Dangerous pregnancies, ABC, NFP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What NFP means in practice is that using the more generous rules, the average couple can expect half the sex and half the kids, whereas with conservative rules, one can expect one third of the sex and a third of the kids.

There’s no free lunch here.
 
Xantippe said:
CatholicSooner said:

“The problem we ran into is that , if I recall correctly, my wife’s cycles were pretty irregular and ranged from 28 days to 36 days.”

That’s totally normal.

mommamaree said:

“But the beauty of NFP is that it is distinctly different from the calendar method, which relied on regular, 28-29 day cycles. NFP tells you what is happening in real time, so you can tell if it is the sluggish ovary month or the ambitious ovary month, by comparing charts and observing your current signs. That is the interesting part. The hard part is actually abstaining, especially when that darn ovary won’t just pop the egg out already!”

Yes. With the standard NFP methods, you’re tracking what is actually happening, rather than assuming that what has usually happened is happening again, and the primary difficulty is usually in implementation rather than interpretation. (Although I know there are a couple of CAF ladies who find their fertility not a good match for standard NFP rules.)

CatholicSooner,

I remember you saying back a bit that you are familiar with conservative NFP. Do you mean you have practiced conservative NFP for a substantial period of time, or do you mean that you get the general theory? From your self-description, it doesn’t sound like you’ve had time to practice conservative NFP for any length of time.

I think it’s actually living conservative NFP that clarifies the issue of what the difference is between ABC and NFP.
Click to expand...
Thanks…sorry I simiply meant that I get the general theory
 
Xantippe said:
What NFP means in practice is that using the more generous rules, the average couple can expect half the sex and half the kids, whereas with conservative rules, one can expect one third of the sex and a third of the kids.

There’s no free lunch here.
Click to expand...
For conservative NFP, what is the number of days, roughly, that you have to abstain in a cycle?
 
I haven’t counted recently, but 10 days of ability is the number that comes up a lot in these discussions. So, if that’s a 30 day cycle, 20 days of abstinence? Unless there’s something weird happening, in which case one might just suspend operations until the situation clears up. For instance, we did about 5 months of abstinence toward the end of breastfeeding last year.

In practice, conservative NFP can sometimes look a lot like just plain old abstinence.
 
Sorry! “10 days of AVAILability,” not “10 days of ability.”
 
Don’t really understand why everyone is talking about when they can or can not have sex with their spouse in reference to a non-fallible encyclical from the 60’s from someone who was never married.
 
Can someone please tell me how to deactivate my account for this forum?
 
CatholicSooner said:
For conservative NFP, what is the number of days, roughly, that you have to abstain in a cycle?
Click to expand...
It totally depends on the length of the cycle.

Generally, conservative NFP means that the only days that are available are after you have confirmed ovulation plus 3 to 4 days

So you are abstaining from the start of your period until 3 to 4 days after ovulation.

Everyone is different. So no one can give you a number.
 
CatholicSooner said:
where have I done this [argue the Church says something it does not]?
Click to expand...
You base your argument on the unitive + procreative requirement, which is a Church-established requirement. But you continue to pretend that the Church means what you mean, rather than what it expressly said it means! How can you latch onto a Church teaching, but declare it must take on a meaning of your own making?

When the Church developed the unitive + procreative requirement, it expressed them as requirements that must be met by each individual sex act. It says the individual acts must be procreative. It further explains what that means - with graphic simplicity - no ABC may impede the act and ejaculation must occur inside the woman. Consequently, a sex act conforming to that requirement is, by definition, procreative (“ordered to procreation”) regardless of the couple’s fertility at the time.

The Church expressly permits couples to avoid pregnancy, subject to the above requirements, for any length of time when the couple has good reasons.

You repeatedly asserted that “procreative” is/must be an attribute of the prevailing ‘attitude’ to sex - i.e., if we are avoiding (by limiting sex to the infertile times) then “the sex is not procreative.” But, this is a theology created by you, and not said by the Church. 🤷 You use the same word, but with completely different application!

