Is NFP more of a cross than a blessing to you?

[Xantippe]

Refusal is allowed if there is certain, material life and death danger.

But there isn’t with conservative NFP.

If there’s a 1 in 10 chance of pregnancy killing a woman and there’s a 1 in 100 chance of her becoming pregnant while doing conservative NFP, that’s a 1 in 1000 chance, isn’t it?

I don’t think that a husband could reasonably refuse a wife that was asking under those circumstances–a 99.9% chance that all will be well.

 

[masondoggy]

Except when you are avoiding pregnancy…it is temptation. There is no other word for it.

We can’t and don’t want another baby after the third.

We have to abstain.

We can’t do anything else…passionate kissing leads to other things and we have to figure out a balance that doesn’t result in a pregnancy and/or result in the two of us ending up in confession because we went “too far” with no intention to finish.

Of course there is temptation within marriage…especially when you actually have reasons to abstain and are trying to figure out a happy medium that doesn’t result in another baby.

When I’m fertile…that will end up with us in separate bedrooms to avoid going too far without going far enough.

I can’t just be intimate whenever I want. It’s not possible. I’ll end up pregnant again after less then a month of being PP. My body cannot do that.

I can’t just kiss my husband or have him kiss me if I’m fertile and I want to be with him…because it’s too hard to stop sometimes.

No, it doesn’t happen throughout my cycle…but there are plenty of times where I want my husband and he wants me and we have to abstain.

I go for 3 mile runs, I avoid cuddling with him, I’ve gone so far as to sleep in the spare bedroom just to avoid the temptation to do anything intimate with him.

I hear ya! Just one big fat ditto.

1. Ecological breastfeeding is more of a parenting style/philosophy and CCL should focus on teaching NFP and promoting breastfeeding, and avoid entering into the parenting philosophy debates."

I think even they need to back off on promoting breastfeeding and stick to teaching the darn method. Again, breastfeeding is not required to be a faithful Catholic and for many people it is very difficult or impossible, or they just plain don’t want to do it. And there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, breast milk is best for babies and there are a lot of benefits (and I agree those benefits should be given as side information) but there’s also nothing wrong with formula and sometimes it’s better for a mother’s mental health to stick with the bottle.

I breastfed all of my babies but when I was pregnant last year (the one that ended in mc) I decided to skip the breastfeeding and planned to use formula. I had my reasons, maybe some of them were selfish according to some. But I think that when we push BF’ing too much on moms who struggle with it or plain don’t want to, we make them feel guilty.

But at the same time makes life less hard and dangerous.

In the good old days, if a woman had a life-threatening health condition where pregnancy could kill her (and there are actually more than a few of those), the choices were:

1. sin

and

1. total abstinence.

Currently, her choices are:

1. sin
2. total abstinence

and

1. NFP (with some risk of pregnancy)

I have to say that I think that is an improvement, especially since one can tweak NFP to be more effective, depending on one’s level of need.

I, for one, am VERY grateful to have the option to use NFP if I were ever faced with something like that. We really do have it good compared to previous generations of faithful Catholics.

If the bolded is the case, there is only one choice, abstain. I would never put my wife’s life in this kind of danger.

Using very conservative rules, such as only using phase III and maybe backing up temping with a monitor, pretty much makes pregnancy virtually impossible. Not zero, but it’s very, very unlikely. It’s a very good option for couples faced with that dilemma.

 

[whm]

But there isn’t with conservative NFP.

If there’s a 1 in 10 chance of pregnancy killing a woman and there’s a 1 in 100 chance of her becoming pregnant while doing conservative NFP, that’s a 1 in 1000 chance, isn’t it?

I don’t think that a husband could reasonably refuse a wife that was asking under those circumstances–a 99.9% chance that all will be well.

There is no 99.9% chance that all would be well. Plus your statistics are arbitrary and assume one single measurement period.

It’s a “grave” reasons test and has existed in the church since at least the time of St. Thomas Aquinas. Interestingly enough it is the same grave reasons test that used to be given for NFP usage.

