Imagine a woman warned by her doctor to refrain from having a fifth pregnancy for medical reasons. She decides to use natural family planning (NFP). Will the bishops of CBCP and their allies question her decision?
Certainly not. As early as 1951, Pope Pius XII in his Allocution to Midwives specifically accepted medical reasons as a justification for birth control. He said:
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned.
Now imagine another woman with exactly the same medical reasons who chooses contraceptive pills. To be consistent with their own teachings, one would expect the bishops to simply say: right reason, wrong method. But no, they are now on a war path and have branded the use of contraceptives as treating pregnancy like a disease. In their desire to destroy the status of contraceptives as medicines and its value to public health, it seems they are willing to stigmatize pregnancy prevention as inherently immoral.
In his “contraception is corruption” speech, Archbishop Villegas said: “A contraceptive pill is to be considered an essential medicine. If it is a medicine, what sickness is it curing? Is pregnancy a sickness?” Weeks later, Senator Enrile echoed the same line: “In the case of a contraceptive pill, is pregnancy a disease that needs to be cured? Why do we need to prevent it?”
Sure, pregnancy is not a disease. But pregnancy and childbirth can lead to diseases or injuries. Even bishops must be aware of this fact, which makes their argument sound so contrived. The World Health Organization has a whole chapter listing such diseases and injuries in its International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Obstetricians exist to prevent or treat these conditions.
If the bishops of CBCP and the anti-RH camp are not yet convinced that they are stirring up double standards in morality, they should try asking this to any user of NFP: “Is pregnancy a disease to be cured? Why do you need to prevent it?”
A double standard in law is also being pushed by the anti-RH camp. The claim that medicines must cure a disease, or must not prevent normal bodily functions like pregnancy is not supported by our laws.
Anti-coagulants and contraception
As far back as the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1963, drugs have been defined as articles intended “for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease,” or “to affect the structure or any function of the body.” The above phrases are retained in the latest version of that law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Act of 2009. And in case the anti-RH camp will try to claim that medicines are different from drugs, they should read the Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008 which defined drugs and medicines the same way, and included “drugs and medicines indicated for prevention of pregnancy, e.g., oral contraceptives” as part of the “List of Drugs and Medicines that are Subject to Price Regulation.”
Many substances classified as medicines without any controversy expose the hollowness of the “pregnancy is not a disease” argument. Blood clotting or coagulation is not a disease. Yet we have anticoagulant medicines, commonly used to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes. A functioning immune system is not a disease, yet we have medicines that suppress the immune system, a standard fare to prevent organ transplant rejection. Having gastric acid is not a disease, yet we have antacids to manage indigestion.
People do choose to avoid normal or even desirable activities to prevent possible future harm. I’m pretty sure even bishops and anti-RH campaigners do it. We avoid too much sun; avoid too much food; avoid too much reading; avoid crossing streets when overpasses are available. When the path towards harm is clear enough, stigmatizing people who steer away violates plain common sense. Unless the bishops have another brand new standard of common sense.
Double standard in action is my final beef with the “pregnancy is not a disease” argument. In that memorable August 16 Headstart episode [1], TV host Karen Davila asked Senator Tito Sotto if his wife has had a tubal ligation, and this in part is what he said:
She has to be ligated. Because, yes, because she had, how many pregnancies. … She had four cesarean operations. … So, pagkatapos noon, sinabi ng [obstetrician], “You have to be ligated.”
A few minutes before in that same interview, when asked why he was against the RH Bill, Sotto’s first response was to attack the status of contraceptives as medicines. This is what he said:
Medicine is supposed to be, must cure something. What does a condom cure? What does an injectable cure? What does an IUD cure? So they’re not medicines, they’re not essential medicines.
A tubal ligation is of course a contraceptive medical procedure, not a medicine. But women fearful of the health consequences of another pregnancy, whether using condoms, injectables, IUDs or tubal ligations to prevent the next one, would surely be hurt by the senator’s loaded questions. Sotto attacked the health benefits of contraceptives and admitted to using the health benefits of a contraceptive procedure. The double standard is simply stunning. Perhaps Sotto should answer Enrile’s core concerns: “Is pregnancy a disease that needs to be cured? Why do we need to prevent it?”
[1] All quotes taken by the author from the video.
Images by Alex Brown and anqa, used under the Creative Commons license.
The following are excerpts from Humanae Vitae and the Cathechism of the Catholic Church addressing the issue of Natural Family Planning and Serious Motives:
If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions… [Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 16]
For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2368]
And explained by Fr. Richard Hogan NFP Outreach:
Serious motives, just reasons, proportionately serious reasons. The Church teaches the necessity of just or serious motives or reasons for couples to use the infertile periods of a woman's cycle for the purpose of spacing births. In doing so she is trying to insure that the natural methods of spacing children are used in a virtuous and loving way, i.e., unselfishly. Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving "from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions" (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.