Your insistence that “ordered to procreation” is to be understood differently than the Church defines it allowed you to argue that ABC and NFP were equal when judged by (your interpretation of) the Church’s own test! But you misrepresented the Church’s teaching (perhaps unknowingly). NFP meets the moral criteria defined by the Church, and ABC does not. If you want to set different criteria, you are welcome to express them, but be clear that they are your own.

If you wish to hold onto your view of what the Theology “should have been”, you must conclude that neither ABC nor NFP are acceptable. To avoid children for a while, it will be necessary to abstain completely.
 
I readily admit that I haven’t sifted through the pages and pages on this… just can’t resist the temptation to weigh in as I have labored over this issue…

Here are some facts in no particular order:
  • NFP is a form of birth control
  • NFP and ABC both diminish the chance of conception, they do not eliminate or remove it as it is often represented. Anything is possible with God.
  • A primary end to marriage is openness to children. If a couple does not answer ‘yes’ to that question during the exchange of vows during the sacrament of marriage ceremony, it could be argued that their marriage is invalid
  • the acceptable reasons for avoiding a pregnancy have loosened exponential over the past 100 years. The number of children in Catholic families, including those using NFP for birth control, has decreased significantly over the past 100 years
  • There is no difference in intent between a couple using NFP and a couple using ABC - diminish the chances of pregnancy
Here are some of the toughest arguments I’ve encountered:
  • One of the hardest things about NFP is that it is especially hard on women as it disallows sexual intimacy when it is most desired and enjoyable. If a couple has a real reason to avoid pregnancy and makes the decision to avoid, it seems punitive towards the woman.
  • What is the difference between NFP and other forms of natural birth control? For instance, coitus interruptus, meaning in both cases the outcome is diminishing the chance of pregnancy by putting the semen in a place where conception is not likely - outside the vagina or in an infertile vagina
  • Considering that NFP is a form birth control, doesn’t it just perpetuate the so called contraceptive mentality?
  • If the first argument in favor of NFP is that it cooperates with God’s design, how do argue against those who would say using our intellect to determine how to avoid pregnancy is cooperating with God’s design?
  • Other things in our lives diminish the chance of conception - poor diet, lack of exercise and others… can it be said that we are not cooperating with God’s design because we are negligent in these areas?
Bottom line, from my view, is that it comes down to obedience to the Church. I do not get NFP being acceptable when other forms of birth control are not. I can’t defend it other than to say the Church says so. I do not believe the case for NFP and not other forms of birth control can be reconciled with logic and/or reason.

With all of that said, my wife and I do practice NFP… In my view, we do not have a serious reason to avoid, she believes we do. We do so because it burdens our conscience not to follow the Church’s teaching… it’s a brutal paradigm. Trying to live with that conflict is difficult… because the Church has been wrong on many serious matters see Galileo, see parts of the Crusades, see witch hunts, see Jan Huss, see past Church teaching on the unclean time for women (menstruation) or the unclean time for men (nocturnal emissions) etc there are too many to list and the possibility exists that this is one of those times… and no one wants to be on the wrong side of history.
 
CatholicSooner said:
Or using NPF to never get pregnant…
Click to expand...
The Church says you must not marry if you intend to never have children.

If you are married, you are permitted to seek to never get pregnant **if there are good reasons **(typically a serious medical condition).

The means by which you avoid pregnancy could be total abstinence or NFP.
 
CatholicSooner said:
For conservative NFP, what is the number of days, roughly, that you have to abstain in a cycle?
Click to expand...
For my husband and I, we usually abstain from day 6 or 7, through all of phase 2 and 3 days after temp rise. That translates to roughly 20 days out of a 30 day cycle, give or take a day.

