Catholic mum answers, "isn't NFP just Catholic birth control?"

[fpt]

There is the Natural Law behind what is natural and what is not natural.
The Natural Law is based on the human nature - the capability to reason to find out what is good and what is not good.
The Natural Law is driven by God’s intelligent design. We study, think, reason how our body works what it was designed for.
Mouth, vagina, anus where not designed for a thermometer.

Thus, the doctors, the mothers, the wives, the dads and the husbands make many immoral acts. A list, for instance:

To know the temperature of children when they are sick;
To know the why of difficulties of conceiving a baby by scientific analysis of female mucus and co;
The fact of kissing their own children, on cheeks;
The conjugal French kiss;
The foreplay and sexual forepla, in the context of the marital act:
The vaginal exam by the medical doctor via medical tools;

**All that is not very unnatural, it is very immoral!!!

ETC.

ARE YOU SERIOUS???**

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP!!!

 

[fpt]

A correction:

Thus, the doctors, the mothers, the wives, the dads and the husbands make many immoral acts. A list, for instance:

To know the temperature of children when they are sick;
To know the why of difficulties of conceiving a baby by scientific analysis of female mucus and co;
The fact of kissing their own children, on cheeks;
The conjugal French kiss;
The foreplay and sexual forepla, in the context of the marital act:
The vaginal exam by the medical doctor via medical tools;

All that is unnatural, it is very immoral!!!

ETC.

ARE YOU SERIOUS???

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP!!!

The teleology is not easy. This discipline is very particular.

 

[Jaaanosik]

So I gather you abstain from using all modern medicine, yes? After all, the stomach was designed to digest food, not deliver medication to one’s body.

Let me repeat a part of my post #37:

I don’t have a problem with doing unnatural things for a good end. Taking blood samples, x-rays, … all kind of unnatural things are justified because of a good end.

So why did you ask the question?

 

[Xantippe]

Avocadomom said:

“I weigh myself every week.”

I try to weigh myself every day. It’s rather more of an ordeal to weigh myself than to take an oral temperature, because I have to undress, weigh myself, dress and then record the weight. And then I try to track my calorie intake every day, which is a whole 'nother thing. That’s all considerably more trouble than NFP.

Also, for Jaanosik’s benefit, an experienced NFP user has a general idea of their fertility status even when not strictly charting. One can tell when one feels hot (which suggests ovulation is happening or has happened) and one can see and feel cervical mucus even without charting (when one is getting three inches of stretch, that’s a fairly clear indicator of high fertility). Once one knows what that all means, it’s impossible to un-know it–it’s no longer possible to do things “by chance”.

As people have been saying, NFP is just information.

And speaking of temperatures, as I recall, eighteen days of temperature rise establishes pregnancy, even without a pregnancy test.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Is it immoral to use the Mouth, the vagina, the anus or under the arm for using thermometer in order to know the temperature of the body? If your answer is yes, we do not have the same religion.

Well, is it moral to expose a body to a health risk?
Is it moral to expose a body to x-rays without a good reason?

I assume you would agree that a health risk is good only when really needed.
I admit the thermometer is orders of magnitude less dangerous than x-rays but the principle is the same.

Why a person would put a thermometer in a mouth and risk putting some germs with it in the body without a good reason?

 

[Lorelei12]

I know that but my point is that it’s not natural to go to extremes daily in order to take the measurement when a person is not sick.
Therefore the question if the fertility is a diseases?

What would you say about people who use NFP to conceive, then?

Pregnancy isn’t a “disease” either, but it involves a lot of checkups, urine testing, blood pressure readings, and so forth. Is this an extreme?

Also, someone else already pointed out that there are several NFP methods that do not involve temperature readings. Are these unnatural, too?

 

[EasterJoy]

Let me repeat:

• in general taking temperature is not natural; we do it only when there is an indication that there is something wrong with the body
• under an arm is good enough most of the time
• the other places seems to be more extreme compared to the arm; if by accident an old mercury thermometer would break in a mouth it would do more damage to body than if it happened under an arm; if by accident the thermometer has some germs on it then it can do more damage in a mouth than under an arm.

What is wrong with a body in order to measure temperature daily?

Who made you a physician? Who on earth is going to get sick by using her own thermometer day after day, or several times a day, or once an hour? She may as well get sick from using her own germ-infested tooth brush, or think it immoral and unethical to chew on the end of a pencil!

To say that the information gained by a healthy person taking her own temperature is unethical for some reason is simply made up. There is no moral precept that says any such thing, and no medical precept that says any such thing. May she not take a urine sample if she unless she shows signs of being sick, either, because she might learn something she is “not supposed to know” about herself? Is she allowed to look into her own eyes, to see if they are clear, or is this application of medical knowledge “unnatural”? It is “unnatural” to make an investigation so as to know the state of your own body? The whole concept is ludicrous!