 

[Xantippe]

But there isn’t with conservative NFP.

If there’s a 1 in 10 chance of pregnancy killing a woman and there’s a 1 in 100 chance of her becoming pregnant while doing conservative NFP, that’s a 1 in 1000 chance, isn’t it?

I don’t think that a husband could reasonably refuse a wife that was asking under those circumstances–a 99.9% chance that all will be well.

For comparison purposes, historically 1 woman died in childbirth for every 100 babies that were born. This ratio continues to be the case in places like Afghanistan.

 

[whm]

Using very conservative rules, such as only using phase III and maybe backing up temping with a monitor, pretty much makes pregnancy virtually impossible. Not zero, but it’s very, very unlikely. It’s a very good option for couples faced with that dilemma.

If this were the case, why so much drama over NFP in this thread?

 

[Xantippe]

I think even they need to back off on promoting breastfeeding and stick to teaching the darn method. Again, breastfeeding is not required to be a faithful Catholic and for many people it is very difficult or impossible, or they just plain don’t want to do it. And there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, breast milk is best for babies and there are a lot of benefits (and I agree those benefits should be given as side information) but there’s also nothing wrong with formula and sometimes it’s better for a mother’s mental health to stick with the bottle.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

There is no 99.9% chance that all would be well. Plus your statistics are arbitrary and assume one single measurement period.

**Yes, the numbers are arbitrary, but it’s an example. When something is dangerous, it doesn’t need to kill you every single time–1 out of 10 is adequate to make a situation very dangerous.

I think the 99% would be for a given year, which is a considerable amount of time. I’ll give you 98% or 97% if you prefer, but I think I’m being generous. **

 

[whm]

Again, If 99% is generous, then why all the drama???

 

[Xantippe]

If this were the case, why so much drama over NFP in this thread?

Because:

1. Not all women find NFP easy, even theoretically. You’ll find a number of couples on the board that gave up because they were abstaining a lot and getting a lot of unplanned pregnancies anyway.

Hence, I would be much more comfortable advising conservative NFP to a woman with serious health issues if she had already had a good track record of success with NFP under less dire conditions.

99% probably wouldn’t be for a newbie–it would be for an experienced and patient long-term user.

1. Even if NFP is theoretically smooth sailing (the couple has no unplanned pregnancies), there may be a quite substantial amount of abstinence involved in achieving that. A “good” number for conservative NFP is 10 days available out of 30, and it might be rather less than that. For postpartum or perimenopausal NFP there might be quite lengthy abstinence. (When I was finishing up breastfeeding, things got weird, and we had 5 months of abstinence at the end, just due to uncertainty.) In practice, conservative NFP can look a lot like abstinence with very occasional breaks.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Again, If 99% is generous, then why all the drama???

Rarely is the drama over the effectiveness but rather the employment.

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve been doing a little reading on perimenopausal NFP, and one thing I’ve learned is that it takes one full year of no cycles before a woman can be declared menopausal.

So, we could have a situation where a woman had no cycles for 11 months–and then had a cycle.

A couple that patiently waited through all of that would be facing nearly 11 months of abstinence.

 

[whm]

Because:

1. Not all women find NFP easy, even theoretically. You’ll find a number of couples on the board that gave up because they were abstaining a lot and getting a lot of unplanned pregnancies anyway.

Not 99%.

Hence, I would be much more comfortable advising conservative NFP to a woman with serious health issues if she had already had a good track record of success with NFP under less dire conditions.

1. Even if NFP is theoretically smooth sailing (the couple has no unplanned pregnancies), there may be a quite substantial amount of abstinence involved in achieving that. A “good” number for conservative NFP is 10 days available out of 30, and it might be rather less than that. For postpartum or perimenopausal NFP there might be quite lengthy abstinence. (When I was finishing up breastfeeding, things got weird, and we had 5 months of abstinence at the end, just due to uncertainty.) In practice, conservative NFP can look a lot like abstinence with very occasional breaks.

