Explaining Wrongs of Contraception to Non-Catholics

[Shlemele]

Ok fair warning, I’m playing devils advocate here so don’t take this too harshly…

canadianlife:

First, I told her, you can fit the entire world’s population into the state of Texas with a good 18,000 sq. miles left or something (thats with eevryone having 5 sq. ft of space.

This doesn’t take into account the fact that there needs to be land to grow crops, clean and distribute water ect. This might not seem like a bug deal unless you figure how many different things you consume in a year. Once you figure in farm land for all the fruits and vegetables and food for the meats you are talking about a much larger area than texas. If the whole world lived like the US imagine what the result would be! Now take into account the fact that not all places in the world can support the kind of agriculture the states can… Very soon it becomes evident that our 5X5 squares probably need to be in at least acres to sustain a viable population (not starving/diseased)

canadianlife:

and the USA alone could feed the rest of the world if they ate only what they needed.

Again a great idea and in truth we do produce enough foodstuffs to feed the world. The problem isn’t in production but rather in preservation and distribution. On the preservation end much of our food rots on the vines. I worked several years in a packing shed that shipped peaches, nectarines and plumbs and I can tell you a significant amount was thrown out because of rot. Much of the fruit that was just cosmetically damaged was given to gleanings for the hungry so there wasn’t much waste. The problem is though that for what it would cost to ship the produce you might as well invest in infrastructure. On the distribution end I have heard many stories of food relief rotting at the airport because of politics. Combine that with the cost of shipping and we again see that building infrastructure makes more sense.

canadianlife:

Then I told her that the user-effectiveness of contraceptives is something like 92% vs. 98.9% with NFP.

I’m not sure where you are getting your figures but you are not taking into account method of birth control. Sure not every method is 100% but I know the pill is above 99% when used correctly. Condoms and other methods do have a lower effectiveness but by the same token NFP is only effective at all when used correctly (and to be honest it’s best to reference statistics, there are too many bad sources out there) Here is from the FDA website, the out of 100% means that the number of failures can be directly converted to a percentage (1 of 100 is 1%)

Periodic Abstinence
FDA Approval Date: N/A
Description: To deliberately refrain from having sexual intercourse during times when pregnancy is more likely.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 20
Some Risks: None
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Requires frequent monitoring of body functions (for example, body temperature for one method).
Availability: Instructions from health-care provider

Oral Contraceptives–combined pill
FDA Approval Date: First in 1960; most recent in 2003
Description: A pill that suppresses ovulation by the combined actions of the hormones estrogen and progestin. A chewable form was approved in November 2003.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Some Risks: Dizziness; nausea; changes in menstruation, mood, and weight; rarely, cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, blood clots, heart attack, and strokes
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Must be taken on daily schedule, regardless of frequency of intercourse. Women using the chewable tablet must drink 8 oz. of liquid immediately after taking.
Availability: Prescription

Again I’m not trying to rain on your parade, just do some research… There is a book called “How to lie with Statistics” and it shows how some people can get totally different numbers out of the same population.

 

[msh]

I have a strange way of explaining contraception to peers. “If your parents had taken steps to contracept, there would likely have never been a ‘you’.” And for most, it suddenly makes sense because they’ve been taught this cold harsh rote response of “whatever grows inside you isn’t really a human til it squalls after the doctor spanks it” health education.

 

[Philip76]

“Periodic Abstinence” is not a method of natural family planning. It is one of the features of a number of methods. When that web site quotes results from studies on specific types of natural family planning methods, I will pay attention to its figures.