The key word is selfish. A husband or wife refusing to have children for selfish reasons (won't be able to play golf, won't be able to drive a Porsche anymore, boobs will sag, gain weight, whatever) is deemed morally wrong notwithstanding use of NFP. Unselfish reasons could be high risk pregnacy, poverty, finacial hardship, medical illness.
IN response to HDE:
A dying person allowed to die naturally but given pain medications for COMFORT versus a dying person given lethal doses of drugs to purposely end his life.
Student A studies, gets 100; student B cheats gets 100.
Both examples had the same end (as you said about NFP v. AFP) but there's obviously something wrong.
What makes the examples different, and NFP from AFP for that matter, is the intent and means.
Lastly, treat is different from cure. Not all treatments are intended to cure or result in a cure. Treat may mean to provide comfort, palliate, prevent hence the qualification ("Medicines are given to TREAT/CURE a disorder.") But I stand by my premise that it's for a disorder. Why do we give anesthesia (accupuncture/drugs) is because of a disorder. Pain while naturally occuring is again a result of a disorder (burn, fracture, surgical procedures, etc). Vaccines are again used to treat (prevent) an illness that will cause the body to not function properly (again a disorder). Similarly, you talk of using drugs/meds to decrease the risk … of a disorder. The key is disorder ,whether naturally occuring or artificial, that causes the body/organ/cell/person to not perform how it is intended to.
This may not be satisfactory but I hope this makes it clearer why I find no double standard from the bishops.
@Pinoyindy:
Perhaps you didn't see my previous comment below clarifying what ARM meant by the RCC's double standard, so allow me to restate the argument here:
According to the RCC:
1. Natural Family Planning: OK for prevention of pregnancy
2. Contraception/Artificial Methods: NOT OK for prevention of pregnancy
The RCC also keeps on asking the rhetorical question, "Is pregnancy a disease? (If not, why prevent it using contraceptives?)" So the standard used for their objection towards contraception is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented. But if you apply the same standard (i.e., the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented) to natural family planning, NFP should also be unacceptable. But why is NFP acceptable to the RCC? Are they using another standard/premise that makes them conclude that NFP is okay? If so, there is a double standard.
@Pinoyindy:
Can you address Innermind's query? It's the short version of my point re RCC bishops double standard.
Re: definition of medicines, you avoided my point that our law considers mitigation or prevention or even just affecting the structure or any function of the body as enough basis to classify a substance as a medicine. Your narrow definition will have this strange consequence: Viagra for erectile dysfunction is a medicine, while contraceptive pills to avoid maternal deaths is not.
It seems we are going in circles.
Let's establish 2 facts.
1. Pregnacy is not a disease. Is this clear and acceptable to all? If not then we should all be treating all pregnant women.
2. Contraceptives are drugs. No one disputes this.
To paraphrase the bishops, why use drugs on a condition which is not a disease. How are you avoiding maternal deaths with the use of contraceptives? Do all/most pregnancies lead to maternal deaths? True a pregnancy can become complicated but it's a risk a couple accepts to have children For the majority, pregnancy is uneventful. If truly pregnancy is discouraged because it is considered high risk for an individual then why engage in an act that could result in pregnancy and therefore morbidity. Pregnancy is not the problem but the couples' reluctance to practice abstinence. Contraception is available, why not? And if contraception fails, no problem terminate the pregnancy.
In the developing world, complications from pregnancy can be preventive by better peripartum care not by preventing pregnacies. Of course, if you follow the argument that pregnancy kills mothers then achieving 0% pregnancy will definitely account for 0% pregnancy related maternal morbidity/mortality. But then again, that's the death of mankind. Contraception as preventive care is but a guise for population control. Who is this directed to anyway? The poor who keeps on having 10 children that they cannot feed or educate. So those affluent couples who even w/o contraception have only 2 offsprings because of marrying late or careers are not even prescribed preventive contracetive pills. If pregnancy is really the problem then might as well give all sexually active girls contraception just like a vaccination.
Is natural family planning a medicine/drug? Pregnancy is not a disease. Natural Family Planning is not a drug. Not a disease = Not a drug. Why compare a drug (contraceptives) to nondrug intervention (NFP) for a NORMAL natural process (PREGNANCY). Where is the double standard?
Why wouldn't the bishops advocate a nondrug intervention for a condition that is normal?
Pregnancy is NOT a disease, so why prevent it at all? Take note that the issue here is prevention per se, not the method of prevention (natural or artificial).
To drive my point, consider type 2 diabetes. It is a disease, right? But is prevention limited to the use of drugs/medicines? No. In fact, it is "naturally" prevented by a having a healthy lifestyle (i.e., proper diet and exercise). Nevertheless, we try to prevent it by whatever means available. This means that your "not a disease = not a drug" does not follow, because "disease = not a drug" applies to the prevention of type 2 diabetes.
Going back to pregnancy, why does the RCC allow natural methods of prevention while at the same time condemning artificial methods? If your standard is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented, you have to condemn all means of family planning – natural or artificial. But if you condemn one but not the other, then you are employing a double standard.
