Contraception...Your beliefs?

[BA11]

The Bible! I’ll PM you…

Thanks for taking the time

 

[CatholicofAgora]

Thanks for taking the time

It is my honor! The revelation of the Real Presence has literally been my comfort shaker…

 

[silentfactor80]

No, I’m talking about studies not funded and conducted by entities out to prove birth control is evil. The crux of many religiously biased studies is that they used flawed sample sizes and simply fail to publish results if the outcome isnt to their liking. Real academic research produces and publishes surprisingly unexpected findings all the time, and I even said “most” meaning there are a select few such studies which did indicate slightly higher levels of abortofacient effects. Most have not.

This is correct, the problem is that you don’t understand perfect use-failure rates. The 1/100 statistic is how frequently a woman gets pregnant with perfect use, not how often an “abortion” occurs. In fact, statistically speaking stopping implantation would be factored into the 99/100 as it is deemed a success in terms of preventing pregnancy. This is one reason why it’s so hard to study the issue. The tests that have done their best to do so indicate, on the whole, a much lower rate of preventing implantation than actual pregnancy. This also indicates that the thinning of the uterine lining is not nearly as extreme as many claim and is non-existent in many women and certain combined birth control pills. In other words, women on combined birth control are far more likely to get pregnant if the egg is fertilized than to prevent implantation.

The problem is that the majority of lay people are not nearly precise enough in their understanding of the woman’s cycle to constitute perfection. With the NFP method, hours sometimes makes the difference and very special care must be taken. Perfect NFP is significantly more difficult to obtain.

Finally, “lots” of physicians don’t contradict what I’ve said. **Those that do are simply factually wrong. **Now, some DO take the moral ground and claim fertilization is when life truly begins but they would admit that is NOT a scientific opinion but a personal one. I’m perfectly ok with that, but I get upset when people try and demonize them by claiming faulty science.

Bold 1: As opposed to the organizations out there trying to prove birth control is wonderful because they believe it is??? LOL! You will never get perfect objectivity. Pharmaceutical companies are out to make money and there is a lot of money in sex. The FDA even cited Bayer for false advertising with Mirena. Others (Yaz) as I have linked before were subject to class action lawsuit. People died from from that stuff all in the name of pleasure and profit (for big pharma). Of coarse doctors get a nice kick back from big pharma so I don’t expect them to be totally honest.

Bold 2: I never mentioned anything about abortion. The bottom line is you chose a number that made your case look better. It is called cherry picking and skewing the argument to justify a busted position.

Bold 3: “Lots” is somewhat relative. Let me be more precise. Majority isn’t always right especially when it comes to power, pleasure, and profit. Given that many doctors think they are God it is not surprising many advocate for birth control. Remember, there was a time doctors thought washing hands was unnecessary and crazy. Boy how times have changed.

 

[Usige]

It has nothing to do with being humble or arrogant, it has to do with ignoring facts to perpetuate an agenda. If I said the sun orbits the earth and you refused to acknowledge that as a valid position, are you lacking humility?

Any doctor who claims that sustainable life begins at fertilization is a valid scientific opinion is wrong, plain and simple. A zygote that has yet to implant is no more capable of becoming a person than an unfertilized egg. It is no different than an articially inseminated egg sitting on a petri dish. However, an implanted zygote can then grow into a person. The idea that life beings at fertilization is a personal moral/religious matter. This is proven by the fact that many infertile women have no trouble accomplishing fertilization but their uterus does not allow for implantation.

But fertilization is kinda a precondition to implantation don’t you think? Let’s put it this way. If I see someone riding a bike, do I say they are only riding once they are at a stable speed? In fact once they put foot to peddle they have started riding. Even if they fall before reaching equilibrium I would not conclude that they had not started riding.

Let’s put it another way, if fertilization does not occur how exactly is implantation going to happen?

 

[BA11]

Bold 1: As opposed to the organizations out there trying to prove birth control is wonderful because they believe it is??? LOL! You will never get perfect objectivity. Pharmaceutical companies are out to make money and there is a lot of money in sex. The FDA even cited Bayer for false advertising with Mirena. Others (Yaz) as I have linked before were subject to class action lawsuit. People died from from that stuff all in the name of pleasure and profit (for big pharma). Of coarse doctors get a nice kick back from big pharma so I don’t expect them to be totally honest.

