The Church is not so rigid. This is the kind of decision that has to be made case-by-case by a couple and their spiritual advisor, not something that can be declared moral or immoral in a blanket manner by anyone here.

I think there are a few points on both sides going unacknowledged.
In reading the Apologists, Michelle Arnolds post is exemplerary in showing how perspective taints the decision being made.

The problem isn’t solved by going to see a single priest confessor.
I could use explicit antecedant, but I will simply say that my experience shows that many priests have the same difficulty interpreting what a person coming to ask advice is actually saying.
(No, I am not just speaking about myself being difficult to undersand – tho that would be a funny comeback!)

So general statements from Apologists, whether priestly or not – are perhaps easy targets to take out of context. But the subtlety of double effect, or choosing the lesser evil (colloquially), makes it well worth discussing – because this is how even the good are lead astray.

Take for example the end of Michelle Arnolds answer:

The tragic fact is that a startlingly high number of pregnancies are lost, sometimes without any knowledge of the parents that there ever was a pregnancy, and even when contraception is not used. Given this naturally high pregnancy-loss rate, if using a particular drug, for legitimate purposes, heightens that ratio somewhat …

I am struck first how this statistic is often used by abortion proponents to say the life isn’t “worth” anything yet.
Clearly, though, Michelle doesn’t think this way – yet here she is quoting an argument which I could take as “If they are dying anyway – what difference does reducing the chance of their survival make?”

But I think what she is really trying to say is that the church hasn’t been able to find a clear way to express the proper teaching either way yet – and so is remaining silent rather than committing to what may be in error.

Her point (I think) is that every sexual act whether contracepting or not poses a risk to the future fetus. But I do know that Michelle was uncertain of how much the “pill” affected the statistic.
( I am uncertain too – but I do understand that non-cocktail doses of the pill and depo are not usually abortaficient for they suppress ovulation. I also could be wrong… I am not a doctor; and even if I were I haven’t personally verified the studies. )

However, I do know that the “cocktail” doses of hormones were researched specifically to abort – and this was in practice even before RU486 was developed specifically to cause abortions. So the “pill” can be used in multiple ways – not all of which MIchelle was addressing in her comments.

Consider the case of an infertile couple – what if they are infertile because the fetus simply can’t implant? A genetic defect, or hormonal deficiency in one of the spouses might make it such that all their children are miscarried – those hormones are required to keep the baby alive. Yet I wouldn’t argue that the children are any less human because they die – nor that increasing the odds of thier death is a good thing.
But an infertile couple may be ignorantly doomed to miscarry every child they conceive, yet that can’t be a sin. Nor do I accuse God of willing this – it is simply the nature of there being truth, law, order, and freedom. Of being incarnate.

But I do sympathize with Aaronlgates about the alternative method being a duty when such is possible. I also am very uneasy about the comparing of the weight of the different “sins”. But I do think that in a forum setting, working out specific cases – rather than generalities is better at preventing miscommunication. Aaron has been working on the issue of “what is the value of life” vs. “the maimed life” and this I think is a very strong point.

I also would like to note, that doctors are sued (even irrationally sometimes, othertimes NOT) when maimed children come into the world – so that in the unethical (and severely tempted) secular world, sometimes abortion may seem like a better gamble in self defense. Utilitarianism.

Aaron, I admire your zeal, and I might even agree technically with your statement, but I will to broaden the perspective a bit. “We” as baptized have been given “death”, and through the resurrection we are now also children of God (not just servants), and we are also children of the promise.

We have not “earned” anything, but we do deserve what God has promised because of what he has already given must be Glorified not put to shame. So, technically, Lord give us not what we have deserved, but what you have promised.

:slight_smile: Yes, and if he didn’t get it the first or second time, something new definitely needs to be added to clarify the problem. Quoting apologists can be easy ventriloquism… :wink:

Bingo! :thumbsup: I remember take a class at a med university where the guest speaker really hit the spot on this one. He was advising us on insurance methods and how to protect ourselves financially and career-wise from lawsuits. Early termination of the pre-born human was openly promoted as a simple and cheap alternative to a lawsuit or possible complications post-delivery.

The liability of a doctor is greviously confused in our country, and sadly, many doctors cave into a desire to simply protect themselves without regard to a patient’s health, or even life.

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