How do find out if they are good at or not? If they have an unplanned pregnancy, they are not good and get thrown out of the stats. Problem is they still have the pregnancy and a significant risk of death (in our hypothetical).

I am just trying to understand…

 

[masondoggy]

If this were the case, why so much drama over NFP in this thread?

The “drama” here has nothing to do with the issue of couples using conservative NFP because of life-threatening pregnancies. That’s a whole other issue.

The “drama” is about the everyday struggle that many NFP users experience whether they’re avoiding indefinitely (for whatever reasons) or just trying to space their children. And I think the main point out of all of it is that the struggle needs to be recognized and validated, rather than glossed over with pretty flower stickers.

It is my opinion that we all, as a Church, need to stick together on this and acknowledge the difficulties that come with being faithful to the Church and support one another. That is why I think it’s unhelpful to endlessly praise the glories of NFP on your marriage or bring groups into our parishes that pass off EBF and attachment parenting as requirements of good Catholics. That is NOT how we, as a Church, support one another on this difficult journey.

Just my opinion.

 

[whm]

And I think the main point out of all of it is that the struggle needs to be recognized and validated, rather than glossed over with pretty flower stickers.

It is my opinion that we all, as a Church, need to stick together on this and acknowledge the difficulties that come with being faithful to the Church and support one another. That is why I think it’s unhelpful to endlessly praise the glories of NFP on your marriage or bring groups into our parishes that pass off EBF and attachment parenting as requirements of good Catholics. That is NOT how we, as a Church, support one another on this difficult journey.

Just my opinion.

I can agree with that.

 

[Xantippe]

Not 99%.

How do find out if they are good at or not? If they have an unplanned pregnancy, they are not good and get thrown out of the stats. Problem is they still have the pregnancy and a significant risk of death (in our hypothetical).

I am just trying to understand…

Let me try again.

If a couple is good at NFP and then the wife develops a severe health problem, that couple can reasonably expect 99% effectiveness if they are very conservative and patient.

I can’t promise that kind of success to a couple that has not previously had success with NFP before the wife developed a serious health problem.

When I was talking about 99%, it was not a promise for the public at large, but for couples that have had some measure of success with NFP.

 

[masondoggy]

Let me try again.

If a couple is good at NFP and then the wife develops a severe health problem, that couple can reasonably expect 99% effectiveness if they are very conservative and patient.

I can’t promise that kind of success to a couple that has not previously had success with NFP before the wife developed a serious health problem.

When I was talking about 99%, it was not a promise for the public at large, but for couples that have had some measure of success with NFP.

I do think that a new user could have that degree of effectiveness if they’re working closely with an instructor and temping. Probably not so much with a mucus-only method because that is just too subjective. But if an experienced instructor takes a look at their temp chart and determines that they’re in phase III and gives the green light = same effectiveness. Kwim?

 

[Xantippe]

The “drama” here has nothing to do with the issue of couples using conservative NFP because of life-threatening pregnancies. That’s a whole other issue.

Right.

The “drama” is about the everyday struggle that many NFP users experience whether they’re avoiding indefinitely (for whatever reasons) or just trying to space their children. And I think the main point out of all of it is that the struggle needs to be recognized and validated, rather than glossed over with pretty flower stickers.

**Right.

And likewise, I think the same needs to happen for talking about the difficulties of marriage or raising children.

It does no one any favors to say, “It’s super easy and if you can’t hack it you’re a lazy weakling!”**

 

[masondoggy]

Oh don’t even get me started on the difficulties of raising children!

Teenagers. That’s all I will say. :banghead:

 

[Xantippe]

I do think that a new user could have that degree of effectiveness if they’re working closely with an instructor and temping. Probably not so much with a mucus-only method because that is just too subjective. But if an experienced instructor takes a look at their temp chart and determines that they’re in phase III and gives the green light = same effectiveness. Kwim?

Yes.

I’d still feel uncomfortable without a track record in a life-and-death case. But the odds are pretty good.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

If this were the case, why so much drama over NFP in this thread?

Oh, my sweet summer child. What do you know of NFP?