This is a common error that is being perpetuated. Less than 2% of all Pharm revenue worldwide is derived from contraceptives. There is actually very little money in it because it is only directed at one gender for a certain percentage of their life and many are morally opposed to it. Treatment of STDs and pregnancies is far more lucrative for Pharm companies.

And as a doctor, trust me when I say that in 2013 “kickbacks” arent what they used to be and are essentially non-existent when it comes to contraception because, again, there is so little money in it.

Bold 2: I never mentioned anything about abortion. The bottom line is you chose a number that made your case look better. It is called cherry picking and skewing the argument to justify a busted position.

I didnt “choose” numbers, the studies show that abortions caused by the pill (assuming you consider a failure to implant abortive) are very rare and that the 1/100 failure rate is related to pregnancy, not abortive function. I’m sorry if that doesnt conform to your preconceived notions.

Bold 3: “Lots” is somewhat relative. Let me be more precise. Majority isn’t always right especially when it comes to power, pleasure, and profit. Given that many doctors think they are God it is not surprising many advocate for birth control. Remember, there was a time doctors thought washing hands was unnecessary and crazy. Boy how times have changed.

The majority of pro-life christian doctors advocate for birth control. Studies show that between 65% to 90% of American catholic women over 21 have used some form of birth control besides NFP and yet almost all are still against abortion. The majority of catholics in this country have long abandoned the dogmatic teachings around birth control in the era of solid scientific study on the matter and yet, again, are against abortion. What this shows is that our understanding of the reproductive system has allowed us to seperate abortion and pro-life stances from birth control. You can be pro-life and pro-contraception and the science backs you up.

 

[BA11]

But fertilization is kinda a precondition to implantation don’t you think?

So is sex, ovulation, properly functioning fallopian tubes and ovaries, proper hormone levels, etc. There are a host of other factors that are preconditions to both fertilization and implantation but nobody claims life begins at ovulation.

Let’s put it this way. If I see someone riding a bike, do I say they are only riding once they are at a stable speed? In fact once they put foot to peddle they have started riding. Even if they fall before reaching equilibrium I would not conclude that they had not started riding.

Your first question shouldnt be their speed but rather where the bike itself came from. Then you should ask who put the parts together. Then you should ask who made the original parts. Then you should ask where did they get the materials for the original parts See what I’m saying? Where do we draw the line?

Using your analogy, life could be traced all the way back to the initial formation of a woman’s eggs while she was herself in her mother’s womb. If we’re going to define life, we have to define it from a given point. How can we define it from a point in which life cannot grow?

Consider this: A fertilized egg is scientifically FAR more likely to fail to implant (or implant correctly) for any number of reasons than an implanted zygote is to fail to mature into a baby. What this means is that it makes no natural sense to define life from a fertilized egg standpoint, because nly once it implants can it begin receiving nutrients and maturing.

Let’s put it another way, if fertilization does not occur how exactly is implantation going to happen?

If ovulation doesnt happen how can fertilization happen? If a spike in luteinizing hormone doesnt occur how can ovulation occur? Should we place a church ban on all substances that reduce LH levels? Because that would sure be fun, among such things that would be banned:

Alcohol
Tobacco
Red meat
Certain sodas and sports drinks
A host of prescribed drugs

The problem with saying no to birth control is that almost nobody carries it out to its logical conclusion. They stop and the boogyman if BC and think that makes them righteous. If you truly believe that every sexual encounter must have the same potential to produce pregnancy (which is biologically impossible anyway unless you are doing it only a few days every month at the same time) then a woman can never drink alcohol during ovulation, not eat red meat, not drink much except natural fruit drinks and water, not take ANY prescription drugs, etc. It’s a slippery slope that few even consider, but if you don’t you are being selective and dishonest with your moral position.

 

[Usige]

So is sex, ovulation, properly functioning fallopian tubes and ovaries, proper hormone levels, etc. There are a host of other factors that are preconditions to both fertilization and implantation but nobody claims life begins at ovulation.