It’s a lot but I’m still nursing my 6 month old and that makes my cycles weird. I can chart them and it’s getting easier and easier but nursing makes my phase 2 longer and phase three much, much shorter.

When I first got my cycles back, they were ridiculous. We abstained for the vast majority of four months.

Tough? Sure! But given my husband and my schedules with school, work and the kids we would’t be living it up even if I was on ABC.

In all truth and honesty, I was researching NFP well before I converted to Catholicism because I hated the pill and wanted to use nothing artificial I’d be forced to put in my body and my husband hates condoms.
 
Kelfa28 said:
For my husband and I, we usually abstain from day 6 or 7, through all of phase 2 and 3 days after temp rise. That translates to roughly 20 days out of a 30 day cycle, give or take a day.
Click to expand...
WOW!!! You and your husband ought to be commended… 20 days a month, while it sounds like it’s what needs to be done given your circumstance, that ain’t natural and must be very, very hard.
 
godisgood77 said:
WOW!!! You and your husband ought to be commended… 20 days a month, while it sounds like it’s what needs to be done given your circumstance, that ain’t natural and must be very, very hard.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the wonderful world of trying to chart a post-partem period while exclusively breast feeding my daughter. Despite making every effort to EBF, my fertility still came back only 5 weeks after I gave birth. CCL says I’m not breastfeeding right or I’m part of that mythical 2% that EBF doesn’t work for…whichever one.

Yeah, it’s ridiculously hard and it’s resulted in a few instances where hubby and were off to confession because it was too hard at times and we were desperate for each other.

A third baby in less then 3 years is NOT an option for us. I don’t care what anyone’s opinion is of “serious” or “just” reasons.

I follow what God wants for me. At least NFP gives us a few days here and there a month instead of total abstinence.

Once I’m done nursing, my cycles will probably go back to normal and I’d be looking at 10 days of abstaining instead of 20.
 
godisgood77 said:
I readily admit that I haven’t sifted through the pages and pages on this… just can’t resist the temptation to weigh in as I have labored over this issue…

Here are some facts in no particular order:
  • NFP is a form of birth control
  • NFP and ABC both diminish the chance of conception, they do not eliminate or remove it as it is often represented. Anything is possible with God.
  • A primary end to marriage is openness to children. If a couple does not answer ‘yes’ to that question during the exchange of vows during the sacrament of marriage ceremony, it could be argued that their marriage is invalid
  • the acceptable reasons for avoiding a pregnancy have loosened exponential over the past 100 years. The number of children in Catholic families, including those using NFP for birth control, has decreased significantly over the past 100 years
  • There is no difference in intent between a couple using NFP and a couple using ABC - diminish the chances of pregnancy
Here are some of the toughest arguments I’ve encountered:
  • One of the hardest things about NFP is that it is especially hard on women as it disallows sexual intimacy when it is most desired and enjoyable. If a couple has a real reason to avoid pregnancy and makes the decision to avoid, it seems punitive towards the woman.
  • What is the difference between NFP and other forms of natural birth control? For instance, coitus interruptus, meaning in both cases the outcome is diminishing the chance of pregnancy by putting the semen in a place where conception is not likely - outside the vagina or in an infertile vagina
  • Considering that NFP is a form birth control, doesn’t it just perpetuate the so called contraceptive mentality?
  • If the first argument in favor of NFP is that it cooperates with God’s design, how do argue against those who would say using our intellect to determine how to avoid pregnancy is cooperating with God’s design?
  • Other things in our lives diminish the chance of conception - poor diet, lack of exercise and others… can it be said that we are not cooperating with God’s design because we are negligent in these areas?
Bottom line, from my view, is that it comes down to obedience to the Church. I do not get NFP being acceptable when other forms of birth control are not. I can’t defend it other than to say the Church says so. I do not believe the case for NFP and not other forms of birth control can be reconciled with logic and/or reason.