 

[Shlemele]

“Periodic Abstinence” is not a method of natural family planning. It is one of the features of a number of methods. When that web site quotes results from studies on specific types of natural family planning methods, I will pay attention to its figures.

ok here is an article from stanford that quotes 2% - 25% and mentions several NFP methods I have seen discused on the boards

 

[canadianlife]

Ok fair warning, I’m playing devils advocate here so don’t take this too harshly…

I wish I could have gone into the detail I did when I had the discussion, but then I would’ve filled the board with a novel :clapping:

This doesn’t take into account the fact that there needs to be land to grow crops, clean and distribute water ect. This might not seem like a bug deal unless you figure how many different things you consume in a year. Once you figure in farm land for all the fruits and vegetables and food for the meats you are talking about a much larger area than texas. If the whole world lived like the US imagine what the result would be! Now take into account the fact that not all places in the world can support the kind of agriculture the states can… Very soon it becomes evident that our 5X5 squares probably need to be in at least acres to sustain a viable population (not starving/diseased)

I agree - I told her in no way is this an ideal situation to have your own 5x5 square, but it gives you the sense of how little we populate the earth. Maybe we do have a population crisis, but to be able to fit that many people into that small area of Texas - then have the rest of the world, which is a MUCH more vast area, to grow crops, doubts arise to this so called “population crisis” Even, as I said, we did have a population crisis, why use condoms when they’re LESS effective that abstience and NFP. If you really care about world population you wouldn’t be handing out condoms in the first place

Again a great idea and in truth we do produce enough foodstuffs to feed the world. The problem isn’t in production but rather in preservation and distribution. On the preservation end much of our food rots on the vines. I worked several years in a packing shed that shipped peaches, nectarines and plumbs and I can tell you a significant amount was thrown out because of rot. Much of the fruit that was just cosmetically damaged was given to gleanings for the hungry so there wasn’t much waste. The problem is though that for what it would cost to ship the produce you might as well invest in infrastructure. On the distribution end I have heard many stories of food relief rotting at the airport because of politics. Combine that with the cost of shipping and we again see that building infrastructure makes more sense.

Indeed, and that is the problem. I told her America alone could feed the entire world, only problem being the infrastructure etc. And if one country the size of America could feed the entire world, as populated as it is…doubts about a population crisis begin to arise, and now you’re focusing your attention on politics and why the governments aren’t doing anything, well most anything, right

I’m not sure where you are getting your figures but you are not taking into account method of birth control. Sure not every method is 100% but I know the pill is above 99% when used correctly. Condoms and other methods do have a lower effectiveness but by the same token NFP is only effective at all when used correctly (and to be honest it’s best to reference statistics, there are too many bad sources out there) Here is from the FDA website, the out of 100% means that the number of failures can be directly converted to a percentage (1 of 100 is 1%)

Well the fact the pill is an abortificaent alone detracts her, being a woman she loves her babies and would never kill one, so we didn’t bring the pill into this. And when I say user-effectiveness I mean how properly they’re doing it. In theory NFP is 99% correct, but has a user-effectiveness of 98.9%. Condoms on the other hand have a 99% effectiveness but something like a 92% user-effectiveness. Whatever the case contraception is morally wrong

 

[Hope75]

There was a study published by the Journal of Reproductive Medicine by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers which showed the effectiveness of using the Creighton Model of NFP:

Results: A total of 1,876 couples used CrM NET for a total of 17,130.0 couple months of use. The method and use effectiveness rates for avoiding pregnancy were 99.5 and 96.8 at the 12th ordinal month and 99.5 and 96.4 at the 18th ordinal month, respectively. The Results: A total of 1,876 couples used CrM NET for a total of 17,130.0 couple months of use. The method and use effectiveness rates for avoiding pregnancy were 99.5 and 96.8 at the 12th ordinal month and 99.5 and 96.4 at the 18th ordinal month, respectively.

I find that explaining that NFP is healthy, natural, effective, and is beneficial to marriage helps people choose NFP. Unfortunately in our “instant” society many people would rather choose the easy, quick way out. Instead of learning about their body’s natural changes and appreciate how they were created.

I also explain to interested couples that when a man respects the natural changes that take place in the woman he shows great love and respect to the woman. He loves her for who she is. And she therefore will love and respect him all the more!