Yes all are preconditions, but FSH production and follicle stimulation, ovulation, LH surge, etc. do not lead to life unless sperm successfully fertilize the egg. We can go all the way back to the start of time as a precondition, but each individual life starts with a sperm fertilizing an egg at some point. A zygote does not spontaneously materialize moments before implantation. We know not all act of intercourse result in fertilization. We also know that not all fertilization leads to successful pregnancy. But I know of only one case where pregnancy did not start with sperm fertilizing an egg, and well I think the Blessed Virgin Mary is kinda a special case.

Your first question shouldnt be their speed but rather where the bike itself came from. Then you should ask who put the parts together. Then you should ask who made the original parts. Then you should ask where did they get the materials for the original parts See what I’m saying? Where do we draw the line?

All of which has zero to to with riding a bike. I can dig up aluminum ore, I can refine it, I can extrude and weld it into a bike. I can walk around it, look at it, and even sit on it. None of which is riding a bike. It is the instance at which the peddle is pushed that riding begins. There is a specific moment when potential become more than the sum of the parts. In the case of the bike when potential becomes action (i.e. pushing the peddle) is when riding begins, not at some future point after the initial event. The same is true with life. Fertilization is the necessary event for all other possibility to occur. Without fertilization everything else is impossible.

Consider this: A fertilized egg is scientifically FAR more likely to fail to implant (or implant correctly) for any number of reasons than an implanted zygote is to fail to mature into a baby. What this means is that it makes no natural sense to define life from a fertilized egg standpoint, because nly once it implants can it begin receiving nutrients and maturing.

Granted, but how many unfertilized eggs will ever develop into a child? Do we only define something as started if we know it has a high chance of success? Heck, I burn or otherwise screw up 99% of stuff I attempt to cook so I have only started cooking once or twice in my life? I’m sure there are many students in your cohort in med school that washed out before becoming licensed. Since there is a high probability they would not finish should we say that they never started medical school?

The problem with saying no to birth control is that almost nobody carries it out to its logical conclusion. They stop and the boogyman if BC and think that makes them righteous. If you truly believe that every sexual encounter must have the same potential to produce pregnancy (which is biologically impossible anyway unless you are doing it only a few days every month at the same time) then a woman can never drink alcohol during ovulation, not eat red meat, not drink much except natural fruit drinks and water, not take ANY prescription drugs, etc. It’s a slippery slope that few even consider, but if you don’t you are being selective and dishonest with your moral position.

I was not talking about things that can reduce the change of pregnancy or stop implantation, but rather things that are specifically intend to do so. Hormonal contraceptives are the only medication I know of that a physician prescribes specifically to damage a perfectly functioning system. Then again since most MDs treat pregnancy as a disease to be cured, maybe they really think they are doing something good.

Back to what I actually posted (which had zero to do with banning anything), I was simply stating that you must have badly misspoken when you stated “A zygote that has yet to implant is no more capable of becoming a person than an unfertilized egg.” Last time I checked an unfertilized egg has zero chance of becoming a person as opposed to a zygote which (all things being equal) has a significantly higher chance of becoming a child. Let me give you a basic math lesson:

zero implantation/zero fertilized eggs = zero chance for new life [any number divided by zero is zero - technically undefined]
1 successful implantation/1000 fertilized eggs (assumes really poor success ratio) = .1% chance for new life

Unless there is absolutely zero chance of implantation across the population then fertilization is the more significant event. We weren’t talking about successful delivery, but when life starts.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The problem with the NFP-low divorce rate connection is that NFP is generally only practiced by your most extreme Christians as a method of spacing out children. These couples are generally also anti-divorce. There are also a lot of good Christians who use artificial methods, but their staying married gets grouped in with non-Christians who are divorcing left and right, so their divorce-rate statistic gets skewed.

I concur, and always note this point. The only people that I know practicing NFP are hard-core Catholics that don’t believe in divorce in the first place. It’s the underlying moral belief system that matters, from which everything else flows.

 

[KathleenGee]

Wingsofeagle…Hard core would not be the right word in describing those Catholics who practice NFP.

Our parish Pro Life leader came from Manhattan, a most beautiful woman that looks many years younger than she actually is, her husband is a retired top national executive of a well known company, she speaks 5 languages living part of her life overseas in various countries, is very athletic, and is a professional educator for Pro Life. She and others make people aware of the damage the contraceptive culture has done to women and families and men themselves. She and those who work in this cause, that also include Protestants and others of good will are anything but rigid and withdrawn and off balanced people.