Innerminds
You agree that pregnancy is not a disease then why are we still arguing why it should be treated with medicine. Your comparison of pregnancy and diabetes or any other disorder does not hold water because they are apples and oranges.
Start with the premise of disease. We already had a lengthy discourse on what treat and cure are. Treat may mean prevent, palliate, comfort, cure. Modalities may include pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention. In diabetes one is treating a disorder. Pregnancy on the other hand is not a disorder. Can you name me a condition that is not a disease/disorder that you treat with a drug?
We keep on going back. This was what I said on my initial post: "Double standards from politicians, yes but perhaps not so much from the church. The church's stand on contraception has been consistent for 2000 years. It is morally wrong from the church's standpoint because it's aim is to thwart the natural process of life. It is radically different from antibiotics, immunosuppressants anticoagulants vaccines whose function is to correct or prevent a disorder." NFP is not aimed to frustrate the process of life. Nature provided the schedule whereby a woman can get pregnant. NFP is mainly following/ adhering to nature's design. If nature had wanted a woman to be pregnant with each copulation then it would have designed the woman to be constantly fertile. Is NFP in any way going against nature? Is it trying to frustrate the programming built-in in a woman’s body.? No. Again it is conforming with nature. No matter how accurate science is now, it is still going along with nature. In the future we probably could pinpoint the exact time a woman is fertile, still it will be in conformity with nature. Technology is used to enhance cooperation with nature. On the contrary, artificial contraception is clearly, clearly going against what nature intended. So why is it double standard to advocate for the means/method that nature has provided.? Did the bishops or the Church make up a woman's reproductive cycle? How can the bishops condemn something inherent in nature?
Also this important caveat seems to have been missed (see previous post for details): " Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love." "The key word is selfish. A husband or wife refusing to have children for selfish reasons (won't be able to play golf, won't be able to drive a Porsche anymore, boobs will sag, gain weight, whatever) is deemed morally wrong notwithstanding use of NFP. Unselfish reasons could be high risk pregnacy, poverty, financial hardship, medical illness."
A contraceptive mentality is deemed morally wrong whether NFP is employed.
The bottom line is the church is merely proclaiming what it holds as the truth to all of mankind, whether christians or not. Truth is truth irrespective of time, place, creed, ethnicity. The church is duty bound to proclaim the truth especially when the truth is perverted. As with anything, man has free will. To practice contraception or not will depend on one's choice and conscience. If it is such a personal choice why legislate it. Why use public funds for something that is so personal and promote it as a preventive health initiative?
[You agree that pregnancy is not a disease then why are we still arguing why it should be treated with medicine.]
I am not talking about treatment, but prevention, particularly why the RCC allows couples to prevent pregnancy at all regardless that the only prescribed methods are the natural ones.
[Your comparison of pregnancy and diabetes or any other disorder does not hold water because they are apples and oranges.]
Both pregnancy and type 2 diabetes can be prevented using natural methods (heck, I still haven't heard of a healthy person trying to avoid acquiring type 2 diabetes by taking drugs). Which means that a condition doesn't have to be considered a disease for it to be prevented, and that prevention doesn't necessarily mean taking drugs. Which means that the RCC's argument that pregnancy is not a disease does not hold water. You are focusing too much on the "cure" and "treatment" aspect. I am not arguing about those things. I am arguing about prevention.
As for the rest of your comment, I have already answered those issues at length in an article I've previously written titled "Why the Church Allows Natural Birth Control (But Not Contraception)." If you don't mind, I would like to direct you to that article and perhaps we can continue our discussion there:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/20/why-th…
Still think pregnacy and dM are in the same boat, eh?
DM is a disorder. A person with the tendency to develop this disorder may try nonpharmacological methods but metformin, a drug is used at times to prevent the development of DM in those with just glucose intolerance.
Pregnancy is not a disorder.
I don't think the question is whether you can or can't prevent a normal condition. Any thinking person knows one can attempt to stop anything. It may not always be succesful but man has always tried to to alter any condition. The overlying question is, does one ought to prevent pregnancy with a drug?
I think the overlying question (and the one I keep on asking to show the double standard of the RCC) is not whether pregnancy ought to be prevented with a drug, but if it should be prevented at all. Whether with natural birth control or contraception, the intent is the same: to prevent pregnancy.
Anyway, to answer your question about whether or not one ought to prevent pregnancy with a drug, my answer would be, why not? If a couple wants to enjoy sex during the woman's fertile period (when she happens to feel sexiest and horniest) without getting pregnant, they ought to use contraception. But I know you will never agree with me because unlike me, you hold the premise that Humanae Vitae is God's word, not to mention that God exists in the first place. Fortunately, we live in a secular country, or at least that's what our Constitution says, meaning we don't have to refer to Humanae Vitae when crafting our national laws.
It finally came out. We've been going around in circles. You should have just said so in the first place instead of trying to be objective.
