How many Catholics really use contraceptives?

[TheWarriorMonk]

And why would you want to use ABC that seems to be so much less effective than NFP?

The referenced chart shows and 82% effectiveness, not the 99% being spouted here. I’ll assume that’s because the study includes all data, rather than throwing out data favorable to a particular conclusion. That lower effectiveness appears to be consistent with what I’ve observed over the course of my life. NFP practitioners tend to have more “oops” babies, ESPECIALLY when the get older. In fact, my own wife is such an example. I can start going down the list of my Catholic friends who have also had the same thing happen.

It should also be noted that the methods really are not comparable. NFP asumes no sex during certain times of the month, whereas ABCs do not. Once you start comparing apples to apples, the effectiveness of ABCs will skyrocket; e.g., using ABCs only during the infertile period.

 

[maryjk]

It should also be noted that the methods really are not comparable. NFP asumes no sex during certain times of the month, whereas ABCs do not. Once you start comparing apples to apples, the effectiveness of ABCs will skyrocket; e.g., using ABCs only during the infertile period.

I don’t know, try taking birth control pills for only one week a month.

 

[nodito]

The referenced chart shows and 82% effectiveness, not the 99% being spouted here.

Every studied method has two published :“efficacies” - method efficacy and user efficacy. Method efficacy is how effective the method is when the couple uses it correctly and consistently every time; for example, always taking the pill at the same time every day and never missing a day. User efficacy is how effective the method when it’s used by the typical woman who will sometimes forget to take her pill, for example, or take the pill a couple of hours later than usual or forget to bring them on vacation. What you’re noticing is the discrepancy between the method effectiveness the user effectiveness for different methods.

Also, which method are you looking at? Different NFP methods have different efficacies.

 

[nodito]

It should also be noted that the methods really are not comparable. NFP asumes no sex during certain times of the month, whereas ABCs do not. Once you start comparing apples to apples, the effectiveness of ABCs will skyrocket; e.g., using ABCs only during the infertile period.

It’s further complicated by the fact that NFP methods can be used by couples to achieve pregnancy. If a couple knows they are fertile on any given night, because they’ve been charting, and they decide to have sex that night anyway (“what the heck, a baby wouldn’t be *that *bad”), are they still trying to avoid pregnancy? Is that really an NFP method failure?

 

[thewanderer]

There are some old threads that really dive into the #s and the methodology behind the surveys that come up with the oft-cited numbers. I do remember something about the 99% number coming from the fact that the surveys asked Catholic women if they HAD EVER used contraception, which of course is essentially worthless as a question, other than to make it incorrectly look like virtually all US Catholics disagrees with the Church.

If I get time later I will look back and see if I can find them.

Not only did they ask whether women had ever used contraception (as opposed to whether they are currently using it) they also excluded women who were not currently trying to avoid. This is very inconsistent. If they are concerned about someone ever having used contraception they should not have excluded those without a reason to use it currently. If they want to find out about those who currently use it they should not ask about those who have used it in the past.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It’s further complicated by the fact that NFP methods can be used by couples to achieve pregnancy. If a couple knows they are fertile on any given night, because they’ve been charting, and they decide to have sex that night anyway (“what the heck, a baby wouldn’t be *that *bad”), are they still trying to avoid pregnancy? Is that really an NFP method failure?

Do studies that determine the effectiveness of a particular method of birth control really include those that are intentionally trying to get pregnant?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I was just thinking the same thing. If NFP was so great and so easy, why don’t more women know about it? Most women don’t have the kind of lives where they can “wake up and take their temp.” NFP is not talked about in Church. (shhhhhh) And if you have an irregular cycle, good luck to you.

Many Churches provide NFP classes.

NFP works for women with irregular cycles because women can identify the signs of the fertile time once a woman knows how NFP works.

 

[quiet52]

So I read cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/Contraception.htm and I have some concerns. The ABC in this chart is measured differently than we have been talking about NFP. The “percentage” claim we have for NFP is represented instead by “number of pregnancies per 100 women in a year”. I am not good at math or statistics, but isn’t that different from “number of pregnancies if you have sex 100 times per year”? So if NFP is truly 99% effective, then only 1 woman out of 100 will be pregnant in a given year of use.

And why would you want to use ABC that seems to be so much less effective than NFP?

#1. Sadly, too many Catholics do not realize that contraceptives contain an abortion-inducing component. It does not seem to bother them that untold numbers of babies are killed (aborted) by bc pills, because the uterine wall is made inhospitable to the embryo, not allowing it to implant on it within a few days after conception.