Likewise the complaint is that in many parishes, this education is not being promoted in parishes and many priests OK the use of the pill. The area of the sanctity of human life is one that needs much work in such parishes. EWTN started as an independent communications ministry to avoid parish politics and repression of truth due to the spirit of compromise and the world that has over taken the Church.

The American Cardinals, and prior Pope Benedict, speak of this tsunami overcoming the Church. The worst thing Catholics can do is compromise this concern.

I had some serious problems in my marriage, and it caused me to place myself in the depths of my mystical Catholic faith and discovered so much more of Christ’s presence among us.

Growing into the depths of my Catholic faith proved the opposite of what I ever imagined. I came to the lives of many saints, that in turn assisted me in understanding Mary’s unique faith walk, the profound redeeming and saving power of the Mass and sacraments, how Peter holds the keys to the Blood of Christ, our Pope, and countless other mysteries.

The Vatican Library is the greatest library in the world and Catholicism is nothing ignorant or profane in its worship and glory of the Lord.

If anything, growing into the depth of my Catholic faith caused me to have so much confidence and truth of our teachings and disciplines, that only bring us into a deeper and – freeing - reality of Christ Himself!

 

[silentfactor80]

…
The majority of pro-life christian doctors advocate for birth control. Studies show that between 65% to 90% of American catholic women over 21 have used some form of birth control besides NFP and yet almost all are still against abortion. The majority of catholics in this country have long abandoned the dogmatic teachings around birth control in the era of solid scientific study on the matter and yet, again, are against abortion. What this shows is that our understanding of the reproductive system has allowed us to seperate abortion and pro-life stances from birth control. You can be pro-life and pro-contraception and the science backs you up.

Again, as I said, majority is not always right. You can also be pro-eugenics and science backs you up. Does that make it right?

 

[lonelypetunia]

I’m not against contraception. If I were to get married, I would strongly consider having my tubes tied. Me and my significant other talked about it. He doesn’t want children either. The mere mention of having little ones makes him scowl. If marriage is in our future, one of us is getting snipped.

I’m at the age where I don’t want to be pregnant and raising little ones. I’m at the later part of my child bearing age, I can’t see myself having the patience to deal with diapers, crying, messiness, and oh my goodness the whining at my age. I’m a little ashamed to say when I hear a screaming baby, I leave the area immediately as it’s like nails on a chalk board to me. I enjoy having a peaceful, clean, orderly house, as does my significant other.

I think it’s better to realize parenting isn’t for everyone and if it’s not for you prevent it. I don’t think we should be denied the chance to marry and live a happy life together because we don’t want kids.

 

[aidanbradypop]

 

[Monergistic]

It’s the underlying moral belief system that matters, from which everything else flows.

This. This. This.

If you don’t have that underlying moral belief system, contraception is something that makes sense and, while it can be abused, is also something that can and generally should be used selectively in a responsible and informed manner in most Christian marriages. It is generally good for society and for the world when it’s widely used as a preventative health measure.

If you do have that underlying moral belief system, that is the reason why you don’t like contraception. We all know this. Arguing against the above paragraph is a waste of time. A little bit of apologia on that moral belief system is the appropriate lane to be in.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Pass the popcorn bro (or sis ).

 

[aidanbradypop]

This. This. This.

If you don’t have that underlying moral belief system, contraception is something that makes sense and, while it can be abused, is also something that can and generally should be used selectively in a responsible and informed manner in most Christian marriages. It is generally good for society and for the world when it’s widely used as a preventative health measure.

If you do have that underlying moral belief system, that is the reason why you don’t like contraception. We all know this. Arguing against the above paragraph is a waste of time. A little bit of apologia on that moral belief system is the appropriate lane to be in.

This is what I find odd. Maybe you can give some insight on the matter.

A friend of mine, a faithful Baptist gal, believes suicide is a sin that God will never forgive. She believes that God is the only one who can take life away. Oddly enough, she also believes that God is the only one who can create life. What makes this odd is that she takes birth control daily. Is she not denying God in His creation of life? Her pill block the ability of conception which blocks the creation of life.