That's fine if you see it that way. Like I said it's a personal choice consistent with one's conscience. Just don't promote it as a health initiative. If one wants to use contraceptives then by all means go pay for them. The secular laws you speak of should be equal in its protection for those against and for contraception. It should not require institutions against it to promote it as public health.
Fortunately, secular laws are not divorced from morality and ethics. Unfortunately for you, you live in a predominantly God believing country and so teachings such as Humane Vitae will always come up when morals, ethics, and truth are perverted.
What do you mean "instead of trying to be objective"? Were my arguments not objective? Kindly explain why you think so.
[Just don't promote it as a health initiative.]
Why not? If the WHO and the FDA deem contraceptives as effective to prevent reproductive health risks caused by closely-spaced pregnancies, why should the government not promote them as a health initiative?
[It should not require institutions against it to promote it as public health.]
Which institutions are you talking about? If you're referring to our DOH and baranggay health clinics, they are mandated to implement our laws, so if we have an RH law that promotes contraceptives, they are in no position to go against it. By the way, the RH bill does not really "promote" contraceptives but merely seeks to make the option available to poor couples who can't afford them. If these couples prefer NFP for whatever reason, an RH law will not force them to use artificial methods. But if you're talking about the RCC or other "pro-life" institutions or even private hospitals, the more they are not required by the RH bill, if it becomes a law, to "promote" contraceptives.
[Fortunately, secular laws are not divorced from morality and ethics.]
I agree. But even more fortunately, the RCC does not hold a monopoly on morality and ethics.
[Unfortunately for you, you live in a predominantly God believing country and so teachings such as Humane Vitae will always come up when morals, ethics, and truth are perverted. ]
And who determines whether morals, ethics, and truth are being perverted? Surely not the RCC – unless the morals and ethics you are talking about are CATHOLIC morals and CATHOLIC ethics, and that the "truth" you're referring to is the RCC's dogma which it 'claims' to be true. Fortunately for me, jurisprudence expanding the constitutional separation of Church and State says that "the morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular" and that "public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms."
Who ever said the Catholic Church has a monopoly on morals and ethics?
Your words , not mine.
Why wouldn't the Church? It's well within its purview. The truth of the natural process of life was not manufactured by the Catholic Church.
There is no need to argue about the separation of church and state. That's good. More importantly, the constitution allows freedom of religion. God forbid, the Philippines ends up like North Korea. You may not appreciate it but the Church even fights for you. Be thankful, nonetheless.
We've gone back and forth. It was fun. Ciao!
[Who ever said the Catholic Church has a monopoly on morals and ethics? Your words , not mine. ]
Okay, good. At least you made it clear that you don't believe the RCC has a monopoly on morals and ethics.
[The truth of the natural process of life was not manufactured by the Catholic Church.]
Of course not, but the Church is claiming to have received divine revelation on this natural process of life.
[We've gone back and forth.]
Not really. First, I've noticed that you no longer tried to refute my assertion that the issue is not whether pregnancy ought to be prevented with a drug, but if it should be prevented at all. Second, by saying, "Who ever said the Catholic Church has a monopoly on morals and ethics?", you saved us a lot of time that would have been spent trying to argue whether or not the RCC does have a monopoly over morals and ethics. So I don't think we've gone back in forth. In fact, we're nicely moving forward.
//Like I said it's a personal choice consistent with one's conscience. Just don't promote it as a health initiative. If one wants to use contraceptives then by all means go pay for them. The secular laws you speak of should be equal in its protection for those against and for contraception. It should not require institutions against it to promote it as public health. /
Indeed.
Why should self-righteous godbots pay (in tax money) for a health initiative that is contrary to their superstitions, despite the overwhelming evidence from the medical community proving that said initiative works?
If the end is all you are after, why stop at contraception. Surely forced sterilization will get you better results. Science will surely back that up.
But, even w/o religion that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I wonder why?
Fairytale or not, there is freedom of worship according to conscience.
//Unfortunately for you, you live in a predominantly God believing country and so teachings such as Humane Vitae will always come up when morals, ethics, and truth are perverted. //
Speaking of perversions of "ethics and truths," my friend… http://www.michaelnugent.com/2011/07/20/bishop-ma…
http://www.irishtimes.com/indepth/cloyne/index.pd…
//The Commission is satisfied that both Bishop Magee and
Monsignor O’Callaghan positively misled Mr Elliott on the question of the existence of an admission of abuse//
So what's the point again? Surely you're not insinuating that this is the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church?
Prosecute the bishop and the monsignor if they have done wrong!
//Pregnancy is not a disorder. //
And yet it can be lethal.
http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives
Playing sports can be lethal. Driving to work can be lethal. What's your point?
safety gears for sports. safety gears for driving. they reduce the risk of fatality in those activities.
what's the equivalent in pregnancy? that's the point.
natural methods do have their place. it's like saying to an athlete or driver "hey dude, be really careful." or the favorite "I'll pray for your safety."
though we don't solely rely on this in reality. we always back up with our handy dandy instinct that we need some technology – just to be more sure, just in case that being careful is not enough.
innovative thinking is far to those who cling to fundamentalism.