It is in no way unnatural to know yourself or the workings of your own body or to make measurements to learn more about your body in its healthy state. The Church has never taught that. Honestly, I do not know what religion ever has!

Well, is it moral to expose a body to a health risk?
Is it moral to expose a body to x-rays without a good reason?

I assume you would agree that a health risk is good only when really needed.
I admit the thermometer is orders of magnitude less dangerous than x-rays but the principle is the same.

Why a person would put a thermometer in a mouth and risk putting some germs with it in the body without a good reason?

No, a thermometer is not dangerous at all. Again: It is* her *thermometer! It poses less of a risk to her than her tooth brush, or to use the same drinking glass time after time, instead of refusing to put anything in her mouth that has not been sterilized first. She is in more danger when she elects to use a fork or a steak knife to eat than when she takes her own temperature!

 

[EasterJoy]

Well, is it moral to expose a body to a health risk?
Is it moral to expose a body to x-rays without a good reason?

I assume you would agree that a health risk is good only when really needed.
I admit the thermometer is orders of magnitude less dangerous than x-rays but the principle is the same.

Why a person would put a thermometer in a mouth and risk putting some germs with it in the body without a good reason?

No, a thermometer is not dangerous at all. Again: It is* her *thermometer! It poses less of a risk to her than her tooth brush, or to use the same drinking glass time after time, instead of refusing to put anything in her mouth that has not been sterilized first. She is in more danger when she elects to use a fork or a steak knife to eat than when she takes her own temperature!

 

[fpt]

Well, is it moral to expose a body to a health risk?

**It is immoral to expose a body to a health risk if and only if **this exposure is not reasonable, proportional, fair, normal and legitimate.

Is it moral to expose a body to x-rays without a good reason?

The exposure to x ray for just reason are morally acceptable. Without good reason, it is imprudent and can be unfair.

I assume you would agree that a health risk is good only when really needed.
I admit the thermometer is orders of magnitude less dangerous than x-rays but the principle is the same.

Why a person would put a thermometer in a mouth and risk putting some germs with it in the body without a good reason?

A thermometer in a mouth or in the vagina for getting information on the temperature in order to know if the wife is in a infertile time or in a fertile time is a good and fair reason.

The couple has t**he right to try to understand the fertility of the wife.
**

 

[Mumbles140]

If a healthy person would be measuring temperature daily without a reason then it’s an indication of a possible mental issue.

Why? Should you only take your temperature when you are sick? Did you know that 98.6 is an average of all humans, but varies significantly? My average temperature is about 97.7, which is good to know because a temperature of 99.5 is very different for me than for someone who has an average temperature of 98.6. Perhaps the reason is to track their body temperatures to make sure they are staying in a healthy range for their temperature.

The assumptions you are making appear to be completely personal opinions that would fail to hold up in a logical argument. Therefore, using them as a basis of a universal standard is tainting your argument.

 

[fpt]

Well, is it moral to expose a body to a health risk?
Is it moral to expose a body to x-rays without a good reason?

I assume you would agree that a health risk is good only when really needed.
I admit the thermometer is orders of magnitude less dangerous than x-rays but the principle is the same.

Why a person would put a thermometer in a mouth and risk putting some germs with it in the body without a good reason?

Do you refuse the conjugal French kiss in the couple, because there are exchanges of fluids? Do you refuse the marital act, because there are exchanges of fluids? Do you refuse the sexual foreplay, because there are exchanges of fluids? Do you refuse the conjugal caresses, in the sexual way, during the marital act, because there are exchanges of fluids?

 

[fpt]

Well, is it moral to expose a body to a health risk?
Is it moral to expose a body to x-rays without a good reason?

I assume you would agree that a health risk is good only when really needed.
I admit the thermometer is orders of magnitude less dangerous than x-rays but the principle is the same.

Why a person would put a thermometer in a mouth and risk putting some germs with it in the body without a good reason?

**
By nature, the marriage means many exchanges of physiological fluids. It is very dirty!!! ARE YOU SERIOUS???**

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
No, a thermometer is not dangerous at all. Again: It is* her *thermometer! It poses less of a risk to her than her tooth brush, or to use the same drinking glass time after time, instead of refusing to put anything in her mouth that has not been sterilized first. She is in more danger when she elects to use a fork or a steak knife to eat than when she takes her own temperature!

The most modern thermometers have a joint and a small gap between metal and plastic.
Sterilizing that is more difficult than to sterilize a fork or a spoon.

… and it still appears to me that measuring temperature daily is treating the fertility like a disease.

 

[Mumbles140]

How is it natural to stick the thermometer to mouth, vagina, or anus when you are not sick?
Even when I am sick I stick it under my arm.
The NFP does not recommend to use the thermometer under an arm. Why?

Because it isn’t as accurate as an oral reading?