#2. There seems to be an issue about NFP not being 100% effective for all users who want to avoid pregnancy. But neither are bc pills 100% effective in preventing pregnancies. Also, the “preventing pregnancy” rate is much lower than the stats present – less than 80% from what I recall reading – for the babies who are conceived in spite of the contraceptive components, they meet death because of the ingredient which prevents them from implanting on the uterine wall within a few days after conception (that’s called abortion). Pregnancy happens far more often than contraception users want to acknowledge; it is easier to remain in denial about the abortions their pills or devices might be causing.

**www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

onemoresoul.com/downloadable-pamphlets/the-pill-vs-nfp-3.html

ccli.org/nfp/effectiveness/compare-methods.php

integratedcatholiclife.org/2013/01/patti-armstrong-abortifacients-birth-control-contraception/**

 

[aball1035]

#1. Sadly, too many Catholics do not realize that contraceptives contain an abortion-inducing component. It does not seem to bother them that untold numbers of babies are killed (aborted) by bc pills, because the uterine wall is made inhospitable to the embryo, not allowing it to implant on it within a few days after conception.

Do you know what percentage of the abortifacient prone pills cause abortions? For example, is it 50% of the time they cause them, and the other 50% it’s by another way?

 

[nodito]

Do studies that determine the effectiveness of a particular method of birth control really include those that are intentionally trying to get pregnant?

Some do, some don’t. The methodology varies greatly. A lot of Marquette studies, for example, differentiate between couples practicing pregnancy-seeking behavior and -pregnancy-avoiding behavior. So if a woman knows she’s fertile and chooses to have sex anyway, in those studies this would not be included as a method failure if she becomes pregnant, even if she had entered the study indicating that she wanted to avoid pregnancy.

Other studies, however, do not take that degree of intention into effect. Many studies ask couples to decide at the beginning of the month whether they intend to avoid or achieve that month, and if they later choose to throw caution to the wind and become pregnant, those are considered in calculating user effectiveness.

There has been a lot of debate over the best way to calculate efficacy of NFP methods. Some argue it’s unfair to discount pregnancies that occur when couples take chances, because the difficulty couples have in abstaining may be exactly the point that pro-contraception types are trying to make. Other’s say that it’s absolutely essential to take any given night’s intention into consideration because NFP is at its core simply information about the woman’s fertility. I can see both sides. But it’s difficult to compare these methods with methods like hormonal contraception (for example, the IUD), because artificial birth control can’t be used to achieve pregnancy at all.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

#1. Sadly, too many Catholics do not realize that contraceptives contain an abortion-inducing component. It does not seem to bother them that untold numbers of babies are killed (aborted) by bc pills, because the uterine wall is made inhospitable to the embryo, not allowing it to implant on it within a few days after conception.

The definition of “abortion-inducing component” can be problematic. The obvious one deals with the pill. The rate of non-implantation due to breakthrough ovulation while on the pill is similar to (actually slightly less than) the rate of non-implantation due to breakthrough ovulation while practicing NFP, and the cause for both is the same (state of the uterine wall). Yet the former is called an abortion and the later is not.

 

[nodito]

The definition of “abortion-inducing component” can be problematic. The obvious one deals with the pill. The rate of non-implantation due to breakthrough ovulation while on the pill is similar to (actually slightly less than) the rate of non-implantation due to breakthrough ovulation while practicing NFP, and the cause for both is the same (state of the uterine wall). Yet the former is called an abortion and the later is not.

What do you mean by “rate of non-implantation due to breakthrough ovulation”? NFP users don’t have any “breakthrough ovulation.” They just ovulate. And then they either conceive and implant, conceive and don’t implant, or don’t conceive.

But in any event, using natural family planning doesn’t affect the the woman’s uterine lining, and therefore (unlike hormonal contraception) NFP cannot affect implantation.

 

[Personanongrata]

Many Churches provide NFP classes.

NFP works for women with irregular cycles because women can identify the signs of the fertile time once a woman knows how NFP works.

If this was true, more Catholic couples would use NFP.

 

[nodito]

"_Abyssinia:

Many Churches provide NFP classes.

NFP works for women with irregular cycles because women can identify the signs of the fertile time once a woman knows how NFP works.

If this was true, more Catholic couples would use NFP.

Which part do you doubt? The fact that many churches provide NFP classes or that NFP can be used by women with irregular cycles? Both are true.

I suspect more Catholic couples don’t use NFP because they a) don’t realize how sinful contraception actually is, b) think NFP is a lot of work and not worth the effort or, c) don’t realize exactly what NFP is and that it can be effective even for couples with irregular cycles.

 

[maryjk]

Which part do you doubt? The fact that many churches provide NFP classes or that NFP can be used by women with irregular cycles? Both are true.

I suspect more Catholic couples don’t use NFP because they a) don’t realize how sinful contraception actually is, b) think NFP is a lot of work and not worth the effort or, c) don’t realize exactly what NFP is and that it can be effective even for couples with irregular cycles.

I would add d) they don’t want to have to abstain during the fertile times.