Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?

[Question12345]

Is this a good thread to counter these claims?

Yeah – speak up ladies – we all know milllions of women who’ve gotten pregnant on what they used to call the “rhythm method.” As far as empowering women by learning and using this method – empowerment is the right to choose to this method or whatever other one you want to.

 

[Question12345]

If Mexican woman’s decision was a product of her personal relation with God, we can’t blame Pope for her suffering.

I can, she told me that was why she won’t use birth control.

 

[Chrono13]

Yeah – speak up ladies – we all know milllions of women who’ve gotten pregnant on what they used to call the “rhythm method.” As far as empowering women by learning and using this method – empowerment is the right to choose to this method or whatever other one you want to.

Women have power- even to be Catholic if they want to.

The case of NFP is very interesting and shocking in Roman Catholic religion. But I tend to avoid discussion in “too open” circumstances.

 

[Chrono13]

I can, she told me that was why she won’t use birth control.

But *she *chose to follow his guidance.

 

[Warrior1979]

The USCCB has no teaching authority or permission from Rome to interpret or establish any norms on faith and morals. This is very confusing for most US Catholics. You are not “safe” from the consequences of sin, simply because you want to defer to someone else who “said it was ok”.

It is not just “someone else” saying it is OK. The “someone else” happens to be successors to the Apostles. If, as a Catholic, you follow the advice of your Bishop, and Rome has not stated otherwise, how can one be held responsible for “sin?”

 

[wanner47]

Yeah – speak up ladies – we all know milllions of women who’ve gotten pregnant on what they used to call the “rhythm method.” As far as empowering women by learning and using this method – empowerment is the right to choose to this method or whatever other one you want to.

NFP is not the rhythm method. You have been gravely misinformed. Might I suggest learning about what NFP is and what it is not before pontificating about a subject upon which you appear to be ignorant?

My husband and I have used NFP since 2003 to both achieve and postpone pregnancy. It is based on the scientific observation of fertility signs such as basal body temperature, cervical mucous, and cervical position.

I was on the Pill for the first two years of our marriage (we were Lutheran at the time). Having lived both lifestyles (contraceptive and NFP), I can emphatically say that I MUCH prefer using NFP. It’s better for my health and better for our marriage.

 

[choose_to_love]

(since we are off and running . . . )

@question12345:

One, I second what wanner47 has posted. You appear to be ignorant of modern methods of fertility awareness. My family has also used NFP (sympto-thermal) to postpone and acheive pregnancy, going on eleven years of marriage. Efficacy: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17314078 : 0.6 pregnancy rate per 13 cycles, 900+ women, 17,000+ cycles. Similarly, it is difficult to tell if you understand what the RCC teaches in regard to responsible parenthood, “birth control”, and moral means of achieving birth regulation. What is your understanding, if I may be so bold?

Two, what makes you think any of us here, your friend, or any Catholics, have not thought for ourselves, or do not have a personal relationship with God? Kind of presumptuous, no?

Three, suppose you and I, in good faith (get it?), both read the Scriptures regarding, oh, let’s say the liciety of contraception within marriage. We read the same source material, but come to different conclusions. Who is right? One of us has to be. Who has the authority to make that call?

Fourth, what did John Wesley ( a founder of Methodism, yes?) think about contraception?

Fifth, I realize tone and inflection do not always come across as intended online, but you seem to have jumped in here firing away. Why? We’ll be happy to explain why we believe what we believe, but if all Catholics are in the “crazies” box before we even start, what is the point?

 

[timeandeternity]

A huge problem with the Pill is that much of the time it is not merely contraceptive, but abortifacient. The fact that there is a risk that a newly created child might be killed by the Pill is enough to decide not to use it while you are having marital relations.

 

[sisyphusishappy]

I’m not a practicing Catholic but was raised in the religion. (So please don’t go nuts and try to get me kicked off here because my opinion is different from yours.) We don’t live in tents in the desert anymore, nor do we stone blasphemers or send women into seclusion during menstruation. So why should we hold onto to a similar Bronze-age belief, like sex existing only for procreation/contraception is bad? And if you write back, please have a better answer than “Because the church says so.” The Catholic Church has said a lot of questionable things over the centuries (think of Galileo, Jews, indulgences, etc.).

 

[wanner47]

I’m not a practicing Catholic but was raised in the religion. (So please don’t go nuts and try to get me kicked off here because my opinion is different from yours.) We don’t live in tents in the desert anymore, nor do we stone blasphemers or send women into seclusion during menstruation. So why should we hold onto to a similar Bronze-age belief, like sex existing only for procreation/contraception is bad?

Maybe because Christians are bound by the New Covenant and not the Old Law?

And if you write back, please have a better answer than “Because the church says so.”

Read this: Contraception: Why Not?