//Pinoyindy: It seems we are going in circles.//
Maybe. But rational discourse is fine and the possibility of something good coming out is always there.
//1. Pregnacy is not a disease. … If not then we should all be treating all pregnant women.//
Yes, pregnancy is not a disease. But you missed considering the health benefits of pregnancy spacing for all mothers and future infants. WHO recommends at least 2 years from the last birth before getting pregnant again. Full breastfeeding or LAM is effective at birth spacing for up to 6 months only. So after every birth, at least 1.5 years exist where a family planning method–natural or artificial–is medically indicated for ALL women.
//If truly pregnancy is discouraged because it is considered high risk for an individual then why engage in an act that could result in pregnancy and therefore morbidity. Pregnancy is not the problem but the couples' reluctance to practice abstinence.//
You're focusing too much on the "high risk." Based on my previous answer, the alternative you suggest means abstinence for at least 1.5 years for ALL couples with a previous child. Fine for those who can, but surely those who can't must be given other options.
//2. Contraceptives are drugs. No one disputes this.//
Archbishop Villegas, from the article above: “A contraceptive pill is to be considered an essential medicine. If it is a medicine, what sickness is it curing? Is pregnancy a sickness?” Note that he is not contesting the "essentialness" of the pill (that is another debate). He is clearly disputing the pill being classed as a medicine.
//And if contraception fails, no problem terminate the pregnancy.//
If this is an automatic response from women using measures to avoid a pregnancy, then the same can be said for those using natural family planning (NFP), which also fails. And since NFP methods (other than full abstinence) have higher failure rates, then your assertion implies that the more NFP users we have, the more abortions will occur. If you say that those on NFP have different values than those on other methods, you are foisting another double standard, and implying that NFP cannot be successful as a widespread program.
I'll stop here so our exchanges do not get too long and unwieldy.
ARM
“So after every birth, at least 1.5 years exist where a family planning method–natural or artificial–is medically indicated for ALL women.”
—You make it sound as if this is mandatory. Recommendation, yes. Precisely this is where the difference is. One can alter one’s behavior (education, education, education, discipline, self control) to effect the same result without spending a centavo (probably not – you have to buy a thermometer) or accruing unhealthy side effects.
“Based on my previous answer, the alternative you suggest means abstinence for at least 1.5 years for ALL couples with a previous child. Fine for those who can, but surely those who can't must be given other options.”
—If that’s how you understand NFP , i.e., abstaining for 1.5 years then truly it’ll be very difficult for most. That’s almost asking married couples to be celibate. The woman has significantly more infertile days than fertile days. NFP recommends abstaining during the 7 days the woman is fertile. Have at it for the 23 days (includes menstrual period, Yikes!!!) except in February. “Must be given other options.” One forgets motion begets motion. One of the things contraception removes from this equation is responsibility.
//And if contraception fails, no problem terminate the pregnancy.//
If this is an automatic response from women using measures to avoid a pregnancy, then the same can be said for those using natural family planning (NFP), which also fails. And since NFP methods (other than full abstinence) have higher failure rates, then your assertion implies that the more NFP users we have, the more abortions will occur. If you say that those on NFP have different values than those on other methods, you are foisting another double standard, and implying that NFP cannot be successful as a widespread program.
Please be careful about generalizations and treat statements in context. There was no mention of an automatic response of every couple practicing contraception. The example was that of couple whereby pregnancy is truly discourage because of health reasons. This last one you forget that the main argument against contraception by the church is that it is intended to thwart life. The premise is that this is not open to life. NFP is open to the possibility of life. Two opposing mindsets are at play here. It is assumed that if a couple were to space births or limit children using NFP, the same couple are open to the possibility of pregnancy. The reverse is true with a contraceptive mentality (EMPHASIS no matter if it is NFP). That's why it is called UNWANTED pregnancy. It is more open to abortion. Those advocating for contraception contend that this leads to less unwanted pregnancies and therefore to less abortion. However, studies and reality do not bear this.
Just an aside abstinence as a widespread program has been shown to decrease the spread of AIDS in Africa. To say that behavior modification or lifestyle changes are not suitable as a health program implies man is a brute no different from dogs.
When Archbishop Villegas disputed the classification of contraceptives as drugs (are you conceding he did so?), he asked things that can be answered by science and laws. “What sickness is it curing? Is pregnancy a sickness?” The article above was focused on that, not on intent and mindsets that you are arguing now.
Your paraphrase about what the bishops mean, which I don't buy, doesn't make sense either. You said “Why use drugs on a condition which is not a disease?” Replace the words drugs and condition with what we are talking about and you get this: “Why use drugs developed and licensed to prevent pregnancy on pregnancy which is not a disease.” Quick replies if this is what the bishops mean. One, contraceptives are used before, not on pregnancy. Two, why on earth not?