How is it just for her to be against suicide but pro contraception?

 

[silentfactor80]

I’m not against contraception. If I were to get married, I would strongly consider having my tubes tied. Me and my significant other talked about it. He doesn’t want children either. The mere mention of having little ones makes him scowl. If marriage is in our future, one of us is getting snipped.

I’m at the age where I don’t want to be pregnant and raising little ones. I’m at the later part of my child bearing age, I can’t see myself having the patience to deal with diapers, crying, messiness, and oh my goodness the whining at my age. I’m a little ashamed to say when I hear a screaming baby, I leave the area immediately as it’s like nails on a chalk board to me. I enjoy having a peaceful, clean, orderly house, as does my significant other.

I think it’s better to realize parenting isn’t for everyone and if it’s not for you prevent it. I don’t think we should be denied the chance to marry and live a happy life together because we don’t want kids.

You can’t have a happy married life using side-effect free NFP or abstinence? Sex is not a necessary function for the survival of the individual.

 

[lonelypetunia]

You can’t have a happy married life using side-effect free NFP or abstinence? Sex is not a necessary function for the survival of the individual.

If I get married I highly doubt I will be abstinent, sex is part of marriage. Also, I highly doubt my spouse would go for abstinence.

Also, at my age I would NOT want to risk and oh no with NFP as women get older our cycles are not nearly as predictable. I can’t imagine being in my forties having a baby. Once again at my age I don’t think parenting little ones is ideal at least for me. I fully admit my patience is not what it used to be.

 

[silentfactor80]

If I get married I highly doubt I will be abstinent, sex is part of marriage. Also, I highly doubt my spouse would go for abstinence.

Also, at my age I would NOT want to risk and oh no with NFP as women get older our cycles are not nearly as predictable. I can’t imagine being in my forties having a baby. Once again at my age I don’t think parenting little ones is ideal at least for me. I fully admit my patience is not what it used to be.

It is a part of marriage, not the whole marriage. If a couple decides no more sex it does not mean their marriage is over.

NFP is effective if used properly regardless of the circumstances. Fertility monitors like ClearBlue and Ovacue very accurately confirm ovulation. You only ovulate once a month. You can no longer get pregnant 2 days after ovulation. The science is quite well established. The problem is the information is not distributed so people are ignorant about it.

 

[lonelypetunia]

It is a part of marriage, not the whole marriage. If a couple decides no more sex it does not mean their marriage is over.

NFP is effective if used properly regardless of the circumstances. Fertility monitors like ClearBlue and Ovacue very accurately confirm ovulation. You only ovulate once a month. You can no longer get pregnant 2 days after ovulation. The science is quite well established. The problem is the information is not distributed so people are ignorant about it.

Someone on this very thread stated his wife got pregnant using NFP. That scares me!! If I were younger I would probably reconsider my position. I may not be biologically too old to have babies, but mentally I am. I have a friend who gave birth at 44 and she constantly tells me how hard it is being that age with a small child. She thought her baby days were over.

I know I do not want children and my significant other doesn’t want them either. We’ve come to a mutual agreement children aren’t in our future if we marry. We decided we want to be completely sure there are no uh ohs… That means one or both us will go through sterilization. I really don’t think we would be good parents. We are older, set in our ways, we like peace and quiet. Both of us are kind of neat freaks as well.

 

[silentfactor80]

**Someone on this very thread stated his wife got pregnant using NFP. **That scares me!! If I were younger I would probably reconsider my position. I may not be biologically too old to have babies, but mentally I am. I have a friend who gave birth at 44 and she constantly tells me how hard it is being that age with a small child. She thought her baby days were over.

I know I do not want children and my significant other doesn’t want them either. We’ve come to a mutual agreement children aren’t in our future if we marry. We decided we want to be completely sure there are no uh ohs… That means one or both us will go through sterilization. I really don’t think we would be good parents. We are older, set in our ways, we like peace and quiet. Both of us are kind of neat freaks as well.

The problem is many people don’t know how to do it correctly and do not rely on a fertility monitor. Also, some people have sex prior to ovulation which can be risky. If one practices NFP conservatively (wait until after ovulation) it is very unlikely to fail.