For infants, rectal temperatures provide the most accurate reading. Your basis for what is normal and what is not is dancing with the absurd, and I struggle to find any valid reasoning behind it.

If you really want to drill down, sticking a thin piece of glass filled with a poisonous liquid metal anywhere on your body could be considered ‘unnatural’, but in that respect, you should probably throw out all science and medicine.

 

[fpt]

Well, is it moral to expose a body to a health risk?
Is it moral to expose a body to x-rays without a good reason?

I assume you would agree that a health risk is good only when really needed.
I admit the thermometer is orders of magnitude less dangerous than x-rays but the principle is the same.

Why a person would put a thermometer in a mouth and risk putting some germs with it in the body without a good reason?

In the couple, in the reasonable way, the female fluids are for the husband and the male fluids are for the wife.

By principle, if you do not want to exchange your fluids, the marriage is not for you.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Well, is it moral to expose a body to a health risk?
Is it moral to expose a body to x-rays without a good reason?

I assume you would agree that a health risk is good only when really needed.
I admit the thermometer is orders of magnitude less dangerous than x-rays but the principle is the same.

Why a person would put a thermometer in a mouth and risk putting some germs with it in the body without a good reason?

Gosh, really???
There are good people on this thread trying to answer your questions in a polite way. Why are you wasting our time?

If a lady was so concerned, she could purchase some very inexpensive 70% isopropyl alcohol and swab the thermometer after each use.

After someone has a cold, I go about the house and swab down everything handled, including phones, door knobs, computer keys, microwaves. I’ve been known to swab down a thermometer on occasion.

Either you follow the teaching of the Church or you don’t. It’s a free world. Don’t drag NFP through the mud with the pill and condoms, it’s not good for your soul.

 

[Jaaanosik]

A thermometer in a mouth or in the vagina for getting information on the temperature in order to know if the wife is in a infertile time or in a fertile time is a good and fair reason.

The couple has t**he right to try to understand the fertility of the wife.
**

I don’t have a problem with that. I am fine with doing unnatural things for a good reason.

I have an issue with a double standard. It’s OK to do an unnatural thing with NFP but it’s not OK with other non-abortive birth control.

 

[Xantippe]

PennyinCanada said:

“If a lady was so concerned, she could purchase some very inexpensive 70% isopropyl alcohol and swab the thermometer after each use.”

Yep.

As Easter Joy was saying, the toothbrush is a much more likely source of infection. A lot of times, you’re supposed to toss out a toothbrush after illness.

 

[PennyinCanada]

From the article in my original post…

I want to talk to you about contraception, which is, as it turns out, an entirely different animal from NFP.

NFP does not equal contraception. It is not ‘Catholic birth control,’ however persistently our illiterate culture pushes the notion. Contraception necessitates a step taken, a physical or chemical interference in the life-giving process of human sexuality.

Delaying conception, on the other hand, or to use soon-to-be-Bl. Pope Paul VI’s phrase, “the intentional spacing of children,” does not tamper with the life-giving potential of sex.

On the contrary, using knowledge of one’s cycle to avoid a pregnancy virtually bows down in the face of Divinely created human fertility and says “I defer to your awesome power” — there’s no funny business about shutting down or circumventing or cutting off or wrapping up and proceeding as if nothing has changed.

So in this way, fertility awareness aka NFP aka ‘birth control’ in the real sense of the phrase is about the furthest thing from contraception. A better term for it might simply be self control.

Instead of enabling sterilized, life-denying sex, it summons temperance. Prudence. Delayed gratification. Concepts few couples seem to have room for in their bedrooms or their marriages in our present culture.

NFP says “I recognize the gift, I am in no position to receive the gift, I offer the gift back to the Giver in gratitude…even when it’s a difficult offering to make.” And it’s sometimes a very difficult offering — both the abstaining part and the ‘maybe we really are ready to welcome another child’ part.

The Church isn’t anti-contraception because She is anti-science or anti-technology (couldn’t be further from the truth, actually, but that’s another post entirely), but rather, because contraception is fundamentally anti-woman and anti-life. And anything that opposes life itself definitely opposes the Source of all life.

 

[Mumbles140]

I don’t have a problem with that. I am fine with doing unnatural things for a good reason.

I have an issue with a double standard. It’s OK to do an unnatural thing with NFP but it’s not OK with other non-abortive birth control.

Because the argument is not about ‘unnatural’ methods, nor has it ever been. Those are vague terms to hide behind. NFP and other approved methods of birth control respect the sexuality given to us from God without hindering His intentions related to the act. Artificial birth control does hinder the intentions, mainly to attain the physical satisfaction of the act but nothing else.

That’s like saying it is unnatural to drive a car, and unnatural to drown puppies, but since I can drive, shouldn’t I be allowed to drown puppies? Talk about the details, and your argument fails. Hide behind vague terms, and your argument loses merit.