Some thoughts on your mindsets points. From what you said, the RCC teaches that NFP users may have acceptable intent/mindset (“open to the possibility of life”), or unacceptable ones (“contraceptive mentality”). RCC acceptability is not inherent to the method.
Like NFP, all contraceptives have failure rates–pregnancy and life develops despite perfect use. Standard good medical practice requires educating all FP users–natural or artificial–about this possibility. What the user will do next, being “open to life” or not, depends on the mindset of the user, not on the method of FP being used. The generalization you make about contraceptive users is insulting, even if you did not intend it to be so. The term “contraceptive mentality” is in itself insulting and a double standard, because it implies that all contraceptive users have some sort of a negative mindset, while NFP users may or may not have that mindset.
The RCC's arguments on “contraceptive mentality” are in the realm of morality and religious beliefs which many other faiths and people do not subscribe to. Intent and mindsets are often difficult to handle with laws. We can't read minds. Knives are legal. Stabbing someone with it is not. Using it for cooking is. I suspect that Archbishop Villegas shifted to the medical argument to develop secular-sounding points against the RH bill.
(Minor points: I did say “WHO recommends” and never meant mandatory. Re abstinence, I thought you purposely dropped the qualifier “periodic” since you were referring to high risk women, akin to Pope Pius XII's guidelines to use “continence” in Allocution to Midwives. I do know what NFP means; the two of us are just used to different terminologies.)
You are absolutely right. Only God can read what is in someone's heart. I already said in the previous post that the bishops can only preach, not only to catholics but to everyone. Truth is truth regardless of time, space, creed, ethnicity. In the end though it's up to the person to make a choice consistent with his conscience. Whatever the true intent of the person is, only God truly knows. Insulting or not. It is the truth. Contraception by its very name is already negative. Contra – against which is life. If one is truly open to the possibility of life why use a method that is meant to negate its process? Convenience, assurance, fear ? Whatever it is, for certain there is a reason.
The link between contraception and abortion has long been recognized even by proponents of contraception. Malcolm Potts, the former Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said in 1979, “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” The Journal Contraception in its January 2011 issue just showed the same.
@Pinoyindy, to summarize, your position is: contraceptives are medicines but must not be used on pregnancy because of religious reasons.
Truth is truth regardless of creed, time, space, place, ethnicity, etc. I sound like a broken record already.Truth is the same even in North Korea.
but our definition of "truth" is miles apart.
to the religious, truth is God. regardless of evidence, regardless of statistics, hence – the definition of faith. complete trust without the dependence on any rational proof.
this view of things i call as an atheist "crazy reasoning". truth is still out there – nobody could claim it through influence, above everything else any old fantasy book purely for entertainment.
define truth and we start from that.
//The reverse is true with a contraceptive mentality (EMPHASIS no matter if it is NFP). That's why it is called UNWANTED pregnancy. It is more open to abortion. Those advocating for contraception contend that this leads to less unwanted pregnancies and therefore to less abortion. However, studies and reality do not bear this.
//
…because the alternative, abstinence-only birth control – has been proven to be so effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies!
Not.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/13/516255…
//Just an aside abstinence as a widespread program has been shown to decrease the spread of AIDS in Africa. To say that behavior modification or lifestyle changes are not suitable as a health program implies man is a brute no different from dogs. //
While it's true that the AIDs program was successful in Africa because of an increased awareness in the benefits of abstaining, you're leaving out the other two important components of the anti-AIDs policies being taught there: Be Faithul, and use Condoms; the proverbial ABCs of AIDs prevention.
http://www.badscience.net/2010/09/the-pope-and-ai…
Not so fast Twin Skies.
Washington Post
March 29, 2009
In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."
So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks — or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.
Edward C. Green
Dept. of Population and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins University. Previously senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Double standards from politicians, yes but perhaps not so much from the church. THe church's stand on contraception has been consistent for 2000 years. It is morally wrong from the church's standpoint because it's aim is to thwart the natural process of life. It is radically different from antibiotics, immunosuppressants anticoagulants vaccines whose function is to correct or prevent a disorder. In the case of the woman with medical contraindications to pregnancy, becoming pregnant is not the disorder, as you yourself agree with. If one's health is so bad that becoming pregnant could be fatal, why risk becoming pregnant in the first place. Oh yes, because there's contraception anyway. As you said, "People do choose to avoid normal or even desirable activities to prevent possible future harm." But as with anything there's a right and wrong way of doing things. And there is the problem with man as well, they don't always choose to avoid harmful behavior. Picture someone with lung problems on oxygen but continues to smoke, someone with cirrhosis who continues to drink, a 400 lb person who continues to eat 10 Jollibees per meal.
Doctors are taught to "first do no harm". Current technology affords us the ability to do things that were not possible years ago but still we don't always do things just because we can.
X may lead to Z. X is a natural process. Z is a disorder. Examples of X include blood coagulation, a functioning immune system, pregnancy. Examples of Z include strokes, organ transplant rejection, pregnancy disorders.
