S
Shakuhachi
Guest
I guess I just do not need to have such an exclusive view of it.
- Status
R
Raxus
Guest
Vonsalza’s article below details it.
Indeed. “Correctly and consistently.” Seems to me that anything worth doing ought to be done correctly and consistently, don’t you?
Doesn’t make it right.
Being a “realist” is not mutually exclusive to expecting to be loved in a marriage. It is realistic to expect to be loved by one’s spouse, unless that spouse does something purposefully horrible.
Hey, you’re the one only betting a beer.And rhetorical tactics like that do much of the same.
I did not give an exception. They’re not the same thing.
No apologies necessary. I’m just debating my point of view, as you are yours. It’s all good.
O
OKComputer
Guest
I grew up Catholic but I always wondered if I was just Catholic because of my parents or if I really believed it. After all, if I was born in Iran, I’d be a Muslim. If I was born in Denmark, I’d be an atheist. So I tried out other religions. I went to a Methodist church for awhile. Then I converted to Mormonism for years. After leaving Mormonism I very recently (About a month ago) swung back to the Catholic church, but I’ve always been religiously unstable.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Yep. (I didn’t think they had a source either, @TC3033)
If you’re like most people, most artificial birth control gives you a 1 in 10 probability of getting pregnant this year.
Under similar circumstances, “natural” methods give you between 1 in 8 and 1 in 4.
Used perfectly, artificial methods like the pill can yield a 0.05% failure rate. That’s what? 1 in 2000 odds of getting pregnant this year?
NFP done perfectly with young, regular women is 1 in 250. And that number is a little optimistic because “perfect” with NFP requires a substantial commitment from the woman involved. “Perfect” with a pill just means you take it at the same time everyday.
So to be sure, NFP isn’t better than artificial birth control at preventing pregnancy (as was your claim). It’s markedly worse and this worse result requires much, much more effort to achieve using NFP than using other, more modern contraceptive methods.
Any solution to macro-social issues that requires a high degree of precision is terminally faulted from the start.
Sure. Which is a completely different issue from whether people should arbitrarily pony up to suffering.
I didn’t say it was.
So there wasn’t a dichotomy. I didn’t think there was…
You didn’t bet anything at all.
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
It is not worse. It is at least as effective, if not more so:
Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds | ScienceDaily
That’s your opinion, and a strange one at that.
What makes you think it’s suffering at all?
You implied there was with the statement.
I don’t need to.You didn’t bet anything at all.
R
Raxus
Guest
Further, from Natural Family Planning - Roman Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg :
Myth #4: NFP is not a reliable method of family planning.
REALITY: The effectiveness of NFP depends upon spouses’ following the rules of the method according to their family planning intention (i.e. achieving or limiting pregnancy). When couples understand the methods and are motivated to follow them, NFP is up to 99% successful in spacing or limiting births.
When comparing family planning methods, researches distinguish between “perfect use” – when a method is used consistently and correctly every single time – and “typical use” – or the success rate for all people using the method, no matter how precisely or consistently they use it. As the chart below demonstrates, NFP is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as other common family planning methods, particularly when it is used consistently and correctly.
NFP / sympto-thermal (perfect use): 99.6%
NFP / sympto-thermal (typical use): 89%
The Pill (perfect use): 99.7%
The Pill (typical use): 92%
Condoms (perfect use): 98%
Condoms (typical use): 85%
Withdrawal (perfect use): 96%
Withdrawal (typical use): 73%
Myth #4: NFP is not a reliable method of family planning.
REALITY: The effectiveness of NFP depends upon spouses’ following the rules of the method according to their family planning intention (i.e. achieving or limiting pregnancy). When couples understand the methods and are motivated to follow them, NFP is up to 99% successful in spacing or limiting births.
When comparing family planning methods, researches distinguish between “perfect use” – when a method is used consistently and correctly every single time – and “typical use” – or the success rate for all people using the method, no matter how precisely or consistently they use it. As the chart below demonstrates, NFP is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as other common family planning methods, particularly when it is used consistently and correctly.
NFP / sympto-thermal (perfect use): 99.6%
NFP / sympto-thermal (typical use): 89%
The Pill (perfect use): 99.7%
The Pill (typical use): 92%
Condoms (perfect use): 98%
Condoms (typical use): 85%
Withdrawal (perfect use): 96%
Withdrawal (typical use): 73%
L
laylow
Guest
If they are equal in effectiveness, why is one considered evil and the other promoted.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
First, the “if not more so” isn’t supported literally anywhere in your source material.
The line from your source is “Therefore, we maintain that the effectiveness of STM is comparable to the effectiveness of modern contraceptive methods such as oral contraceptives, and is an effective and acceptable method of family planning.”
Literally nowhere is it cited as being better. That’s just an emotional idea you have that you really really want to be true. But no dice.