…
Click to expand...
Your submission to the Church on this matter is praiseworthy, and may also give the OP great comfort. Some of the arguments you list might, however, be a bit shaky, in particular:
  • You note that NFP could be called “punitive” on women. I can understand that thought - I can equally understand the thought that child-bearing is punitive on women! Why must it be such a hassle, and all on the woman to do!??!😃
  • not sure that coitus interruptus is “natural”. It is free of external influence - that’s for sure. But there is a logic that suggests sperm should not be directed arbitrarily outside the body.🙂 [During sex, it is not a waste product.]
  • who defines what is the “contraceptive mentality”? And BTW, “birth control” (which might in another context be called spacing children or responsible parenthood or safeguarding health) is not bad. The Church concern is only with the MOTIVATION and the MEANS, not with the end of “avoid pregnancy” (while still having **some **sex).
At the heart of this debate is whether or you not you accept the Church teaching that places great weight on:

**Motivation **- why do you want to avoid? Is the reason sound, or simply a selfish desire to instead partake in other worldly pleasures?

**Means **- how will you avoid - do you accept that individual sex acts must not be “interfered with” - that each must be both unitive and ordered to procreation. *

If you don’t accept that these are the 2 pivotal guideposts, then NFP will indeed appear to be pointless complexity, and you will be left believing only the Objective matters - hence you’ll conclude - “hey, the objective is the same, so what’s the problem with ABC”.*
 
GodisGood77 said:

“the acceptable reasons for avoiding a pregnancy have loosened exponential over the past 100 years.”

Is it really true that 100 years ago, the Church had very well-defined teachings with regard to “serious reason”? (100 years ago, of course, that would most likely have meant total rather than partial abstinence.)

We had a long thread a few weeks ago with a lot of quotes from documents flying around, and as I recall, even the Address to Midwives (1951), offered fairly broad guidelines:

“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.”

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

I have to say that “medical, eugenic, economic and social” covers an awful lot of ground.

“The number of children in Catholic families, including those using NFP for birth control, has decreased significantly over the past 100 years”

The number of children necessary to ensure that the average couple will have at least one child survive to adulthood has been falling and falling.

It’s an interesting fact that today, the average number of births per woman in a developed country required to support a stable population is only about 2.1. That’s the break even we need to keep the population from spiraling down. Meanwhile, in some developing countries, the number is 3.4.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

So, depending on local circumstances, you might need dramatically different birth rates to keep the population from going into a death spiral.

Here’s a chart showing mortality during the first year of life during the 20th century:

fasttrackteaching.com/ftap/TE-S7-P09&10.html

In 1900, something like 140 out of 1,000 babies died during their first year of life in the US. And that’s just the first year.

“There is no difference in intent between a couple using NFP and a couple using ABC - diminish the chances of pregnancy”

There probably are additional differences, for instance that the NFP couple probably also desires to be faithful to Church teachings and is willing to accept self-denial and to develop patience.

“I do not get NFP being acceptable when other forms of birth control are not”

The mechanism that makes NFP work is abstinence–that’s why it is acceptable while ABC is not.
 
godisgood77 said:
WOW!!! You and your husband ought to be commended… 20 days a month, while it sounds like it’s what needs to be done given your circumstance, that ain’t natural and must be very, very hard.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that “hard” varies from couple to couple, influenced significantly by individual libido (which is influenced by age and and other life-factors). Anything less than “every 2nd day” seemed a drought in younger days…🙂
 
I forget if it’s been mentioned in this thread, but even if the end is acceptable, there can be more and less moral ways of achieving a good end.

For instance, one of my ends is to make sure that my kids get good grades in school. One way to do that is to supervise them and have them do the work. Another way to achieve that same end is to do as much of their work myself as I can get away with doing.

Likewise, a man might have the entirely proper end of supporting his family in comfort. He could either do that by working more hours or taking a second job, or he could figure out some way to defraud his employer.

You need both a good end and good means to be acting morally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top