Using NFP to regulate births (X), to avoid pregnancy disorders (Z) is ok to the Vatican. Why then are CBCP bishops asking "Is pregnancy a disease" when debating RH? This is the double standard these bishops are doing now. Why don't they simply say that preventing pregnancy for medical reasons is acceptable, but the Vatican allows only certain methods.
I held back from touching on the reasonableness of Vatican's birth control method distinctions. There is already an excellent article on this site, if you want to debate that point. Here: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/20/why-th…
the idea of "thwarting the natural process of life" can be applied to all medicines and vaccines. Taking up any cure from an illness thwarts what should be natural, that is – being sick, and taking God's will of giving you a trial, a health risk that is.
so why allow some man-made treatment to cure God given trials then? if that's the church's standpoint and yet hypocritically allows some synthetic drugs at work, then that's where the double standard kicks in.
When we talk of the natural process of life we refer to the natural process of procreation, which artificial contraception is intended to frustrate. Medicines are given to treat/cure a disorder. Although diseases are naturally occuring, it is nonetheless a disorde (not the proper/natural function). Chemotx is given for,say, lung cancer because the cancer is preventing the proper function of the lung which eventually will kill the person. Surgery is used to remove a diseased organ because it is preventing the proper or natural function of the body. Steroids are used for a disordered functioning of the immune system, an inflammation that again is preventing the natural function , let's say of the lungs as in asthma. Now you may say steroids are used to enhance physical strength by normally functioning athletes. Well that's exactly the reason it's frowned upon. Last I heard it's banned by athletic sanctioning bodies not just because it's not natural, it's deemed as cheating and also because of untoward health side effects.
I'm not even sure God intentionally gives us diseases. At least not since the days of Moses. That would be another topic of discussion.
FYI this is the stand of the Church re: Artificial contraception (Cathechism of the Catholic Church)
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. (HV 14)
I don't see any double standard. I, personally, don't take any medicines unless I'm sick. One doesn't even need vitamins unless there's a deficiency. Does one have to take a preventive drug such as aspirin to prevent heart attacks or stroke if one doesn't have plaques in the arteries? I don't think so.
"Medicines are given to treat/cure a disorder."
This is simply your personal definition. It is not supported by our laws, which has a much broader definition than yours. Contraception is recognized as a therapeutic category/indication. If you succeed in removing contraceptives from our medicines list, then what do you propose doing with them? Ban them? Let them in the market without any testing/certification by health authorities? Let the DTI handle them?
"I, personally, don't take any medicines unless I'm sick."
A personal choice, based probably on your personal definition of what a medicine is. Others may or may not follow suit.
"FYI this is the stand of the Church re: Artificial contraception"
Many other churches and people do not in good conscience accept this moral teaching of the RCC. Surely you don't expect this to be legislated.
"I don't see any double standard."
RCC bishops question the motives of those using contraceptives ("Is pregnancy a disease?") while accepting medical reasons as a valid motive for those using NFP. If there's no double standard, NFP users should also be asked: Is pregnancy a disease? Why prevent it?
Not simply my personal definition. Please refer to Alfred Melgars essay above. "As far back as the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1963, drugs have been defined as articles intended “for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease,” or “to affect the structure or any function of the body.” " Is it because I used disorder instead of disease. Disease is but a disordered condition caused by genetic errors, infectious organisms, cancer,poisons, environmental factors etc.
Banning drugs/medicines or pulling them off the market is a common practice when drugs are found to be defective, unsafe etc. But this has nothing to do with the issue of double standard. Nor is the issue whether other people would not follow/ share the same belief.
My main contention was that there was no double standard from the Catholic Church's standpoint. It's been consistent for 2000 years. Whether the majority of the Filipino people or only a handful follow the church's teaching, it is still the bishops responsibility to proclaim the truth and educate the people. One doesn't change the meaning of truth just because no one would believe it. A parent doesn't stop teaching her child just because the child refuses to listen.
Lastly, is the church wanting to legislate that contraception be banned? That's out of its jurisdiction. It is merely educating in the hopes that lawmakers and voters, especially those calling themselves catholic, will make an informed decision.
Contraceptives "affect the … function of the body" thereby helping in the "mitigation" or "prevention of disease." All phrases from our laws that define drugs/medicines. Your definition narrowly focuses on treatment/cure.
I focused my double-standards criticism not on the RCC's moral distinction between natural & artificial methods, but on this point: RCC bishops question the motives of those using contraceptives ("Is pregnancy a disease?") while accepting medical reasons as a valid motive for those using NFP. Care to comment on it? (BTW, I'm the author of the above article–sorry, haven't changed my commenting handle yet.)