And the numbers they cite aren’t as good as modern contraceptives. But the odds drop JUST below 1 in 100, so we’ll call that “comparable” - EVEN THOUGH THIS NUMBER IS FROM A CHERRY-PICKED SUBSET AND WAS NOT ACTUALLY ACHIEVED IN THEIR TRIAL!!!
Uh oh…
Seriously. Did you read it? “Out of all the 900 women who took part in the study, including those who had unprotected sex during their fertile period, 1.8 per 100 became unintentionally pregnant.”That’s not their hyper-optimistic 1 in 250 chance of getting pregnant that they publish.
That’s 1 in 56.
They had to make an excuse for why they didn’t hit their numbers with the whole group…
Occam’s Razor, friend. It needs to be simple. Achieving precision is not simple.
You’re not following anymore, are you?
You started the reference to suffering and now… ???
So any time a person identifies a discrete alternative you think there’s a dichotomy present?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Yeah, and they only hit those numbers when they can cherry pick their data. They didn’t even hit it in a trial designed to show how effective NFP can be.
Do you see how tragic and funny the continued defense of it really is? C’mon man!
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
Because one does not seek to contravene the purpose of the genital expression of sex.
R
Raxus
Guest
That actually depends on context. I’m okay with being mistaken with that I thought I’ve read in the past, however. If you’d like to be super-defense and ascribe motives to what I say based on what you’re apparently projecting, that’s on you. I’m not any more emotional about this than I am about most other things (which is to say, not much).Literally nowhere is it cited as being better. That’s just an emotional idea you have that you really really want to be true. But no dice.
Multiple sources site a 99% effectiveness rate if NFP is used correctly. You’re welcome to go out and look yourself.
Pretty sure all 900 weren’t using the method correctly. Numbers go up for pregnancies with artificial birth control if it’s not used according to specification, too. What’s your point?Uh oh…
No, they didn’t. Did you read the article?They had to make an excuse for why they didn’t hit their numbers with the whole group…
No, it doesn’t. That’s your opinion.
…no, you asked why people should suffer for sufferings’ sake, and I responded to that. Also, no need to be rude.
You implied that being reasonable was the opposite of expecting unconditional love from a spouse. That, sir, is a false dichotomy.
What cherry picking?? If folks stick with it like they should, it’s over 99% effective. Feel free to disprove that if you’d like.
Getting emotional, I see. Why?
T
TC3033
Guest
Ya…that went about a well as I thought it would…(including go search it yourself).
Since that was something I’d never heard I was very interested in seeing the peer reviewed studies showing such.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I don’t think many exist and the sources that refer to a scientific study keep referring to the same small set over and over and over.Vonsalza:
Ya…that went about a well as I thought it would…(including go search it yourself).
Since that was something I’d never heard I was very interested in seeing the peer reviewed studies showing such.
I think it’s pretty telling when NFP advocates will cite studies where the study itself didn’t hit the effectiveness numbers that they were trying to demonstrate…
If 99.4% effective NFP exists, then it’s like bigfoot - there’s no proof of it.
Further complicating things is that it’s obviously a religious issue. This means that when some women experience a “failure” of NFP and get pregnant, they may be less than fully likely to report the failure because it might be interpreted as a smear against their beloved Church. “Oh, we were trying for number 4 anyway!”. So the “effectiveness” of NFP is likely lower still…
In sum, NFP’s failure rate when perfectly done is 1 in 250 (1 in 56 in the study trying to show how effective NFP is), the pill’s failure rate when perfectly done is 1 in 2000. Perfect NFP is an ocean of work and perfect pill usage is just taking it every day and at the same time.
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
Really, then why is it so effective?
R
Raxus
Guest
Because it’s a scientific method that works. ~shrug~
L
laylow
Guest
Then when practicing, the people are not open to life, and therefore the end result contraception.
R
Raxus
Guest
People will ultimately do what they’re gonna do. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and if folks are actually interested in that, they’ll find the answers easily enough. I’ve presented my evidence, and folks can look for themselves.
R
Raxus
Guest
No. They ARE open to life, because there’s nothing physically or chemically stopping life from being created. What you’re essentially saying is “waiting to have sex is a sin”. That doesn’t logically follow.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Nope.
They’re not innocently “waiting to have sex”.
They’re timing their sex lives specifically around the ovulation cycle of the female in a targeted attempt to enjoy sex but not get pregnant.
Oxford calls that “contraception”.
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
Yeah, that’s exactly what they’re doing.
And you know what that is? That’s a sacrifice; a nod to the fact that the body works a certain way, and that they respect that and are doing what the body NATURALLY ALLOWS in order to be wise about growing their families. Artificial contraception, on the other hand, simply is a way to say “Screw you, God; your design failed, and we know better. We want what we want and we’re damned well taking it. Also, yay carcinogens and hormone imbalances.”
Do NOT attempt to conflate the two. It’s intellectually lazy to the extreme.
Definition of contraception
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation
NFP is AVOIDING it. Pills are PREVENTING it.
Last edited:
- Status