The Catholic Church has said a lot of questionable things over the centuries (think of Galileo, Jews, indulgences, etc.).

Oh my, are you misinformed. Go to catholic.com and type in all those terms in the search box; you’ll find articles from This Rock magazine that will hopefully dispel your misconceptions.

 

[sisyphusishappy]

This message is to Joanna:
Joanna, are you telling me the Catholic Church said or did nothing questionable regarding Galileo, Jews and indulgences?
Seriously?
Tom

 

[SwizzleStick]

This message is to Joanna:
Joanna, are you telling me the Catholic Church said or did nothing questionable regarding Galileo, Jews and indulgences?
Seriously?
Tom

Please follow forum rules and start your own thread elsewhere if you wish to discuss the above. Alternatively, you could do a search and find threads pertaining to the topics and read those.

 

[sisyphusishappy]

Contraception, by the way, is nearly impossible to get in Afghanistan, the country recently rated by the non-profit Save the Children, as the worst in the world for mothers. One out of five children dies before the age of five. Norway, the country which got their top rating, makes contraception available to all.

 

[Chrono13]

NFP is not the rhythm method. You have been gravely misinformed. Might I suggest learning about what NFP is and what it is not before pontificating about a subject upon which you appear to be ignorant?

What do you mean? NFP is systematic observance of the woman’s menstrual cycle, limiting intercourse to (in)fertile periods.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Contraception, by the way, is nearly impossible to get in Afghanistan, the country recently rated by the non-profit Save the Children, as the worst in the world for mothers. One out of five children dies before the age of five. Norway, the country which got their top rating, makes contraception available to all.

And the above is relevant to this thread in what way?

If you wish to discuss the above, perhaps you should create your own thread and not derail this one.

 

[Chrono13]

Similarly, it is difficult to tell if you understand what the RCC teaches in regard to responsible parenthood, “birth control”, and moral means of achieving birth regulation.

It is even better to ask what Catholic Church teaches about irresponsible parenthood.

Fourth, what did John Wesley ( a founder of Methodism, yes?) think about contraception?

And what did Church Fathers think about NFP?

 

[wanner47]

sisyphusishappy - please do feel free to start individual threads on the subjects you mention and I would be happy to dispel your misconceptions. Or you can search the forum as I’m sure there have been many threads on those subjects in the past.

What do you mean? NFP is systematic observance of the woman’s menstrual cycle, limiting intercourse to (in)fertile periods.

Actually, that’s not accurate as NFP can also be used to *achieve *pregnancy by timing intercourse to coincide with a woman’s fertile period. NFP only provides information; what is done with that information is left up to the couple and their discernment.

The rhythm method does NOT work by observation of fertility signs. It uses a calendar, and it assumes that every woman has a textbook 28-day cycle and ovulates on day 14 (which most women, including myself, do not). Women are instructed to mark the first day of their period as day 1, and then avoid from days 8-17 or so (if they wish to avoid pregnancy). This method of counting days does not work for most women, as even women who regularly have 28-day cycles will occasionally have delayed ovulation due to stress, travel, or myriad other reasons.

 

[SwizzleStick]

What do you mean? NFP is systematic observance of the woman’s menstrual cycle, limiting intercourse to (in)fertile periods.

The old calendar “rhythm method” is not the same as Natural Family Planning. The rhythm method was based on calendar calculations of a “normal” cycle. In contrast, NFP is based on direct observations of various signs that occur in an individual woman’s body (changes in the cervix, cervical mucus, and temperature) which tell her when she is fertile. Thus, she and her husband can decide together whether or not to indulge in “celebrating their sacrament,” depending on if they are trying to conceive or if they are trying to avoid.

 

[sisyphusishappy]

And the above is relevant to this thread in what way?

If you wish to discuss the above, perhaps you should create your own thread and not derail this one.

Dear SwizzleStick:

How is it valid?

Let’s look at the thread question: “Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?”

It’s valid because “certain circumstances”, like making life safer for women who live in countries with poor health care, warrant birth control/contraception. Countries where contraception is easily available have healthier women.

 

[wanner47]

Dear SwizzleStick:

How is it valid?

Let’s look at the thread question: “Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?”

It’s valid because “certain circumstances”, like making life safer for women who live in countries with poor health care, warrant birth control/contraception. Countries where contraception is easily available have healthier women.

Norway is a first-world country. Afghanistan is a third-world country. You can’t compare the two and say, “Contraception is the ONLY REASON that Afghanistan has such an abysmal maternal mortality rate.”

The reason the women and children of Afghanistan suffer is due to the greed and incompetence of its ruling class, not because of alleged lack of contraception.

Did you know that in many African countries, medical supply facilities have no penicillin or sterile bandages, but their cupboards are overflowing with condoms, so much so that children use them as toys? THAT is what is sad.