@Pinoyindy and ARM:
I hope you don't mind me butting in. I just want help make it clear to Pinoyindy what ARM means by the RCC's double standard:
1. Natural Family Planning: OK for prevention of pregnancy
2. Contraception/Artificial Methods: NOT OK for prevention of pregnancy
The RCC keeps on asking, "Is pregnancy a disease? If not, why prevent it using contraceptives?" So the standard used for their objection towards contraception is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented. However, it seems they don't apply the same standard (i.e., the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented) to the issue of natural family planning. Are they using another standard/premise that makes them conclude that NFP is okay? If so, there is a double standard.
Thanks innerminds. Clear about the premises, as always. 🙂
//My main contention was that there was no double standard from the Catholic Church's standpoint. It's been consistent for 2000 years. Whether the majority of the Filipino people or only a handful follow the church's teaching, it is still the bishops responsibility to proclaim the truth and educate the people.//
Educate…or lie?
The bishops have been claiming that the RH Bill will lead to more promiscuity and abortions in our people, and have yet to back up their claims, while the overwhelming evidence points in the opposite direction.
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/01/20/contra…
Can't see how your analogy works? Fail.
Are you implying the mayors and lawmakers are the hitmen of the Church? Wow. That's rad!!!
What would the church get for lying? Look at the studies. Evaluate the validity of the study, the source before making the claim. I can cite you studies showing the opposite
just as well. Freethinking should be free from agenda, biases.
//Can't see how your analogy works? Fail.
Are you implying the mayors and lawmakers are the hitmen of the Church? Wow. That's rad!!! //
Hey, if the shoe fits…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-grow…
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news…
//What would the church get for lying?//
For one thing, they get to claim the moral high ground on such matters, which in turn grants them a semblance of authority over their pulpit. //
//Look at the studies. Evaluate the validity of the study, the source before making the claim. I can cite you studies showing the opposite //
Look who's talking, bub.
You have yet to cite any credible sources since you started rambling.
And furthermore, since you claim the source is biased, it's your job to prove your point, not mine. Don't shift the burden of proof.
//Lastly, is the church wanting to legislate that contraception be banned? That's out of its jurisdiction. It is merely educating in the hopes that lawmakers and voters, especially those calling themselves catholic, will make an informed decision.//
How is this argument different from a Mafia don saying that they didn't "personally" kill a victim, even if they were the ones who gave the kill order out for their hitmen to follow?
And speaking of lawmakers and votes, we've already seen what happens when the CBCP tried this approach.
http://www.likhaan.org/content/chr-finds-manila-c…
in other words, what's the difference of using artificial contraception and natural contraception when your goal is ultimately the same? – to influence those sex cells into not forming anything. this roots to the belief that unnatural is evil – something that is so medieval.
and to add, another definition of medicine is a substance used to suppress some natural bodily functions in order to lessen the risks during treatment, or simply for the well being of the person as a whole.
anesthesia, pain killers, suppressants, contraceptives etc. fall in this category. they don't treat nor cure anything. but they are medicines! if a third degree burn or a freak accident survivor use your logic or that of senator enrile's and refused anesthesia because it doesn't cure anything, then bear with the agony. besides, PAIN is NATURAL and not a disorder. why remove it?
Is childbirth pain a disease? Why do we treat them with anesthesia? Shouldn't the RCC be against it? After all, it must be against "natural" law? Oh, wait how about CS? Isn't it also against "natural" law?
PS.: The CBCP is a cabal of idiots.
Actually, they did something like that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26364…
//Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees denied approval of uterine evacuation while fetal heart tones were still present, forcing physicians to delay care or transport miscarrying patients to non–Catholic-owned facilities. Some physicians intentionally violated protocol because they felt patient safety was compromised.
Although Catholic doctrine officially deems abortion permissible to preserve the life of the woman, Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees differ in their interpretation of how much health risk constitutes a threat to a woman's life and therefore how much risk must be present before they approve the intervention.//
Pro-Life indeed.
//houldn't the RCC be against it? After all, it must be against "natural" law?//
On a related note, the RCC did claim that abortions are a worse crime than rape. No, seriously.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,188…
Filipino Freethinkers claims no responsibility if the news article in that link makes you megaton-punch your laptop/pc screen in a fit of pure rage.
KapanaligSaWala. Look at yourself before you call others idiots. Do you even know what natural law is? By your statement you obviously do not.
Only an idiot can not see that pain is a disorder.
Admin, what's up with this?
//By your statement you obviously do not. Only an idiot can not see that pain is a disorder. //
Then clearly your church is comprised of idiots, or they wouldn't have intentionally risked the lives of women for this matter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26364…
Low-dose Antibiotics prevent. They prevent recurrent infections.
Immunosuppressants prevent. They prevent rejections post-organ transplantations.
Anticoagulants prevent. They prevent venous thromboembolic episodes (deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism).
Antiplatelets prevent. They prevent blood clots that may lead to heart or brain attacks.
Vaccines prevent. They prevent specific diseases.
Natural and artificial contraceptives prevent. They prevent unintended pregnancies. Unintended pregnancies lead to abortions.
ARE THEY ESSENTIAL FOR HEALTH AND WELL-BEING?